mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999
Hi everyone! Thanks for joining us for the Weekly Chat with eBay Staff. We don't have a specific topic this week, so feel free to share any general buying or selling questions you may have.
The chat thread will remain open until 2 PM PT at which point we'll close it from additional responses. After that time, we'll continue to work on responding to any queries that might still be unanswered.
To post your question, click Reply in the lower right corner of this post, type your question, and hit submit between 1-2 PM Pacific Time. The format of our chat mirrors the format of our Community Discussion Boards, where each post will appear in the thread chronologically. The Community Team will review each question as it comes in, and will quote the original question in our reply. This quote and the reply will appear later in the thread, so just keep scrolling down to see our answers.
Missed the chat? Send your questions to the podcast by calling 888-723-4630 or email us at podcast@ebay.com and maybe your questions will make it on the air! Or listen to past episodes while you wait for next Wednesday!
I know we have visited this a few times, but I'd like to go over it again as we have seen no improvement in this and it has been going on for a long time. So either the engineering team on the shipping labels don't see the importance or there is no intention to fix this.
The oldest issue is the order in which the package size appears. On a listing it appears this way.
But then when you go to the label it will appear in a different order which is confusion none of us needs. Consistency is so important in many walks of life and this is just another one. Frankly I don't know why it was ever done differently than the listings. If they want to keep this order on a shipping label, then change the order on the listing forms. But make them the same.
Now another problem that persists on the shipping label program is the various shipping options. We finally got rid of that silly Buyer Choice Icon beside the most expensive shipping a while back. Even when there were no choices on the listing. But old problem and it is now gone.
But we are left with what you see above which is also a problem. If you want to see only USPS rates, you have to do two clicks to get there, you must click the UPS and the Fedx buttons to turn them off and just leave you with USPS. Or you can do one click and click on "compare all services" and then weed through those to find the actual class you want to use.
I'm unsure as to what benefit it is to add more clicks and/or confusion to the label process. It use to be so darn easy and for some reason there seems to be this need to make it more complicated or they just aren't thinking this stuff through.
I should be able to click on the carrier I want to use and let it stay my default unless I choose to change it. This is just nonsense and a waste of time.
Edit: Reply to this post can be read here
@golfingaddict wrote:
2nd concern/question.
About a month or more ago, I got a tool in my seller hub to help me with updating item specifics. Very helpful. I had to update nearly all of my over 200 listings. I took the time to fill out the "new" IS even though I had filled them out when I listed the items and some of the IS were duplicates of what was already in the listing IS.
Fast forward to last week while I was away, I got a notice in seller hub (again) that about 180 of my items needed new Item specifics added and soon would be required. Again, I dutifully filled them out and added them even though they were already there or were duplicates of what I had put in when listing and when fixing them several weeks prior.
And today. AGAIN, I get notice that the same listing need updated item specifics. Today I am updating them again only I am finding things like "size" which was filled out when I listed the item, when I updated the listings and what is already in the Item specifics, only this time, they moved the size box to another spot and need me to fill it out again.
also note that I checked "do not show me this again" when updating them.
Really? Is it necessary to do this in October? October - December is traditionally a very busy selling season and even your own marketing dept suggests that holiday shopping will be earlier this year.
And instead of creating new listings, I am filling out for the 3rd or 4th time, Item specifics which ebay tells me would be required soon and if I don't do it.. well.. who knows.. Probably no sales.
Why the duplication of efforts and is this the last time we have to update them? I should not have to repeat this update so many times.
Hi @golfingaddict - I'm glad to hear that Optiseller is a program you've enjoyed using, though I'm sorry to hear how many times you've ended up needing to use it!
It shouldn't be necessary for you to re-enter those item specifics time and time again - and the ones today definitely puzzle me, I'll get it reported for further review.
This issue I ran across is MP related, but I thought you guys might be able to pass it along. There are two policy pages that don't completely agree with each other or lack detail to explain things better.
I'll have to give the info in a pic as I still can't seem to copy from the policy pages into a post on the forums. Such an annoying problem that I sure wish would get fixed.
-----
Edit: A reply to your question can be found here
@shipscript wrote:
A few days ago, eBay changed the appearance of the Blocked Buyer List. It now sorts in numerical account number order instead of sorting in alphabetical account order. Sellers with a huge list can no longer manage their blocked buyers because they have to sift through an unsorted, non-tabular list that is strung all together. Can the programmers put it back into alphabetic order?
Hi @shipscript - ouch, that would make a long BBL pretty unusable. I know Brian is working on getting it reported, we'll make sure that your input is shared!
@a_c_green wrote:
Hi! I'm hoping that you have an update on last week's follow-on discussion about the previously-reported problem in which the Shipping form is loading with the package dimensions in reverse order:
The longest dimension (originally entered in the listing field of pkgLength) is getting loaded into the Shipping field of dimensions.height, and the shortest dimension (originally entered in the listing field of pkgHeight) is getting loaded into the Shipping field of dimensions.length. Any internal calculations relying on Length being the longest value will be wrong.
Next, there's also a new problem that has appeared recently in someone's attempted revision of the Blocked Bidder List page:
https://www.ebay.com/bmgt/BuyerBlock?
The blocked IDs are now being sorted chronologically by the member's internal ID number (assigned when they opened their account) and not in the vastly more useful alphabetical order, so it's difficult to tell whether a particular member is already on the list, in cases where you might want to remove them.
A second error in this page revision is omitting a space character following each comma separator, and the display code for this page will not break the line on a comma; it needs a trailing space. Thus the lines become unreadable run-ons, breaking only on secondary characters such as hyphens in the middle of someone's ID.
The BBL problems have been discussed so much recently that I assume there's been a report on this already, but can you please verify the status of a pending fix?
I'd also like to know if you could give us a general description of the peer review and QA testing involved in these revisions, because it's really not looking very good. Thanks!
@a_c_green I passed the shipping label dimensions to the shipping team and they let me know it's something they'll consider for future updates.
@shipscript @a_c_green yikes that doesn't sound like an intended change to the BBL 😞 I'll be sure to get this over to the right team. Thanks for letting us know about it!
I don't have details about our internal QA process, so there isn't any insight I give on this.
@justsc92 wrote:
I guess I do not understand not allowed. I guess it is allowed until the original manufacturer speaks up? The user community is helpless, and is being scammer left and right.
As sellers say "there must be nothing wrong with it, everyone is doing it".
eBay needs a way to separate out and make a seller commit if the item is an authorized reprint where it is marked as such or they can provide license or permision for sale. If you would make a seller commit it is licensed and required to have prove, that would cut down on the problem.
That should not be put on the seller. As this forum told me weeks ago - it is for me to find more about the item if I do not know its authenticity .
Seller lie by saying "brand new", "right out of the pack", PSA 10?, etc. All in order to confuse the buyer into thinking it is more than a counterfeit reprint. Some way this needs to be weeded out.
Thanks for sharing your input and experience @justsc92 - while we can't make promises about what changes would occur (nor can we discuss details of action taken on other member accounts), we will make sure that it is sent on.
In case it hasn't been reported, the bell in the community, which is the only way we have right now of knowing if a thread we are following has been updated either isn't working at all or its extremely hit and miss. Likely more miss than hit.
-----
Edit: A reply to your comment can be found here
@valueaddedresource wrote:
Any update on that communications plan about the tech problems that have been rampant all across the site this week?
When can we expect to receive the "openness, honesty, respect and doing business with integrity" that CEO Jamie Iannone has promised?
Things happen, we all understand that - but a great deal rides on how those things are handled. This has been a very disappointing week in that regard.
@valueaddedresource we released a seller announcement yesterday for issues sellers faced in Seller Hub this week. My guess is that this is the route we'll take to communicate any widespread issues on the site.
@mam98031 wrote:
This issue I ran across is MP related, but I thought you guys might be able to pass it along. There are two policy pages that don't completely agree with each other or lack detail to explain things better.
I'll have to give the info in a pic as I still can't seem to copy from the policy pages into a post on the forums. Such an annoying problem that I sure wish would get fixed.
Hi @mam98031 - would you mind helping me understand the disparity so I can get it to the payments team? The way I'm reading it the top one indicates what the Dispute Fee is, and the second indicates when it may be charged. But also it's been a long day and I may be missing something.
