Locked
Discussions in this board are limited to the original poster and Community Mentors
eBay’s Policy’s TRAP sellers in a vicious cycle.
Summary: keota-brown expressed frustration with eBay's selling-standards policy, arguing that it unfairly penalizes sellers by removing advertising tools and pushing listings to the bottom of search results when their performance falls below standard. They feel this creates a cycle that makes it difficult for sellers to recover. inceptions responded, suggesting strategies such as selling inexpensive items or discounting inventory to improve sales counts and encouraged reflection on what caused the initial issues. keota-brown clarified that personal circumstances led to their temporary setbacks and emphasized that the current system seems excessively harsh on otherwise successful sellers who are experiencing temporary difficulties. They feel eBay's measures are not a reasonable path to regaining good standing.
eBay’s selling-standards policy is incredibly unfair and counterproductive. When a seller falls below standard, eBay removes their ability to promote listings and pushes those listings to the bottom of search results. At the same time, eBay tells the seller that they must complete more successful transactions to improve their rating.
How exactly is a seller supposed to increase sales when eBay has taken away their advertising options and made their listings nearly impossible for buyers to find? This creates a vicious cycle with no reasonable path to recovery. I understand having standards and holding sellers accountable, but there should be some leeway, a probationary period, or at least a realistic improvement plan that allows sellers to regain good standing. Instead, the current system continues punishing sellers while preventing them from doing the very thing required to do to improve their rating.
If eBay genuinely wants sellers to improve, it should provide them with a fair opportunity to do so—not bury their listings, remove their promotional tools, and then penalize them because they cannot generate enough sales. The current policy feels designed to push struggling sellers off the platform rather than help them correct their performance. It is unreasonable, self-defeating, and needs to be changed. Remember we make YOU money eBay.
inceptions
Mentor3 weeks agoHi @keota-brown
eBay wants happy buyers. Happy buyers come back and buy more. So it makes sense that eBay would want to feature sellers who make their buyers happy.
I understand how you feel however. It's difficult to climb out of the hole when you earn too many defects. What other sellers have done is buy some inexpensive items to sell to get your sale count up. This might also be a good time to reduce the prices on items that are just sitting in inventory with little interest. Even if you have to break even or take a loss, it can be worth it.
Also think about what caused you to go below standard and make changes so that doesn't happen again.
The good news is that we are going into the busy season so that will help you too.
Good luck to you!
keota-brown
OP3 weeks agoI understand that eBay wants happy buyers, but I don’t think that is the issue here. I still have 99% positive feedback and made approximately $51,000 in sales, so my overall record shows that the overwhelming majority of my buyers have been happy.
My late shipments happened during a difficult period involving health issues and caring for my partner—not because I don’t care about my customers. I have already addressed what caused the problem and made changes to prevent it from happening again.
The frustrating part is that eBay’s solution seems to be for sellers to sell items at cost or even take a loss just to recover, while simultaneously removing the advertising tools that could help them make those additional sales. That doesn’t feel like a reasonable path back to good standing; it feels like the system makes it unnecessarily difficult for an otherwise successful seller to recover from a temporary setback.
inceptions
Mentor3 weeks ago@keota-brown
Feedback isn't measured by eBay to evaluate sellers. Feedback is a buyer opinion and is there to help future buyers evaluate sellers.
I wouldn't say that eBay's solution is to sell items at cost or take a loss. That's what some sellers have done to regain acceptable seller ratings. It's up to you to do what you have to do.. We all have issues in life unrelated to eBay that come up. What we can't do as sellers is use them as excuses. What we CAN do is take steps so that what comes up doesn't negatively impact eBay buyers. We have tools like Time Away settings and the handling time setting that can help us with that.
Here's what eBay has to say...
https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/selling/seller-performance-overview?id=4080&from=EBAY_AI&origin=EBAY_AI
https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/selling/monitoring-improving-seller-performance?id=4785&from=EBAY_AI&origin=EBAY_AI
keota-brown
OP3 weeks agoRespectfully, you are correcting claims I never made.
You specifically suggested that I reduce prices and possibly “break even or take a loss” to increase my transaction count. I did not claim that eBay directly instructed me to do that. I said it is frustrating that selling at cost or taking a loss appears to be one of the few practical ways sellers are advised to recover while their advertising tools and visibility are restricted. That observation was based on the solution you presented.
I also never claimed that positive feedback is part of eBay’s seller-level calculation. I mentioned my 99% positive feedback, prior Top Rated status, and sales history as context demonstrating that this temporary period does not represent my overall record or the experience of the overwhelming majority of my buyers.
Most importantly, I am not using my personal circumstances as an excuse. You told me to consider what caused the problem, so I explained exactly what caused it and stated that I had already addressed it. Providing context and accepting responsibility are not mutually exclusive. I have repeatedly acknowledged that the late shipments were my responsibility.
Time Away and extended handling times are helpful when a situation can be anticipated. Sudden health and caregiving emergencies are not always predictable, and those settings cannot retroactively protect orders that have already been placed.
My post is questioning whether removing advertising and reducing visibility creates a reasonable path for sellers to complete the successful transactions required to recover. I am not asking to be excused from the standards. I am questioning whether the recovery system is unnecessarily counterproductive. Those are two very different arguments. Given the “Mentor” badge beside your name, I would have expected an effort to understand the point being discussed—not a lecture based on arguments I never made.