eBay Service Metrics are FRAUDULENT - with proof!

[lqdtechoutlet]

Last month my 'not as described' returns were at 9.65% or 77 out of 798 transactions which left me in the very high zone, causing the additional fees. This was compared to my peers who were at 4.13% in the average zone.

I sold an additional 250 items which brought my transaction count up to 1235 which also should have brought my service metrics percentage down to around 6.8%.

Yesterday was the day they review the accounts. Low and behold! My projected percentage is down to 4.55% which puts a stop to those addition fees.

....right?

But what's this? My peers have somehow magically dropped their percentage down to 1.22% which 'coincidentally' keeps me in the high zone, causing me to pay higher fees.

For some reason my transaction count went down to 483 but what matters is the percentage. 

This is fraud. eBay is manipulating the data and creating unobtainable thresholds which we can never achieve. If you get your 'not as described' percentage down by selling more items, the percentage of your 'peers' (tens of thousands of them) will, all at once, lower their percentage which keeps you in the high zone.

eBay also refuses to allow us access to the data which adds suspicion and possibly a small amount of weight to my claim.

Furthermore, the category I sell in, Cellphones and Accessories, is a very hard category to sell in. I have a very hard time believing that most people, if anyone, would be able to keep their 'not as described' returns down to 1.22%. Absolute bullsh-it

eBay is becoming very shady and I'm starting to wonder if the higher fees and non-instant payment on Amazon are worth it.

[dhbookds]

@cashvaluerecovery2011 

Please note.........I wasn't defending the procedure......I was only explaining the math.

I agree that counting ALL "cases" isn't fair to every seller..

[cashvaluerecovery2011]

Sorry for any confusion but here was your retort as to the poster who said ebay has no argument in court.

"That's not what they would be arguing. They would say that every other seller is experiencing the same thing.......getting the same false Snads.........so as long as you don't exceed the average in your category......you are ok........if you do exceed it, there is a penalty."

Every other seller IS NOT experiencing the same thing and there is no available data to prove that.

Not everyone is getting the same false snads. And there is no available data to prove one way or the other.

So as long as you dont exceed the average in your category.........What average? Who makes up that average? Where can I see how many snads are being filed vs how many sales? Where can I see who and how many false snads are being received?

If you do exceed it there is a penalty. Exceed what? And how do I know what im exceeding or not exceeding?

Look there is zero good argument for ebay to do this to its sellers other than "we want more of your money." If it was honest data would be provided. If it was honest these bad sellers who could not maintain good numbers should be suspended or kicked off. But again the goal is not now and never was about making a better buying experience. It was about stealing more money. As a buyer if I get someone sending me not as described items I would be more interested in that likelyhood being lessened by the bad seller being removed. As a buyer the idea that the seller is going to get a penalty means nothing and does not make my buying experience any better. Id rather just not ever get a not as described item.

I could fix this instantly and easily. Use all that awesome data that ebay wont share to come up with a % or fixed number that gets the seller a warning with threat of an inability to list new items if X is exceeded. Give buyer a warning with threat of account suspension or loss due to excessive returns after buyer exceeds X % or number is hit. If these go over then wham slap on wrist. If it doesnt get better then hit the door jack. As for false snads that are provable with messages....................DO NOT penalize the seller at all what so ever and either the buyer or ebay reimburses the seller for lost shipping costs. Allowing the buyer the option to get free returned shipping by taking the one choice that is given that also hurts the sellers metrics is garbage.

[luckythewinner]

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

When your evaluation period changes from 12 months to 3 months, your peer group also changes.

---

this ^^^^^

EDIT: Sorry, I'm guilty of responding to a zombie thread 😞

[dtexley3]

1. This is an OLD thread.

2. the poster that revivied it had an INR, not a return, and is confusing the two.

[cobratype]

Time frame of reviews should not affect PERCENTAGES that much. This is obviously fraud.

[gracieallen01]

And, it is still an old thread and nothing has changed.

[kh-ornesh]

Hello Everyone,

Due to the age of the thread, it has been closed to further replies.  Please feel free to start a new thread HERE if you wish to continue to discuss this topic.

Thanks for understanding!