So now we are responsible if the package is

[mg152]

Stolen from the buyers porch, mailbox, car trunk etc.....

I will certainly be leaving as a seller as soon as I sell all my junk and get my money 

[threshold.sales.group]

"Sellers were rightly concerned.  That issue seems to have been cleaned up and cleared up by ebay."

Agree 100%. Seems like there is some big time gaslighting going on now.  The update published regarding INR's was a hot mess and made worse by the attempted clairifications. That's why it was taken down. 

[sharingtheland]

---

@everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures wrote:

---

@sharingtheland wrote:

The policy never said it needed to show or that sellers need to show anything such thing on the shipping label.......that was one of those things someone added in and others ran with.
The policy says pretty much the same thing it always has and sellers have to do pretty much the same thing they have always done. Just have to upload the tracking earlier and that is all.
And it has been clarified by a blue or 2 prior to this as well and some just ignored all that and keep/kept on saying it.

There were policy changes that were particularly onerous for the seller.  In two days, someone at ebay went "oh oops" , based on all of the discussion and questions, and changed the policy verbiage in Seller Metrics in the Fall Update.  See post # 79.

Sellers were rightly concerned.  That issue seems to have been cleaned up and cleared up by ebay.

---

This was not one of them and was very clear from the beginning....and did not ever say one thing about requiring signature confirmation or sellers putting anything on labels or anything else that was added in that wasn't put there by ebay.....it said pretty much the same thing it always has and required sellers to do pretty much what they were already doing and had been clarified by blues a couple times early on and that too was still ignored.
It was not confusing to change/say that the tracking had to be uploaded earlier. That too was pretty clear.

---

*I* didn't say anything about requiring signature confirmation.  *I* didn't say anything about putting anything on labels.  *I* didn't say tracking will now be required for seller protection was confusing.

All *I* did was quote ebay's wording in the Fall Seller Service Metrics.  That wording has now been changed and sellers will not be responsible for getting a package literally into a "buyer's hands."

Not sure where you see some of the complaints and slurs against ebay  that you mention in your posts but I don't spend a lot of time reading a lot of threads and/or posts in different Community areas.   

For example, the only times I remember seeing signature confirmation noted in these discussions was that Amazon requires it as proof of delivery and that another seller uses it for all shipping.   Then again, I'm old.  Maybe I forgot something.

[hillbillymedia]

---

@threshold.sales.group wrote:

"Sellers were rightly concerned.  That issue seems to have been cleaned up and cleared up by ebay."

Agree 100%. Seems like there is some big time gaslighting going on now.  The update published regarding INR's was a hot mess and made worse by the attempted clairifications. That's why it was taken down. 

---

I agree. This is what happens when ebay writes like a lawyer and CS reps try to clarify like politicians.

[couldabeenworse]

There were policy changes that were particularly onerous for the seller.  In two days, someone at ebay went "oh oops" , based on all of the discussion and questions, and changed the policy verbiage in Seller Metrics in the Fall Update. 

The policy didn't change.  eBay changed the wording in a FAQ answer from non-commital gibberish to an actual response to the question.  I am sure you're correct though that the customary board hysteria brought about this welcome clarification.

If I'm not mistaken, the wording on the previous FAQ (regarding outcome if tracking is not uploaded in time) has also been changed for clarification.

Nothing in the policy or FAQs, by the way, had anything to do with requiring tracking to show the buyer's street address, so that drama only directed attention away from issues that should have been the real concerns for sellers.

[everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures]

---

@sharingtheland wrote:

---

@everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures wrote:

---

@sharingtheland wrote:

The policy never said it needed to show or that sellers need to show anything such thing on the shipping label.......that was one of those things someone added in and others ran with.
The policy says pretty much the same thing it always has and sellers have to do pretty much the same thing they have always done. Just have to upload the tracking earlier and that is all.
And it has been clarified by a blue or 2 prior to this as well and some just ignored all that and keep/kept on saying it.

There were policy changes that were particularly onerous for the seller.  In two days, someone at ebay went "oh oops" , based on all of the discussion and questions, and changed the policy verbiage in Seller Metrics in the Fall Update.  See post # 79.

Sellers were rightly concerned.  That issue seems to have been cleaned up and cleared up by ebay.

---

This was not one of them and was very clear from the beginning....and did not ever say one thing about requiring signature confirmation or sellers putting anything on labels or anything else that was added in that wasn't put there by ebay.....it said pretty much the same thing it always has and required sellers to do pretty much what they were already doing and had been clarified by blues a couple times early on and that too was still ignored.
It was not confusing to change/say that the tracking had to be uploaded earlier. That too was pretty clear.

---

*I* didn't say anything about requiring signature confirmation.  *I* didn't say anything about putting anything on labels.  *I* didn't say tracking will now be required for seller protection was confusing.

All *I* did was quote ebay's wording in the Fall Seller Service Metrics.  That wording has now been changed and sellers will not be responsible for getting a package literally into a "buyer's hands."

Not sure where you see some of the complaints and slurs against ebay  that you mention in your posts but I don't spend a lot of time reading a lot of threads and/or posts in different Community areas.   

For example, the only times I remember seeing signature confirmation noted in these discussions was that Amazon requires it as proof of delivery and that another seller uses it for all shipping.   Then again, I'm old.  Maybe I forgot something.

---

No one was ever required to "literally" get the package into "the buyer hands", very few would assume this were the case or that we were going to be made to hand it to the buyer directly or any other such thing....and that is not what the policy itself said either. Policy was clear on what sellers were required to do...which is and was pretty much the same as always.
I have no idea what you are talking about with your comment about "slurs" about ebay...I am fairly sure no one said that and that too is being added in...kinda like what was being done with the policy.
And this is not Amazon and that to can be added that to the list of things that were added in and has nothing to do with ebay or the policy here....and just to further confuse the issue.
Some are confusing things and adding things which do nothing but confuse others.....and then try to take credit when everyone is told it was what it a originally was to begin with.
This happens to frequently....in making issues where there are none and only confuses and upsets some other sellers for no reason...who do not realize what is going on.

[sharingtheland]

I don't make issues where there are none.

You're right; this isn't Amazon.  That couldn't possibly be more evident.  All I mentioned was that Amazon requires signature confirmation to prove delivery; I didn't say ebay did or was going to do so.  Please go back read that sentence.

Some are confusing things and adding things which do nothing but confuse others.....and then try to take credit when everyone is told it was what it a originally was to begin with.

Some ^^^ may be doing that, I'm not, and I suggest you address them directly.  Your responses add a lot of suppositions and confusion at times.

The last thing I need to validate myself or my sense of worth is trying to take credit for something posted on a message board on the internet.

[everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures]

---

@everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures wrote:

---

@sharingtheland wrote:

---

@everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures wrote:

---

@sharingtheland wrote:

The policy never said it needed to show or that sellers need to show anything such thing on the shipping label.......that was one of those things someone added in and others ran with.
The policy says pretty much the same thing it always has and sellers have to do pretty much the same thing they have always done. Just have to upload the tracking earlier and that is all.
And it has been clarified by a blue or 2 prior to this as well and some just ignored all that and keep/kept on saying it.

There were policy changes that were particularly onerous for the seller.  In two days, someone at ebay went "oh oops" , based on all of the discussion and questions, and changed the policy verbiage in Seller Metrics in the Fall Update.  See post # 79.

Sellers were rightly concerned.  That issue seems to have been cleaned up and cleared up by ebay.

---

This was not one of them and was very clear from the beginning....and did not ever say one thing about requiring signature confirmation or sellers putting anything on labels or anything else that was added in that wasn't put there by ebay.....it said pretty much the same thing it always has and required sellers to do pretty much what they were already doing and had been clarified by blues a couple times early on and that too was still ignored.
It was not confusing to change/say that the tracking had to be uploaded earlier. That too was pretty clear.

---

*I* didn't say anything about requiring signature confirmation.  *I* didn't say anything about putting anything on labels.  *I* didn't say tracking will now be required for seller protection was confusing.

All *I* did was quote ebay's wording in the Fall Seller Service Metrics.  That wording has now been changed and sellers will not be responsible for getting a package literally into a "buyer's hands."

Not sure where you see some of the complaints and slurs against ebay  that you mention in your posts but I don't spend a lot of time reading a lot of threads and/or posts in different Community areas.   

For example, the only times I remember seeing signature confirmation noted in these discussions was that Amazon requires it as proof of delivery and that another seller uses it for all shipping.   Then again, I'm old.  Maybe I forgot something.

---

No one was ever required to "literally" get the package into "the buyer hands", very few would assume this were the case or that we were going to be made to hand it to the buyer directly or any other such thing....and that is not what the policy itself said either. Policy was clear on what sellers were required to do...which is and was pretty much the same as always.
I have no idea what you are talking about with your comment about "slurs" about ebay...I am fairly sure no one said that and that too is being added in...kinda like what was being done with the policy.
And this is not Amazon and that to can be added that to the list of things that were added in and has nothing to do with ebay or the policy here....and just to further confuse the issue.
Some are confusing things and adding things which do nothing but confuse others.....and then try to take credit when everyone is told it was what it a originally was to begin with.
This happens to frequently....in making issues where there are none and only confuses and upsets some other sellers for no reason...who do not realize what is going on.

---

So now this issue has gone full circle and we are still required to upload the tracking on time and it needs to show delivery to be covered which is what it said to begin with.

[the_fancy_fox]

---

@threshold.sales.group wrote:

---

---

 it's the seller's responsibility to ensure their orders make it into their buyer's hands, and it's important they plan for the occasional lost or stolen item.

Has the seller's need to "plan for an occasional lost or stolen item" ever previously been part of the INR policy discussion? That reads very similar to the statements regarding return fraud (and the lack of any real seller protection for the victim).   

---

I see that quoted all over the place but according to who? I do not see it as the sellers responsibility to replace a package once the carrier shows the package as delivered in either the FTC or the UCC rules.

Industry standard? Who’s? No one replaces as many as a buyer can claim. Some do replacements as a courtesy but place limits on how many.

[the_fancy_fox]

---

@myboardid wrote:

I hope those of you who feel this is not really change in policy are correct, because  this has the potential to destroy 90% of the sellers here no matter if they are big or small.  Fraudulent INR claims for which eBay forces a seller to refund could (and maybe would) happen to every single sale on ebay.  The temptation might be too high for even the most honest buyers. 

In all the changes eBay has made in the last 10 years, this one might drive me off the site. 

As an aside, I believe the Big A already requires sellers to refund for any and all INRs whether they have proof of delivery or not.

---

Except amazon monitors their buyers and gets rid of those (or limits them) on how many returns or replacements they can get). eBay does not.

[everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures]

---

@the_fancy_fox wrote:

---

@threshold.sales.group wrote:

---

---

 it's the seller's responsibility to ensure their orders make it into their buyer's hands, and it's important they plan for the occasional lost or stolen item.

Has the seller's need to "plan for an occasional lost or stolen item" ever previously been part of the INR policy discussion? That reads very similar to the statements regarding return fraud (and the lack of any real seller protection for the victim).   

---

I see that quoted all over the place but according to who? I do not see it as the sellers responsibility to replace a package once the carrier shows the package as delivered in either the FTC or the UCC rules.

Industry standard? Who’s? No one replaces as many as a buyer can claim. Some do replacements as a courtesy but place limits on how many.

---

Items lost in the mail have always fallen to be the sellers responsility and have always been part of the policy and now if you want to be covered you must upload the tracking on time and it must show delivery or you will not be covered and stolen items/items not received by the buyer will also become your responsibility in this case.
So make sure to upload your tracking on time....which you probably do anyway to avoid the ding for late shipping.

[everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures]

---

@the_fancy_fox wrote:

---

@myboardid wrote:

I hope those of you who feel this is not really change in policy are correct, because  this has the potential to destroy 90% of the sellers here no matter if they are big or small.  Fraudulent INR claims for which eBay forces a seller to refund could (and maybe would) happen to every single sale on ebay.  The temptation might be too high for even the most honest buyers. 

In all the changes eBay has made in the last 10 years, this one might drive me off the site. 

As an aside, I believe the Big A already requires sellers to refund for any and all INRs whether they have proof of delivery or not.

---

Except amazon monitors their buyers and gets rid of those (or limits them) on how many returns or replacements they can get). eBay does not.

---

This is not Amazon. We follow ebay policies here, not amazons and what amazon does or doesn't do doesn't matter one way or the other.

[buyselljack2016]

      "It's an unfortunate reality of ecommerce that items are sometimes stolen or lost on their way to the buyer. Ultimately, it's the seller's responsibility to ensure their orders make it into their buyer's hands, and it's important they plan for the occasional lost or stolen item."

This is a key part that I pick up on.

On their way to the buyer, to me, does not mean any loss after the item shows delivery.  Be it porch pirates, anyone else in the household.

As another posted stated,  I do not take it to mean for all eternity.

Agree with others. eBay is trying to cut down on INR's being submitted because tracking was not loaded before delivery.  Won't be foolproof anyway.  I use ebay labels, but some buyers still ask about a tracking #.

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures wrote:
There is no real change for sellers except to make sure tracking is uploaded within the handling time.

Everything else is pretty much the same.

---

So here's the thing.    I know the blue kept saying that the rest of the policy was the same as its always been.  Notning else changed.   And according to the update nothing else has but the wording in the policy pages HAD.  I was here a few years ago when the feedback removal policy became the defect removal policy.   the blues kept saying oh Notning has changed the defect removal policy is the same as the feedback removal policy.   Claimed only the name changed but the policies were the same.   But it wasn't even remotely the same and time proves they wouldn't uphold what used to be in the feedback removal policy.   They didn't ever say the policy changed. Denied it up and down but the written policies were changed and the old policy was no longer followed.  They kept claiming that's how the policies had always been though.  So I don't believe a simple "the policy is the same as always".  I've fallen for that one before.   I like others want a yes or no on if an address has to show on online delivery to be covered.  

[couldabeenworse]

I like others want a yes or no on if an address has to show on online delivery to be covered.  

You might have to settle for:

The information that we look at to validate the tracking will continue to be the same.

I don't think there has ever been an official policy wording that said that ZIP was sufficient by itself; it was always an extrapolation based on what eBay's process has been - and will continue to be.  The old wording, if I recall correctly, was that the tracking address had to show "at least" the ZIP. 

eBay could always deny seller protection (and still can) if they determine that the tracking showed delivery to a different address within that ZIP.  I suspect this is what the Blue hedging is all about.

[missjen831]

---

@sharingtheland wrote:

---

@everything-from-trinkets-to-treasures wrote:

---

@sharingtheland wrote:

The policy never said it needed to show or that sellers need to show anything such thing on the shipping label.......that was one of those things someone added in and others ran with.
The policy says pretty much the same thing it always has and sellers have to do pretty much the same thing they have always done. Just have to upload the tracking earlier and that is all.
And it has been clarified by a blue or 2 prior to this as well and some just ignored all that and keep/kept on saying it.

There were policy changes that were particularly onerous for the seller.  In two days, someone at ebay went "oh oops" , based on all of the discussion and questions, and changed the policy verbiage in Seller Metrics in the Fall Update.  See post # 79.

Sellers were rightly concerned.  That issue seems to have been cleaned up and cleared up by ebay.

---

This was not one of them and was very clear from the beginning....and did not ever say one thing about requiring signature confirmation or sellers putting anything on labels or anything else that was added in that wasn't put there by ebay.....it said pretty much the same thing it always has and required sellers to do pretty much what they were already doing and had been clarified by blues a couple times early on and that too was still ignored.
It was not confusing to change/say that the tracking had to be uploaded earlier. That too was pretty clear.

---

*I* didn't say anything about requiring signature confirmation.  *I* didn't say anything about putting anything on labels.  *I* didn't say tracking will now be required for seller protection was confusing.

All *I* did was quote ebay's wording in the Fall Seller Service Metrics.  That wording has now been changed and sellers will not be responsible for getting a package literally into a "buyer's hands."

Not sure where you see some of the complaints and slurs against ebay  that you mention in your posts but I don't spend a lot of time reading a lot of threads and/or posts in different Community areas.   

For example, the only times I remember seeing signature confirmation noted in these discussions was that Amazon requires it as proof of delivery and that another seller uses it for all shipping.   Then again, I'm old.  Maybe I forgot something.

---

Talk about reading things that aren’t there, right?