No consistency to Service Meric Dings

[bigdeals.etc]

Check this out. One screenshot is my Past Rate, the other screenshot is my Current Rate.

Both show my peers at 0.16%. Why am I in "High Level" in the one that I am at 0.29%, but in the "Average Level" when I'm at 0.32%?

I'm no Math professor, but last I checked 0.29 is lower than 0.32.

[wastingtime101]

Because the peers in your group changed and there are fewer in the group with high or very high ratings. Think of it like grading on a bell curve.

[rockmafia5]

Because those "peer rates" come from a place where the sun does not shine.

[evry1nositswindy]

---

@wastingtime101 wrote:

Because the peers in your group changed and there are fewer in the group with high or very high ratings. Think of it like grading on a bell curve.

---

Are you sure about that?  It is really small and hard for me to read, but don't both say 0.10%?

[evry1nositswindy]

@wastingtime101  Look at my post quoting you and then look at your actual post.  Weirdness??  I don't see an edit. 

[gracieallen01]

Maybe they are projecting what you are going to be - when they get done?

[wastingtime101]

---

@evry1nositswindy wrote:

@wastingtime101  Look at my post quoting you and then look at your actual post.  Weirdness??  I don't see an edit. 

---

You quoted the edited version of my post. No weirdness.

[evry1nositswindy]

@wastingtime101  When I posted, there was no edit.  NOW I see the edit.  Never had that happen before!

[bigdeals.etc]

---

@wastingtime101 wrote:

Because the peers in your group changed and there are fewer in the group with high or very high ratings. Think of it like grading on a bell curve.

---

Ah. That would make sense. But I find it hard to believe that the pool of peers have changed that drastically within 30 days... especially since the "peer percentage" remained the same.

On a related note, I asked my rep what parameters are considered when determining "Peers". I feel if we are to be judged and penalized according to Peers, then the criteria for determining that pool should be pretty detailed and accurate. Surprisingly he looked it up and gave me the parameters... and it's not nearly as detailed as I hoped.

He said four parameters: Item Condition, Return Policy, Price Point, and category. I forget if he also said Sales volume, but I would HOPE that should be considered. A high percentage of my false SNADs come from buyers utilizing the ebay promotions incorrectly (then blaming me, not ebay). The rep can confirm that parameter is NOT considered when determining peers. So there you go. The peers I'm grouped up with are incorrect as I can guarantee if my grouped peers implemented ebay promotions as well, their percentage will rise too. I told the rep then it sounds like my service metrics will benefit if I stop using ebay promotions (which goes against ebay's intent)... he just shrugged.

[wastingtime101]

---

@bigdeals.etc wrote:

---

@wastingtime101 wrote:

Because the peers in your group changed and there are fewer in the group with high or very high ratings. Think of it like grading on a bell curve.

---

Ah. That would make sense. But I find it hard to believe that the pool of peers have changed that drastically within 30 days... especially since the "peer percentage" remained the same.

---

Well, if you had a couple of peers that were very high and below standard, then consequently suspended the next month, then they would no longer be in your peer group. It is weird that the peer average remained at 0.15%, but I can see it happening.

Here's the list of criteria for a peer group - click on the FAQ tab, then expand the "How are my benchmarks determined" question. There are a lot of factors. I think it makes for a pretty narrow pool which is why some sellers find themselves with a high or very high rating with only a small number of claims against them.

[wastingtime101]

Also, your number of claims is going down from 7 to 5 so that gives you more security. The extra 5% fee doesn't kick in unless you're rated very high and have a minimum of 10 claims in that category.

[bigdeals.etc]

---

@wastingtime101 wrote:

Also, your number of claims is going down from 7 to 5 so that gives you more security. The extra 5% fee doesn't kick in unless you're rated very high and have a minimum of 10 claims in that category.

---

A “new” thing that I noticed about the leniency is you need to be over 1% for that fee to kick in too. With my volume, that’s totally more valuable than the 10 unique claims.

[nuclearomen]

because the metrics change over time, after a year I believe of your "mark" the metrics (and your seller performance) will change. Had discussions with ebay and on community chat about this, when something like a INR claim or INAD that you beat and found not responsible the "mark" will get removed from your Performance, but they will not remove it from your Metrics... something I still don't see as right or fair.   

[sin-n-dex]

---

@bigdeals.etc wrote:

Check this out. One screenshot is my Past Rate, the other screenshot is my Current Rate.

Both show my peers at 0.16%. Why am I in "High Level" in the one that I am at 0.29%, but in the "Average Level" when I'm at 0.32%?

I'm no Math professor, but last I checked 0.29 is lower than 0.32.

---

It's not straight math, it's a sliding scale.

If the scale goes from 1 to 10 then at 5 you would be average.

If the scale goes from 1 to 5 then at 4 you would be high.

5 is bigger than 4, but 5 is 50% and 4 is 80%.

What they failed to show you is how high "very high" actually is for you to see the sliding scale in the drawing.

C.

[bigdeals.etc]

---

@sin-n-dex wrote:

---

@bigdeals.etc wrote:

Check this out. One screenshot is my Past Rate, the other screenshot is my Current Rate.

Both show my peers at 0.16%. Why am I in "High Level" in the one that I am at 0.29%, but in the "Average Level" when I'm at 0.32%?

I'm no Math professor, but last I checked 0.29 is lower than 0.32.

---

It's not straight math, it's a sliding scale.

If the scale goes from 1 to 10 then at 5 you would be average.

If the scale goes from 1 to 5 then at 4 you would be high.

5 is bigger than 4, but 5 is 50% and 4 is 80%.

What they failed to show you is how high "very high" actually is for you to see the sliding scale in the drawing.

C.

---

I understand stand what you are saying about the sliding scale. But how come that doesn’t affect the Peers? Let’s build on your example:

There’s a Peers level at 3.5 (for both scales). Mathematically it wouldn’t be regarded as “average” in both scales right? But yet that is the case in my screenshots. Same 0.16% shown as average on both screenshots/scales. That part confuses me.