eBay’s algorithm for sellers is messed up for 2 reasons

[junebug16]

A. Fails to protect innocent sellers from predatory buyers in any way comparable to the way it protects innocent buyers from predatory sellers. 

Long time buyer, just beginning to sell and get used to the interface on eBay. My first experience to sell an item involving expensive laptop, to which I admittedly, but out of good faith ignorance, fell victim to a scam. This particular user convinced me to and my listing and to send this user via PayPal a request for money, which I was led to believe eBay would release upon proof of shipping. This discourse took place on eBay and it’s documented by all the messages back-and-forth between me and this user. Thankfully, it was ultimately PayPal, not eBay, that intervened and save me from losing a lot of money. eBay subsequently followed up with me after I filed a complaint against the user, was initially informed that it was being taken care of, and then three days later received notification that the users account has been reactivated despite what was Bob a blatant attempt to manipulate a seller into non-compliance. Despite my objections, emails, and submissions of further evidence corroborating that this user should in fact not be allowed it to continue this practice, eBay ignored me. 

Ironically, but perhaps not so surprising, this very same user, using virtually the exact same tactic, has made repeated attempts to do the same on a currently listed item. It always begins with a subject line sent to me via eBay Messages, saying something like “Interested purchaser. Please ship item to Doral, Florida?”  or “How much? Can you ship this to Florida?” My first and only response was “of course I ship to Florida, but any and all offers must go through eBay. “ 

This triggered an auto message, due to eBay’s faulty algorithm, warning me and instructing me to educate myself on its rules and guidelines, and that any further “attempt” would subject me to restrictions. 

1. Why is PayPal ultimately the one responsible for correcting what should be eBay’s responsibility?

2. Why on earth would he be sound business practice to permit the same user access to an account to immediately repeat offense after offense?

3. Why can’t eBay’s algorithm filter out these obvious and manipulating scam messages which should be designed to protect innocent new sellers just as much as it protects innocent new buyers? 

B. Mistakes accurate information (e.g. the ISBN of a textbook) and miss-categorizes listings that get buried under piles of rubble. Essentially, this withholds food-faith , transparent, sellers from enjoying the potential SEO benefits that high-volume sellers and sponsored listings enjoy. These listings are often less accurate, withhold detailed information about the product, and often contain stock photos and descriptions that are clearly copied from the manufacturer’s listings on Amazon. 

I was always under the (perhaps) illusory assumption eBay was designed to be an online marketplace, open and transparent, for customers to seek good deals on quality products. By “good deal” I mean simply paying much less for identical items  of comparable value of equal or greater than quality than the more expensive option. 

I never envisioned having to pay sponsoring fees to compete against international high-volume distributors (isn’t that what Amazon is for?). I never envisioned that withholding actual information about the actual product would penalize Sellers from SEO benefits. 

I literally feel feel as though eBay’s algorithm obstructs users (buyers and sellers) from obtaining, or even knowing about, a “good deal.” 

[slippinjimmy]

---

@junebug16 wrote:

A. Fails to protect innocent sellers from predatory buyers in any way comparable to the way it protects innocent buyers from predatory sellers. 

Long time buyer, just beginning to sell and get used to the interface on eBay. My first experience to sell an item involving expensive laptop, to which I admittedly, but out of good faith ignorance, fell victim to a scam. This particular user convinced me to and my listing and to send this user via PayPal a request for money, which I was led to believe eBay would release upon proof of shipping. This discourse took place on eBay and it’s documented by all the messages back-and-forth between me and this user. Thankfully, it was ultimately PayPal, not eBay, that intervened and save me from losing a lot of money. eBay subsequently followed up with me after I filed a complaint against the user, was initially informed that it was being taken care of, and then three days later received notification that the users account has been reactivated despite what was Bob a blatant attempt to manipulate a seller into non-compliance. Despite my objections, emails, and submissions of further evidence corroborating that this user should in fact not be allowed it to continue this practice, eBay ignored me. 

Ironically, but perhaps not so surprising, this very same user, using virtually the exact same tactic, has made repeated attempts to do the same on a currently listed item. It always begins with a subject line sent to me via eBay Messages, saying something like “Interested purchaser. Please ship item to Doral, Florida?”  or “How much? Can you ship this to Florida?” My first and only response was “of course I ship to Florida, but any and all offers must go through eBay. “ 

This triggered an auto message, due to eBay’s faulty algorithm, warning me and instructing me to educate myself on its rules and guidelines, and that any further “attempt” would subject me to restrictions. 

1. Why is PayPal ultimately the one responsible for correcting what should be eBay’s responsibility?

2. Why on earth would he be sound business practice to permit the same user access to an account to immediately repeat offense after offense?

3. Why can’t eBay’s algorithm filter out these obvious and manipulating scam messages which should be designed to protect innocent new sellers just as much as it protects innocent new buyers? 

B. Mistakes accurate information (e.g. the ISBN of a textbook) and miss-categorizes listings that get buried under piles of rubble. Essentially, this withholds food-faith , transparent, sellers from enjoying the potential SEO benefits that high-volume sellers and sponsored listings enjoy. These listings are often less accurate, withhold detailed information about the product, and often contain stock photos and descriptions that are clearly copied from the manufacturer’s listings on Amazon. 

I was always under the (perhaps) illusory assumption eBay was designed to be an online marketplace, open and transparent, for customers to seek good deals on quality products. By “good deal” I mean simply paying much less for identical items  of comparable value of equal or greater than quality than the more expensive option. 

I never envisioned having to pay sponsoring fees to compete against international high-volume distributors (isn’t that what Amazon is for?). I never envisioned that withholding actual information about the actual product would penalize Sellers from SEO benefits. 

I literally feel feel as though eBay’s algorithm obstructs users (buyers and sellers) from obtaining, or even knowing about, a “good deal.” 

---

"This particular user convinced me to and my listing and to send this user via PayPal a request for money"

I'm going to assume that you left out the word "end" (as in "end my listing").

Why would you expect eBay to help you when you took the transaction off of eBay? PayPal were apparently able to help but that is because they were involved in the transaction or at least the apparent fraudulent buyer attempted to involve PayPal.

As far as your rant about how eBay isn't what it was 20 years ago, the only way to go back to those days would be to eliminate 90% of all sellers, 90% of all employees and 90% of all profits. In a capitalist system the goal of a business is to grow not to stagnate and wither.

eBay was designed to make money for the people who owned eBay AND to provide an opportunity for third-parties (sellers) to earn a living. Seems to me it's working exactly as envisioned.

[junebug16]

@slippinjimmy 

To the extent that you offered a non-response to my two arguments and completely glossed over my points to get to yours, at least you replied. So thanks for participating. 

Now, I would kindly suggest that (should you wish to address further any of the substance of my post), please actually read it. You completely glossed over my two arguments (A and B). Rather than answering my questions or engaging in thoughtful dialogue, your non-response is incorrect on three grounds: 

1. First, resorting to ad hominem attacks  (based on faulty assumptions) might win you some bonus points on Twitter, but not with me. Somehow you gleaned from my post the erroneous inference that I am anti-capitalist. Putting your logical defect aside, consider this: why would I be on eBay if I did not support making money or engaging in commerce? That’s part of capitalism, right? 

2. Second, mentioning data points without offering any proof or citation is unhelpful and perhaps misleading. You make use of “data” (a very generous characterization) that 90% of all sellers, profits, and employees would be “eliminat[ed]” if eBay had a responsibility to offer protection to sellers from predatory buyers. Not only is this off-point (i.e., has nothing to do with my post), it is irrational absent any proof. 

If you want people to believe you, back up your data points with citations or sources. 

3. Third, I don’t understand your “20 years ago” statement.  As I said in the beginning, I’m relatively new to to this community; hence, whatever eBay was or was not like 20 years ago is irrelevant to anything I said. Again, not helpful. 

Note: this is a community. Take a breath. Relax. No need to use hyperbole (mischaracterizing my post as a “rant”) when, in fact, I was hoping for explanations or input. I’m not your enemy. I’m not trying to “eliminate” big business. I’m just trying to make a few bucks by getting rid of some items selling them at reasonable prices on eBay. Is that so anti-capitalist? Of course not. In fact, that is a quintessentially capitalist thing to do. 

Last, the one and only thing you did get correct (gold star for little jimmi!) was spotting my typo. Yes, “and” was meant to be “end.” 

Good luck, sir.