"...Sell 50 items for 5 grand and nothing but sell 1000 items for 5 grand and get rewarded. The one with 50 items uses less resources and should benefit more since they are actually making eBay considerably more money. "
Incorrect. The high volume seller is making eBay far more money. Don't forget they get a .30 per transaction fee, plus the FVF on shipping; the high volume seller would be doing far more shipping = more FVF for eBay.
@collectfest wrote: If a member sells 10 items a year for 100,000, they fall below standard. If I sell 1000 items for 5,000, I meet standard. Not a wise business plan in my eye's. That's arbitrary.
I am not sure I agree. In order to fall to Below Standard, that seller would need to have accumulated either:
a) three out of 10 (30%) transactions with a case closed without seller resolution; or
b) five out of 10 (50%) transactions with defects
That is not "abitrary" and has nothing to do with volume.
That is just a bad seller.
How do you come up with your data you reported?
The actual evidence reflected on their seller page is all I can see.
I was not reporting data about an actual seller. I was doing the math regarding the hypothetical seller with 10 transactions that you gave as an example.
A seller cannot be give a "Below Standard" seller rating until he has either (a) 3 cases closed without seller resolution", or (b) 5 transaction defects
"The defect rate won't affect your seller performance status until you have transactions with defects with at least 5 different buyers"
I got it, if I sell less that 100 items a year all will be well. No consequences coming my way. Ok, guess a policy change I am not aware of. Apples and oranges.
Feedback had nothing to do with eBay's standards in this case that is being talked about.
Maybe thats the point I am trying to make.
I have no clue the point you are trying to make because once again, feedback has NOTHING to do with keeping up with what Ebay expects of sellers. You do not get punished for feedback, it is only for buyers to see.
@collectfest wrote: If a member sells 10 items a year for 100,000, they fall below standard. If I sell 1000 items for 5,000, I meet standard. Not a wise business plan in my eye's. That's arbitrary.
I am not sure I agree. In order to fall to Below Standard, that seller would need to have accumulated either:
a) three out of 10 (30%) transactions with a case closed without seller resolution; or
b) five out of 10 (50%) transactions with defects
That is not "abitrary" and has nothing to do with volume.
That is just a bad seller.
How do you come up with your data you reported?
The actual evidence reflected on their seller page is all I can see.
I was not reporting data about an actual seller. I was doing the math regarding the hypothetical seller with 10 transactions that you gave as an example.
A seller cannot be give a "Below Standard" seller rating until he has either (a) 3 cases closed without seller resolution", or (b) 5 transaction defects
"The defect rate won't affect your seller performance status until you have transactions with defects with at least 5 different buyers"
I got it, if I sell less that 100 items a year all will be well. No consequences coming my way. Ok, guess a policy change I am not aware of. Apples and oranges.
Sigh. I never said that. In fact ...
I specifically laid out a scenario where such a seller would be rated Below Standard.
What is the point of responding to my posts if you are going to misrepresent what I said?
My 'story' ?? This has nothing to do with the 2 other buyers. This is just to prove you wrong, again, about how they don't give refunds so quickly. I do lose, just like everyone else, every time we have to hear from you. lol
That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that I told them I would refund if their item doesn't show in the next few days. All they had to do was say they waited long enough & I would have given them their money back.
07-15-202108:03 AM - last edited on 07-15-202110:32 AM by kh-vince
No stupid, check my rating I am 100% not a bad seller, reason being that buyer complained that they received items that was damage by the carrier. I got rated below standard for mistake done by the carrier.
How is some one a bad seller when the items are damaged by the carrier..... Gerald
I suppose it depends on if the damage is something that can be prevented or not. Myself, I mostly stay away from breakables because I don't want to deal with the headache. Others probably make pretty decent money because they're willing to take the risk.
