""We are currently conducting a temporary test that is focused on simplifying and improving the buying experience," he wrote. "The experience you are seeing is how all buyers are currently accessing item descriptions when they use our mobile apps. We are exploring buyer experiences when the buying process is consistent across all devices and screens."
...
".... Would you rather have ebay:
1. issue a test that may or may not be implement depending upon test results; or
2. Roll something out as a permanent change without first testing.
... But eBAY is well within their right to test before implementing. "
First, exercising a right, isn't the same as being right. But that's only one layer here. Look at tye quote at the top. I understand it's attributed to Jeff. Or is it eBay? Or is Jeff eBay? And who's uncle IS 'Griff'? And would YOU want either of these as YOUR juror?
Anyway, the first 'goal' (and I guess we can assume it's on some eBay operational goal chart somewhere, right?) seems to be a focus on simplifying (thus) improving buyer experience.
So the first question is, how does adding an EXTRA step for the buyer to take, provided without explanation or clear instruction, 'blind test' notwithstanding, equate to a more SIMPLE experience? Isn't the reason they opened the listing in the first place, to SEE all the 'details'. (NOTE to software engneers who believe everyone thinks like they do; the button is NOT labled intuitively).
But that's just the second layer.
Now apparently buyers currently using mobile aps must select a view description button, right? So that's how the ap was designed? Hmmmm...seems like 'simple' might have been the goal for the coders, not the users. More on that in a moment...it's at the core. More layers to get through...
They claim to be 'exploring'. Nothing wrong with that. Unless one blindly hacks through the jungle with buldozers, disregarding the elements of the surrounding ecosystem in the quest to transform it. That's the 'disruption' part of all this 'innovation' sought, but you know, it's been done before. So it's all in HOW one proceeds. Paving paradise and all that...layer three.
More to this one though, because it is claimed to be tied to a desire for 'consistency'. So there's a couple questions that relate too. If consistency is a concern, then how does eBay explain a growth plan that has resulted in a site perfrmance that has been everything BUT consistent? Just when one has retooled to 'adapt', someone trying to justify their job rearranges the furniture. SOMEtimes it is announced as a planned improvement. Too MANY times it just becomes apparent only after a chunk of residents have banged their shins open.
And do I need to detail the absurdly incosistent nature of eBay customer service support? Would it be unreasonable to expect that eBay look to homoginize THESE aspects f their operations if consistence actually WAS a corporate goal? Because what you might take for 'nasty' is more often a hue and cry against this hypocricy.
But consider the 'test' itself. Different options, SIMULTANEOUSLY available to the SAME USER, dependent on random enabling qualities of uncontrolled combinations of server, hardware, software AND TIME OF DAY? I worked in configuration management for a few years. It's like trying to solve Newton's three body motion equation with an abacus and chalkboard with all these variables. And consistency is the first thing erased. So isn't it reasonable to ask, WTH?
Sure, eBay has the 'right' to ignore that. They also have the 'right' to only open their portals one hour a week at 2am. Neither makes good business sence though.
So, settng that onion to the side for a moment, lets ask the question; what would we rather have? Untested, or tested functionality? Fair question, but not deep enough to penetrate these layers. It's missing an alternate choice. One that ACTUALLY CONSIDERS the needs of the 'customer', no matter how one defines 'customer'. One cannot dictate those needs. One must LEARN what they are. Accordingly, eBay SHOULD seek opinion BEFORE defining a solution. And THEN testing it. A simple question, thus:
'We are considering adding this functionality to the site because... Tell us what you think. We solicit constructive suggestion to help achieve (these) goals.' So, i'd pick 'c'. If it were included, as it should be. Because if one seeks to be 'innovative', 'improving experiences', and providing some 'consistency', that's a better way.
And i would even go so far as to submit that someone might constructvely suggest that, instead of a button that adds complexity to an already overcomplex process here (address THOSE in the next 'enhancement why dontcha?) why not spend some of that gazillion bucks in your paypal account on software engineering that takes a seller's description and AUTOMATICALLY OPTIMIZES IT FOR MOBILE DEVICE? Seemless, simple consistency. That can be 'tested' in controlled environment BEFORE being unleashed un-introduced, if that's the desire. Though I know a test of any warning system that is unannounced as such isn't done for a reason. Ever since that unfortunate "war of the worlds episode..." Anyway, THAT would be 'innovative'. Cuz nobody does that in eCommerce yet.
I think that kind of an approach would make for a much sweeter onion, as long as we must be force fed. And cheaper to harvest in the long run. WithOUT killing off the natives in the process.
-------- All truths are easy to understand once discovered. The point is to discover them. - - Galileo
-------- Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - - Mark Twain
I think that should tell us everything we need to know for those that were counting on some "hope & change"...........
