mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999
@tenbigdogs wrote:Hi again @mam98031, I have to post again for the benefit of the many readers of these boards.
What you've posted of your conversations with eBay supports what I advised in the first place. Most of what you've posted is your attempts to get eBay to change it's policies to be as you think they should be and eBay disagreeing.
From your posts, eBay stated in significant part:
"where a buyer wants to return an item ... you should encourage them to use the Returns flow through their Purchase History section. This allows them to quickly access a label. . . . Intentionally handling a return...as a cancellation is problematic and can result in inaccurate seller metrics and performance...from an eBay perspective I can't tell you that [your way is] how we would prefer you to do it, nor would I sanction it as something that eBay approves of to tell others to do. In short ... we do have certain processes in place for specific reasons."
A return is a return is a return begets a label. Good luck!
Well yes and no. I'm actually not wrong and nothing I've suggested is against the rules as published by Ebay. What you are talking about is what Ebay prefers or what Ebay encourages. And this is all in light of the new Service Metrics. Which I'm sure you noticed I am completely against.
While I will abide by this new change in EBay's outlook on things, it doesn't mean I have to like it, as is normal for me, I will adhere to the rules. But I also said above that I will not recommend to a seller to intentionally damage their selling account to help the Service Metrics. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. What kind of advice to someone is that. Telling someone to do something that increases their chances of getting put into a situation where they will have to pay a penalty on their FVFs is simply ridiculous. So while I won't tell sellers to use the cancellation process, I also won't tell them to ask their buyers to open a SNAD or INR, whichever applies.
I've never suggested that a member skirt their responsibilites as a seller nor have I ever advised anyone to break the rules. Ebay does not REQUIRE buyers to open a SNAD or INR to be refunded. Sellers can refund without a SNAD or INR being opened, Ebay just would prefer we didn't do it that way. It is also important to remember that until a few months ago we had a reason in the cancellation process that stated refunding for item returned or something similar, I may not have the words exact. Ebay decided to significantly reduce the reasons allowed in the cancellation process and that may have been in preparation of the Service Metrics, I don't know.
As I said before I respect your position and you have every right to feel and say what you have.
@tenbigdogs wrote:Unfortunately, @mam98031, responders don't get to substitute their own policies for eBay's. The idea is to educate other users about eBay's policies and how to successfully apply them, not how to get around them if they don't like them. If a seller is having a high enough rate of returns to effect their account, perhaps they need to take a look at their business model, not try to wiggle past eBay's policies and procedures. Again, good luck!
eBay Policy Page on Managing Returns
That is where we seem to have a misunderstand and even on the Weekly Chat it was stated it is NOT an Ebay policy that sellers MUST have buyers open a claim to refund them. Yes Ebay PREFERS it, but that does not make it manditory. I get it and I understand why you and Ebay want sellers to instruct they buyers to do certain things.
You keep wanting to make it seem as if I want to "substitute" a policy for my own. I've NEVER said that, but you do and I don't know why it is so important to you to keep saying that.
There are many reasons for buyers to open claims. Some are correctly opened and some are not. Sellers have ZERO control over the reason a buyer chooses when opening a claim.
Here's why it's not helpful to let misinformation stand on the boards, we're not the only ones reading this thread.
@tenbigdogs wrote:Here's why it's not helpful to let misinformation stand on the boards, we're not the only ones reading this thread.
A very valid point. So please don't misrepresent what I've posted. I've been honest on this thread. I've posted my interaction with the CSR on the Weekly Chat. I didn't edit anything. It is as it was told to me and my responses are exactly what I said to them. I hope we can now put this discussion to rest.
In my posts that I copied over from the Weekly Chat, I said that since Ebay does not want us doing as I suggested earlier in this thread that I would no longer advise anyone on the threads to do so. But it is important to understand that nothing I said was against ANY written Ebay policy. There is nothing in the policies that says you can't do it nor does any of the policies say it is wrong. But since it has been explained to me on the Weekly Chat that it is not what Ebay wants us doing as sellers, then I will no longer do that.
For some reason it is important to some to label my posts and/or me as being "wrong". I don't know why but it seems to be of great importance to some.
I've stated my position clearly on this thread and to the CSR from the Chat. I am sorry that I've upset some and caused them any undue concerns.
