mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999
I personally would like to see Ebay do away with FB for buyers all together. That is the direction many other sites have taken and I think it is a good one since posting anything other than positive FB for a buyer isn't allowed here nor would it be a good business move to do so even if you could.
@readabouthorses wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:I personally would like to see Ebay do away with FB for buyers all together. That is the direction many other sites have taken and I think it is a good one since posting anything other than positive FB for a buyer isn't allowed here nor would it be a good business move to do so even if you could.
The only reason to look at a buyer's feedback received is to see how many bid retractions they have made.
And FB left for others. That is a big one for me from time to time.
@luckythewinner wrote:
@rosachs wrote:A number of my clients have been burned by eBay's VeRO program - the "guilty until proven innocent" nature of the entire process needs to be corrected
The VERO program is set up that way in order to comply with the Millennium Digital Copyright Act and provide eBay with protection from liability.
The changes you suggest would not comply with that law and would negate eBay's protection from liability. eBay isn't going to assume liability for copyright violations by the sellers who list here - they would foolish to do that.
I get that, but when it takes mere hours for a seller to be suspended and days for them to be re-instated, there is harm being done to the innocent seller that is actually the Rights Owner's obligation to verify first. If you were to sue a party for a rights violation in US Court before actually determining whether your case had merits or before you actually determined the violation occurred, you would be the party who would suffer the damages when the truth was provided by the other party. And possibly even a defamation suit from them, if they felt the damage from your hurried, false claim were sufficient.
There has to be a better way to resolve issues like this. Amazon doesn't do this, and I'm sure they have the same issue (mostly because most of the companies I work with for eBay also sell on Amazon, and other venues as well). And why should a new seller, only about 4 months into their eBay venture, be given a 7 day suspension for their first VeRO complaint?
On the plus side, they were able to get the suspension lifed (after 5 days) and after several clarifying requests, eBay finally confirmed that any defect or mark on their account regarding the VeRO claim had been removed. No one from eBay addressed the repeatedly asked question of why this first incident merited a 7 day suspension in the first place. My client, and myself, assumed that the first violation would result in a warning. The obligatory 'read our help files' reference was less than useful, but no one did it say your first violation would be a 7-day suspension.
There has to be a better way.
-Bob.
@poanann_0 wrote:Oh...
The One change?
Fix the glitches!
No more rolling out new updates until EACH and EVERY present GLITCH has been fixed.
I designed, developed, and implemented application software for nearly 30 years - and I will be the first to admit that no code is ever infallible. Glitches can and do happen.
However, I do believe that eBay needs to invest much more in their Quality Assurance process. Software that is thoroughly tested is much less susceptible to glitches. One of my clients went from a 'trust the programmers' testing method to a 3-level rigid testing & documentation process (which the programmers hated, btw, claiming it slowed them down) -- and after two years of work, they arrived at their first zero-defect system upgrade. And this was an upgrade which touched a major number of key and customer-facing processes. Which was all the more amazing as the programmers had years before moved installations from Friday evening to Thursday evening so they would have Friday to fix the bugs and wouldn't have to work on Saturday or Sunday unless they mucked up big time. Thousands of lines of code, hundreds of discrete processes, and no defects. QA testing works.
Then there is also the difference between a glitch, which is usually considered to be highly transitory, with a plain old defect, which will happen time and time again. And then there is simply bad design -- such as options which have no 'are you sure' escape when other options on that same list of selections do. If you choose A (the default) by mistake, there is no escape and you are committed to a sequence of events you may not have agreed to. Every other option in that list, however, does have the ability to say "oops" and get back to the selection list. That's bad design -- make one of those other options (like, say, the "let's communicate first") come first and be the default. Or fix the default first option to have the same 'oops' protections the other options have.
If you want to be considered a Technology Company, you need to walk the walk. eBay's got a ways to go, IMHO.
-Bob.
@partz-n-carz wrote:One thing I wish for is that eBay would treat our inventory with the respect as if it was their livelihood . Instead they treat it as a throw away inventory of no value. They have no investment and treat it as so...……Makes it way to risky to sell things of real value, I only list thing of low value , Doesn't hurt so much when its stolen or used and abused then returned !
That's a tough one. The standard in retail is to build into your pricing a percentage allowance for 'shrinkage' -- losses due to in-store damage (accidental or otherwise), loss (outright theft), and returns that cannot be resold. That's why, for example, a widget that the retailer can buy for $5 each end up being priced at $25 each. Not only does the pricing model have to cover the rent of the space, the electrical/water/security/internet service fees, and don't forget the employees, it also has to take into account shrinking, returns, the cost of the inventory sold, and the owner's desired profit margin to fund growth.
eBay doesn't see us as individuals to be respected. They see us as suppliers who promise to deliver something for a price. if eBay were a department store, we are all just trucks backed up to their showroom dock -- the customers are out front, flipping thru picture books (mail order catalogs anyone?) till they find what they want. Which they then buy and eBay tells one of us where to ship it.
You don't worry about the truck or the company behind it. They are a means to an end -- eBay wants to create more regular shoppers, so they need every truck to provide only the very best...and they need us to do it at less-than-WalMart prices....with shipping INCLUDED. And oh yeah, you really need to offer 30 days returns and always pay for the return shipping --- it's just a cost of doing business. And by the way, we'll be increasing all your fees again come spring as well as making listing requirements more strict. Many of your current listings won't make the cut...better get fixing on them now.
If eBay were to value our inventory in that way, they'd have to value us in that way and place us on par with the buyers. Imagine an eBay where buyers had to register (Amazon buyers do) and could be tracked & monitored for 'disruptive behaviour'. Maybe then we could can most of this "disruptive innovation" and get back to building a stable, fun platform that works to bring buyers and sellers together with the very minimalist of interference.
-Bob.
