11-19-2021 12:00 PM
This is a response to eBay’s claims that the new “Application Access” authorization is to repair the avatars and feedback that have been missing from the eBay community, originally posted here: https://community.ebay.com/t5/Share-Community-Platform/Intermittent-issues-on-Community-platform-mis...
The information mentioned is freely available to anyone. You do not need any form of application authorization to retrieve this information.
As evidence to back up this claim, I will have to give an explanation of exactly what these “Grant Application Access” messages are, how the eBay API works, and what information is freely available.
What is the eBay API?
The eBay API is basically a system that will allow software to communicate with eBay and exchange information/data. Much of eBay’s website uses the API to retrieve the information that it displays on the “My eBay” and “Sellers Hub” pages.
What information is available through the API?
In basic terms, there’s basically two classes of information that are available on eBay. For this explanation I’ll be calling them Public and Private.
For example, when you’re browsing eBay and looking at other users' listings, the information you’re seeing is “public”. This means anyone can see the information. You could see the item they posted, the photos, the pricing, etc.
In another example, if you go to revise your own listings, you’ll see all the “public” information that was shown, but since you’re logged in to your own account, you also have access to seeing additional information such as rate tables, handling time, promotion values, etc. This is the “private” information. Typically, you could only see “Private” information on your own account.
Some functions of eBay are private as well. If you try to create a new listing, that is considered a “private” function. Nobody else could create new listings for your store. Only you could.
What are these “Grant Application Access” pages?
Let’s say for example that I’ve created a piece of software to assist with creating listings, and checking recent orders to see if any of the listings that were created sold. We’ll say in this example that the name of this software was “ExListing Manager”
By default, “ExListing Manager” could use the eBay API to check information that is public.
Now you’ve learned about “ExListing Manager” and you’d like to try it. Once you’re registering for the software, it’ll direct you to a webpage that states:
“Grant Application Access: ExListing Manager”
If you agree to this request, it basically generates a token (let’s say like a password) that will allow “ExListing Manager” to access your private eBay data.
Prior to agreeing, if “ExListing Manager” attempted to create a listing on your store, it wouldn’t be allowed. But after you had agreed, it can send the request to create a listing to the eBay API, and it can now use the token, and eBay would allow the software to create the listing on your behalf.
“ExListing Manager” also is supposed to track if the listings it creates are sold. So it will also be using API to check your sold listings. It could check for notifications from the API with your token to confirm if an order is processing, and then typically once an order is paid, that would trigger the software to basically say “The item sold! Let’s increase the sold number by 1”.
How are we being lied to?
EBay had claimed that this new authorization for the eBay community was to restore the avatar images and feedback modules that had not been working for a couple months now. For those of us who have experience with the eBay API and know what the Application Access grants, we know this is a lie.
The store avatar images and feedback? Those are both pieces of PUBLIC information. You do not need any private access to retrieve these images. Just like how you could go to another sellers store page and see their images and feedback on the eBay website directly, software could do this with the eBay API without any special access.
To prove this, I’ve tested it myself. I browsed to the eBay homepage and one of the daily deals it’s giving me is for this listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/202694169021
If I use the eBay API call “GetStore”, with this sellers name: “harmanaudio”, I do not have any “Application Access” for them. I will only be retrieving public information. The full information is quite long, but this is an excerpt from the results that I receive from the eBay API:
{
"$": {
"xmlns": "urn:ebay:apis:eBLBaseComponents"
},
"Timestamp": "2021-11-19T18:23:12.611Z",
"Ack": "Success",
"Version": "1177",
"Build": "E1177_CORE_API5_19110890_R1",
"Store": {
"Name": "Harman Audio",
"URLPath": "harmanaudio",
"URL": "http://www.ebay.com/str/harmanaudio",
"SubscriptionLevel": "CustomCode",
"Description": "Welcome to the official eBay store for the Harman family of brands: JBL, Harman Kardon, AKG, and Infinity. Shop premium wireless speakers, headphones, home speakers, car speakers, and more!",
"Logo": {
"URL": "http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTE0WDIwMA==/z/FqcAAOSwdBRZg6by/$_1.JPG?set_11.JPG?set_id=807"
},
Sure enough, you could see in the “Logo” > “URL” section, there’s the avatar image. Again, I want to stress this is all public information freely available to the eBay API without any Application Access.
Then I could use the GetFeedback API call on the same store and here is another excerpt:
{
"$": {
"xmlns": "urn:ebay:apis:eBLBaseComponents"
},
"Timestamp": "2021-11-19T18:26:23.179Z",
"Ack": "Success",
"Version": "1201",
"Build": "E1201_CORE_APIFEEDBACK_19196963_R1",
"FeedbackScore": "197512",
As you could see, this information is all public, freely accessible information that does not require any form of Application Access.
And then for the URL links to others listings? You could literally do that with a URL and a simple store name:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/zamo-zuan/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=
Just change zamo-zuan to the username. You do NOT need the eBay API at all for this one!
The data already exists in the Community Forum servers
One more alarming thing is that we're being told this access is what's restoring the images. But if you take a look at existing posts in the dev console, you can see that the avatar images already exist on the Khoros/Lithium servers!
For the record, I retrieve that on another PC that was NOT logged in and NOT authorized! As you could see in the screenshot, the image already exists on the lithium server. No access to eBay is needed, and certainly not API access.
If the images already exist on the Lithium server, if we're not seeing them, then Khoros/Lithium itself is blocking us from seeing information on their own servers.
Yet we're being told that we need to approve access in order to see this information...?
So this brings me back to my original question…
Why is eBay lying to us about Application Access? What information is really being retrieved from our stores?
The only reason for Application Access would be to access any private information. What private information could the eBay Community possibly need?
Furthermore, they’re not even following their own terms, as they are supposed to be transparent about the reasons they’re requesting access in the Application Access request itself. It even states if you click for more information that “Additional capabilities as described to you in the application or by the application’s provider” - and the eBay community does NOT describe what additional capabilities are being accessed. And as mentioned, the reason we’re being given does not require this type of access.
To make things even worse, it says “Just go to my eBay if you change your mind”. I tried to go there to monitor our 3rd party authorizations, and the preferences page isn’t even loading to allow us to see what applications are accessing our accounts, or remove their access!
So what’s really going on here, eBay?
What private information is being accessed by the Community software?
Why is the request not even informing us of what is being accessed?
Why is the wool being pulled over community members' eyes?
Why are members being told reasons that could easily be debunked?
11-22-2021 11:22 PM
@zamo-zuan wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:Speaking for myself only, This problem was not fixed for me and many others before this pop up that we had to agree to in order to access the community.
Thing is, with how updates for software work, that experience is often an illusion. The forums had to have received an update to require access to login and cause the popup to appear. Any fixes would have coincided with this update.
Per testing, the forum no longer even allows your account to be logged in until you accept the popup. So it inevitably the first time you were logged in it would be fixed.
Key point here is, for those who ignored the agreement, it was discovered to be already fixed. Confirmed with multiple sources before posting here. I made sure everything in the OP was reproduceable before making the post.
While you used more words, we said mostly the same thing. And hopefully soon the pop up box will go away too. I am happy to see the Avatars and FB counts returning. They are of help sometimes when trying to help another member.
11-23-2021 12:39 AM
I just checked it with my second account and yep, it's still there and won't let me log in or post unless I grant the application access.
11-23-2021 05:48 AM
I closed my browser because I didn’t know/trust what it was, and it didn’t pop up at all the second time I tried
11-23-2021 06:15 AM
Gone for a month or less? Maybe that was the case with yours, but I recall messages from late September here plus an answer about it from one of the mods dated Sept. 28th or so.
11-23-2021 08:06 AM
@bossesale77 wrote:
I just checked it with my second account and yep, it's still there and won't let me log in or post unless I grant the application access.
Thank you for confirming!
11-23-2021 08:07 AM
@this*old*attic wrote:I closed my browser because I didn’t know/trust what it was, and it didn’t pop up at all the second time I tried
This was similar to my experience, except on the 2nd time, I noticed that I wasn't logged in, and it wouldn't allow login/posting until I had accepted.
11-23-2021 08:21 AM
So they can apparently take the time to move this thread but not to actually provide any answers or even a courtesy "we'll pass this on to the team"?
11-23-2021 08:59 AM - edited 11-23-2021 09:04 AM
@valueaddedresource wrote:So they can apparently take the time to move this thread but not to actually provide any answers or even a courtesy "we'll pass this on to the team"?
sheila@ebay tyler@ebay velvet@ebay
Sadly, this is something I mentioned some months back when they did the survey on here. They often take legitimate questions or issues and move them to another forum without explanation that will end up with less eyes on the thread, and never reply to the actual issue. It makes it clear that the motive is to keep things quiet, rather than offer assistance or address problems. Way to communicate to sellers that our concerns aren't legitimate 😕
How does this thread classify as "feedback"? It's of the utmost importance to sellers, as we're the ones whos API tokens have private information, and those with access are capable of modifying literally anything in our listings or seller account. If you're not a seller, there wouldn't be any risk of allowing API access. But sellers have their business at risk.
How on earth is a legitimate security concern "feedback"? We can't dumb down what these API tokens are. They give full and complete access to a sellers entire account! As I mentioned earlier, this is far more access than Customer Service agents are even allowed at eBay!
Would those in charge allow others to have keys to access their home or business without knowing what others going to be doing there? Because that's what they're asking for in terms of asking for API access to our business accounts.
11-23-2021 10:40 AM - edited 11-23-2021 10:43 AM
The community platform feedback would actually be the place for this issue because it relates to problems with the platform. Sheila is in charge of the community platform and she monitors the threads on her forum, so she is the one who needs to see the issues that have arisen with the login.
This thread has provided a wealth of information surrounding the login, and how it works, doesn't work, or misbehaves. And if the developers need more data, they can now look at the accounts of those who posted their disparate results (I have six accounts I can play with if necessary).
It is my understanding that the login will be addressed in the next major update a few months from now, and that there was a choice between providing the avatar/feedback/links in each post, or fixing the login issue. Because the Mentors (a volunteer customer service group of eBay members dedicated to helping thousand of sellers each day) had the loudest voice in expressing supreme difficulty in helping members, the Mentors won out, and the login was pushed to the next rollout. Without the feedback link next to each post, Mentors could not even determine country or buyer/seller status, and could not easily review the issues behind the poster's complaint. It was so bad that I developed a 3P tool to help Mentors retrieve that data, which helped somewhat, but was still a bit copy/paste cumbersome.
I hope those who have posted here will understand the pressure to bring back the avatar/links first and then leave the login issue for the second round.
Of course, I am still wondering why the login was required to retrieve public data.
11-23-2021 11:11 AM - edited 11-23-2021 11:14 AM
@shipscript wrote:
Of course, I am still wondering why the login was required to retrieve public data.
In terms of the category being correct or not, my biggest dispute regarding that is it was moved to an inactive forum that doesn't have responses. I'm somehow the most helpful author of this forum, even more so than Sheila, and that's not really a good look. It's my opinion that security concerns should be treated as a serious issue that gets exposure and/or actual responses. As you could see from the trend of all the other posts here, that's not the intent of this forum category. I'd have a different opinion if things were addressed. But this isn't really a new pattern, sadly this is the usual routine. Legitimate concerns get put on the back burner.
For them to have move it, it shows the thread had caught their attention. But they still didn't respond to the concerns. This implies it's less about cleaning the forum categories up, as the choice was made not to address the topic and just move it. More effort was put in to moving the thread than providing assistance for the security concerns. The silence speaks volumes.
With that said, I absolutely understand the pressure, that's not the issue I have. It's good if they do fixes.
The main issue I have pertains to the part quoted, that we're being told a reason that is easily debunked. If we wanted to restore the "View Listing" links it doesn't even require any API calls. It seems Lithium uses Angular and in less than a minute it's easy to set up view listing link in Angular if you have the user name - no API calls needed.
11-23-2021 12:16 PM
Thanks @shipscript - I understand the pressure they're under and I understand from a "how the boards are structured" standpoint this may even be the best place for this topic.
If moving it here is the best way to get it addressed, great! But would it really be so hard to take just a few seconds to say that? A quick "we're moving this here so Sheila can see and address it" note would have been nice.
Sheila posted she was locking this thread about the issue 12 minutes after I first tagged her here - again would it have been so difficult for her or any of the other staff here to at least acknowledge this thread, even if just to say something like "please start a new thread on the community feedback board" or "we'll look into this and get back to you"?
The lack of communication is frustrating and regardless of any other pressure or whatever else may be going on in this situation, there's just no good reason for it, in my opinion.
11-23-2021 12:55 PM
Hi @valueaddedresource - chiming in on this to say that there is a current technical issue that is preventing third-party access from being visible in some browsers (I've added folks who say they're impacted to the open ticket).
As to the 'why' of this change - I'm not technical so I can't really speak to the in-depth analysis that @zamo-zuan has done. I can say that this was the fix that we could get implemented now as opposed to Q1, so it was what we went with.
I agree with @shipscript that moving the thread to the platform feedback board was the appropriate course of action given the topic, and also want to clarify that anyone can report a thread to the mod team if they feel it is on an incorrect board. Just because a thread has been moved does not mean that a member of the Community Team has read and reviewed it.
Thanks!
11-23-2021 01:00 PM
they don't care. they stabbed me in the back. today...
11-23-2021 01:14 PM
tyler@ebay wrote:Hi @valueaddedresource - chiming in on this to say that there is a current technical issue that is preventing third-party access from being visible in some browsers (I've added folks who say they're impacted to the open ticket).
As to the 'why' of this change - I'm not technical so I can't really speak to the in-depth analysis that @zamo-zuan has done. I can say that this was the fix that we could get implemented now as opposed to Q1, so it was what we went with.
I agree with @shipscript that moving the thread to the platform feedback board was the appropriate course of action given the topic, and also want to clarify that anyone can report a thread to the mod team if they feel it is on an incorrect board. Just because a thread has been moved does not mean that a member of the Community Team has read and reviewed it.
Thanks!
Thanks for the response tyler@ebay ! Just to be clear on the 3rd party access issue though - @coffeebean832 said they get the error on the posting ID they use for the community (the ID that did agree to grant access) but they *do not* get the error on their selling ID which they don't use for the community and did not grant access for.
It's not clear if the error is related to the grant application access issue here but if one user with two different IDs (presumably using the same browser) is only seeing it on one ID and not another, I'm guessing odds are it isn't likely to be a browser issue.
Coffee - can you confirm if you were using the same browser for both IDs?
11-23-2021 01:43 PM
@valueaddedresource- No I wasn't using the same browser- but I did more testing just now.
My selling IDs that haven't posted here were checked in Firefox- I had no issues accessing 3rd party authorizations.
My posting ID was checked in Firefox- I could not access 3rd party authorizations.
I checked the IDs on several other browsers- no problem accessing the info on selling IDs that haven't posted here- but could not access the info on my posting ID no matter what browser I tried.