I recently looked at my account's Service metrics, and I find that my rating on returns in Average range in Consumer Electronics category is 2.69%, below my peers' average of 4.38%. However, of 6 returns on record, 4 of them identified as for reason of "Not working or defective", 3 of them were proven to be false claims that ebay honored by allowing return at my expense. The reason I can say they were proven to be false claims is that I immediately relisted and resold the items after refunding and paying to get the items back. The items remained sold, and, in fact I got feedback comments for 2 of them, both positive.
Of course, this is not iron clad proof to you reading this message that I relisted with no remedies to the items, or proof that they were even the same item. (They WERE same items and required no remedies, only my testing to prove that my buyers were ignorant, inept, or liars, and that ebay was complicit in the fraudulent returns.) But, doesn't the record of successfully sold relistings seem to be better established evidence than what the buyers were required to provide to justify their claim of defect or item not as described?
If ebay had more integrity and intelligence, they would be following the data on relisted returns, then purging their records of such suspect records. As it stands, a newbie buyer's claim of defect is accepted by ebay, given more credence than the word of a seller who sells hundreds of different items in same category with years of service and good quantity of great feedback. Hey, ebay, service metrics is not a job to be recorded by bots. Your bots lack integrity of self-analysis, and the people programming them need more self-critique. G.I.G.O.
