RM
|
posted on November 6, 2000 09:08:27 AM new
If this has already been mentioned here, I apologize in advance for bringing it up again but I thinks it's important. The following is a cut and paste from eBays' Trust and Safety forum. eBay is asking EVERYONE for input. Not just powersellers or select groups, EVERYONE. eBay isn't over here "under cover" (yet) starting threads like "HELP! I've been ripped off!!! We need more insurance and better mediation and more escrow.....NOW!!!" They are simply asking straight out for our input.
I don't know what would be a better way for eBay to find out what we're thinking, than by simply asking and it looks like they are doing just that.
So, whatever your views, please consider going over there and telling eBay what you think. Here's what's posted:
----------------------------
"Hello,
In an effort to improve trust and safety on eBay, we are exploring ways to encourage safer trading practices.
One way would be a program that allows sellers to offer higher insurance coverage provided they (1) have their identities verified, (2) have a certain level of feedback, (3) accept credit card payments or
escrow, and (4) participate in mediation.
Their items will have an icon that will communicate the added coverage and safety.
How the program may work: A seller with a feedback of, let us say 50, and is ID Verified will be offered the chance to list the item with increased insurance if they indicate acceptance of credit card payment or escrow and mediation.
If he/she indicates acceptance, the seller's item will display an icon and be covered by increased insurance. The insurance program will be similar to today’s:
- no cost to sellers - fraud protection for buyers (for non-receipt of item or item misrepresentation) - standard deductible of $25
This is designed to reward sellers with additional insurance coverage and the ability to differentiate their items for providing their bidders with options that help ensure trading safety.
I am interested in learning how our members will react to this program and understanding what some of the consequences may be. Please share your thoughts and suggestions.
I will periodically review this thread and answer questions.
Thanks in advance, Noel Morin
Manager, Product Marketing"
-----------------------------------
Here's the link:
http://remarq.ebay.com/ebay/transcript.asp?g=discuss%2Eebay%2Etrust%2Eand%2Esafety&tn=35707&sh=fce820369e877ad3&idx=-1
Please keep in mind that there's no guarantee that any comments you make here will be seen by eBay.
And if posting this information and link about eBay in this eBay forum somehow violates AW's community guidelines or TOS, too bad. I'll take the warning or whatever.
Ray
|
radh
|
posted on November 6, 2000 09:14:32 AM new
RM: Good luck Ray. Early last month when I posted that the annual Skippy Halloween stories would be on Tuesday evenings, (and my post was WITHOUT A LINK), here at the ("so-called", lol) eBay Outlook, I had my post deleted and I was emailed to NOT invite AW users off the board. LOL
|
reddeer
|
posted on November 6, 2000 09:16:00 AM new
And yet another asinine ICON by eBay. If someone uses their CC to purchase online items, that's all the protection they need.
Duh.
|
isworeiwouldneverdothis
|
posted on November 6, 2000 09:17:15 AM new
Radh--they DID THAT? Sheesh.
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on November 6, 2000 09:25:34 AM new
We're from eBay, and we're here to help you.
Yeah, right.
If eBay really wants to do something to help their users, they might want to start by fixing their site so that it runs in a reliable fashion. Constantly recurring "functionality unavailable" issues have to be doing as much to chase away users as anything else.
|
bhearsch
|
posted on November 6, 2000 09:37:30 AM new
EBay is running a business that strongly relies on trust to be successful and therefore, they should be pro-active in ensuring that trust. Instead of relying on the user base to police their site, they should be doing it themselves so the sellers don't have to keep spending yet more money on escrow insurance or verification programs. I'm personally tired of being put in the defensive position of needing these ridiculous assurances in order for the buyer to trade safely due to the fraudulent element on eBay. This is definitely a case of the few controlling the many since we're ALL considered to be crooks and in order to entice the buyer we ALL need to pay for these extra insurance measures.
Why shouldn't eBay take an active stance and try to permanently get rid of their dishonest user base so the rest of us can get on with our business?
I will post this on the T&S Board although I seriously doubt it's the answer they want to hear.
Blanche
|
reddeer
|
posted on November 6, 2000 09:46:39 AM new
And lets not forget that the ONLY users that can get verified, are people who live in the U.S..
Whatta bunch of morons ..............
|
RB
|
posted on November 6, 2000 10:43:32 AM new
If I may speak for reddeer ... her 'morons' are NOT our US friends! (misplaced participle or something like that!!!)
|
Powerhouse
|
posted on November 6, 2000 10:51:15 AM new
Hell, the last time I went over there and voiced my opinion on a feature Skippy created The New Board and directed several of us to take our comments there.
(aka Professor, the original castaways.)
[ edited by Powerhouse on Nov 6, 2000 10:51 AM ]
|
dejavu
|
posted on November 6, 2000 10:52:02 AM new
Call me cynical but.....
Ebay just slipped a new requirement into Lloyd's fraud insurance. Neither the buyer nor seller can have ANY negative feedback.
How do I know? I was just ripped off by an aol.com seller for $173.oo. No merchandise. No intention of sending any.
I went to file the fraud complaint and between the time I sent the cashier's check & queried (4 times unanswered) where my merchandise was, the scumbag was suspended.
I made a point in the complaint to note that this scumbag had no negative feedback until AFTER I sent him my money.
So for all you who have had retaliatory or unjust negatives, put that in your pipe and smoke it. It now precludes you from ebay's FABULOUS insurance product.(NOT)
|
reddeer
|
posted on November 6, 2000 11:02:21 AM new
RB .... the 'she" is a "he", and no, I wasn't
referring to folks in the US, but to the marketing moroons at eBay.
|
bhearsch
|
posted on November 6, 2000 11:04:49 AM new
dejavu, where did you see this new info regarding the buyer and seller not being eligible for Lloyds insurance if they have any negative feedback? I can't find that clause on the Insurance Eligibility Checklist And Claims Process. http://pages.ebay.aol.com/help/community/ins-guide.html
This is the only statement I could find relating to feedback:
QUOTE:
"Both you and the seller are in good standing at eBay (both parties have net feedback rating of zero or above) at the time of the transaction."
END QUOTE
Blanche
|
dejavu
|
posted on November 6, 2000 11:16:45 AM new
Blanche,
I found it inside the actual on line form in one of the yellow boxes. I believe it pops up when you making an actual claim. I was quite surprised to see this as I have filed claims before.
|
dejavu
|
posted on November 6, 2000 11:21:18 AM new
Blanche,
I found it. I don't know if non-negative feedback means you aren't at -2 or if non-negative means you have no negative feedback. The claims rep was not very enlightening.
Please note that in order to be eligible for insurance, you must meet each of the following criteria:
You sent the seller payment and (a) you never received the item or (b) the item was significantly different than the item description.
Both buyer and seller have non-negative feedback ratings.
You must file your complaint using the Fraud Reporting and Insurance Claim Form within 60 days after the end of auction.
The item's selling price must be greater than $25 (Lloyds will deduct $25 before reimbursing your claim).
You must not file more than one insurance claim per month (but you can file an unlimited number of fraud complaints).
The item listed is in accordance with the User Agreement.
Edited to add that not all these stipulations existed when the product was first rolled out. I believe in law school they are known as *weasel words*.
[ edited by dejavu on Nov 6, 2000 11:25 AM ]
|
reddeer
|
posted on November 6, 2000 11:24:31 AM new
Dejavu ..... eBay will not cover any losses once the seller is NARU. At least that's always been my take.
Sorry you got ripped off.
|
bhearsch
|
posted on November 6, 2000 11:37:17 AM new
Thanks dejavu. I'm inclined to think their wording of non-negative feedback means that you can't have more negs than positives which would correspond with "both parties have net feedback rating of zero or above" that I found on the eBay page. However, I agree with you about the wording being vague. I've never had to use Lloyd's insurance program and so I have no way of knowing if this clause is new or not but I'd be interested in knowing for sure.
It would make sense for Lloyd to refuse claims if one of the parties had more negatives than positives since the buyer or seller should be able to determine for themselves by looking at the feedback profile whether to avoid any transactions with the person. Obviously, this scenario would indicate EXTREME risk which should be avoided.
Blanche
|
bhearsch
|
posted on November 6, 2000 11:47:00 AM new
I just wanted to add that I can see the possibility where one of the parties involved DIDN'T have more negs than positives when the transaction occurred but have since racked them up after the insurance filing. I would hope that Lloyd would consider the status of the parties at the time of the complaint and not their subsequent status but I think that may be too much to hope for. 
Blanche
|
dejavu
|
posted on November 6, 2000 02:27:09 PM new
Reddeer~~~~~~~~~~~ ME TOO!
I got email this morning from a warm body at ebay telling me to file the hard copy of the claim immediately. I pointed out that this scumbag had 47 positives, no negatives when I bid and paid for the item. Then after I emailed the seller asking where my goods were 4 times and got no response I checked his feedback again. NARU.
So within a one week time frame he gets one neg & NARU. Somethings up. I would think that suspending the butthead (who is an aohell user by the way) is prima facie evidence that he is a bad hombre.
I checked his other sales and he had a remarkable number of aol bidders who are now NARU themselves. Leads me to the conclusion that he is a shiller.
And I am paying the price.
I also filed mail fraud. I am contacting the local sheriif & DA where he lives also.
He may have my $173 bucks but I am going to have $173 dollars worth of pleasure, giving him a pain in the who-who.I happen to have a cell phone with unlimited long distance. I am going to have some chats with the powers that be in his town.
|
dejavu
|
posted on November 6, 2000 02:33:45 PM new
By the way I have copied his imaging hosting ISP's and am checking the categories he sells in. When I come across his image host with those attributes he is toast.
I assume with an oahell account he has already reregistered. I can tell you I will never buy another thing from an aoler again.
So all aol sellers lose, n'est-ce pas?
|
cdnbooks
|
posted on November 6, 2000 03:16:06 PM new
"I will never buy another thing from an aoler again. "
Ya sure gotta watch your pronunciation with that one.
Bill
|
dejavu
|
posted on November 6, 2000 03:56:55 PM new
Bill my sentiments eGGzactly!
|
radh
|
posted on November 7, 2000 01:56:22 PM new
Say, RM: Do you ever wonder who gives eBay these ideas that they spend time and money and employee resources developing?
|
radh
|
posted on November 7, 2000 02:01:34 PM new
From the original post at T&S:
"In an effort to improve trust and safety on eBay, we are exploring ways to encourage safer trading practices."
~ ~ ~ ~
It amazes me that eBay continues to push pencils on programs that further advertise that BUYING ON EBAY IS UNSAFE.
They, however, have enuff financial resources to continue this push pencil ridiculousness for a long, lonnnnnnng time, but someday they will have to confront the FRONT-END USER problem, instead of playing around with these end-user programs which are EASY and make them feel like they are doing something, LOL.
|
mballai
|
posted on November 7, 2000 02:09:27 PM new
This looks like mainly a high-end item dealer program. Many good eBayers have no use for this, but we will look like second class sellers without the icon. Why does eBay want to foster another caste system on independent sellers?
|
dejavu
|
posted on November 7, 2000 02:30:04 PM new
radh~ I am glad somebody can chuckle about this. I for one am not chuckling about being ripped off for $173.00.
I am a verified user at ebay. I wish to HELL that everyone was. There are LOTS of goodies I would like to bid on but this last a$$hole is the absolute limit. I have had hassles galore with people selling stuff with wrong, inaccurate descriptions. This is the first out & out rip off, for me.
No more buying for me on ebay.
.........and I have beaucoup discretionary income to spend. Too bad, I am off to another web site that guarantees their vendors (can't mention them here TOS)
EDITED TO ADD~ some of these ebay EXECs need a pencil pushed someplace they won't easily forget to get a GRIP on things ( no pun(cil) intended).
[ edited by dejavu on Nov 7, 2000 02:33 PM ]
[ edited by dejavu on Nov 7, 2000 02:35 PM ]
|
RM
|
posted on November 7, 2000 03:08:38 PM new
Hi Radh,
No, I don't wonder anymore where those ideas come from. I visited the corporate headquarters and I know that they use a "pin the tail on the donkey" approach. There is also a "spin the wheel of new features" approach.
"In an effort to improve trust and safety on eBay, we are exploring ways to encourage safer trading practices."
Sorta makes me want to put a condom on my modem.
Ray
|
reddeer
|
posted on November 7, 2000 03:11:34 PM new
Dejavu .... Not that I don't feel your pain, as I too have been stiffed on eBay by unscrupulous sellers, BUT, with all the trouble you seem to have had on eBay, why the heck aren't you using a CC to pay for your items? It seems to me that using a CC is THE safest way to prevent being ripped off on ANY online site.
Having everyone verified may indeed cut down on "some" of the online fraud, but it sure as hell won't stop it.
Pay with a CC & dispute the charges if & when things go south. Seems like the best solution to the majority of online "buying" problems.
|
radh
|
posted on November 7, 2000 03:34:38 PM new
dejavu: Please go back and noe that my post was ADDRESSED TO RAY.
How DARE you infer that I was laughing at you, much less that I find the criminal activity you describe to be a 'CHUCKLING' matter?
I do NOT support criminal activity at eBay, and I do NOT *chuckle* at crime victims, thank you.
You have several other resources to explore, which can be found in a post called, "Victim of FRAUD? Feel like a deer caught in the headlights? DON'T!" Find this thread over at T&S which has suggestions from members of the eBay Community to those who believe they have been defrauded online.
LURKERS: If you believe that you have been defrauded, please read the above referenced messagethread and do NOT forget to fill out and file the online form over at the Internet Fraud Complaint Center:
https://www.ifccfbi.gov
ALL criminals, in ALL their guises and disguises should be routed outta eBay AND proscecuted!!!!!!!! To the FULL extent of the law!
I've read two posts from people who filed compaints at the FBI's IFCC. One person states he and the other bidders received their monies back in 3 months; the other post stated a two month wait for the refund. There was also an account I read, where when the seller learned that an official complaint had been filed with the FBI, that they immediately paypaled a refund.
|
dejavu
|
posted on November 8, 2000 04:18:24 AM new
radh~ your LOL at the end of your previous post set me off.
reddeer, actually this seller would have taken paypal but I have an allergy to paypal. As a company they scare me. They change the way they run their business and terms more frequently than I can keep track of.
As a seller, I am verified, I am a REAL corporation. Small but real. I know that when my buyers get an email asking for payment to XYZ corp that they are much more comfortable sending large amounts to a company rather than a faceless person. (I also consider that a competitive advantage).
|
