posted on April 27, 2001 07:18:22 PM new
In the "Ebay Outlook" thread that Joice just closed for your protection, you said:
"This is to prevent gaming of the verification status, where a party becomes verified and then removes their bank account, but still retains their verification status as being current identification. This could cause major issues for buyers wanting to be protected under the Buyer Protection Program."
Under the situation you described, the seller would remain verified, and the Buyer would have the same protection as with any other verified seller, under your TOS.
For eBay transactions, the buyer would be entitled to up to $200 (if all other requirements can be met) out of Paypal's pocket, regardless of whether the seller is broke, dead, in prison, a fugitive, or whatever (or if his bank account is closed).
For non-eBay transactions, the buyer (again, if all other requirements are met) is entitled to as much money as Paypal can collect from the seller. In this situation, the only way lack of a current bank account (after a seller's identity has been established) could affect Buyer Protection is if it affected the amount that Paypal could recover from the seller.
And the only way it can affect the amount that Paypal can recover from the seller is if Paypal is planning (after changing its TOS) to initiate a withdrawal of money from the seller's bank account to reimburse the Buyer.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along.
Identification of a user has to be done once; from that point on, Paypal knows who the user is, regardless of where he banks or whether he has a current account registered. It is only if the real issue is access to the user's finances that a *current* bank account becomes the issue.
On another note, I do appreciate your making an effort to answer a couple of my requests for documentation.
Unfortunately, saying "section c or e" is about as informative as telling me you live in Apartment 12 or 14, and expecting me to find you from that info alone. It's *possible* that banking law experts know instantly which of the thousands of sections c and e in the U.S. Code you are referring to [in the way that 501(c)(3) is known to be a type of nonprofit, even without the full citation, or in the way in which "Apartment 12 or 14" would be useful if I already knew you lived in the Continental Tower in Minneapolis], but the rest of us (including me) don't.
Federal statutes are numbered something like this: 34 U.S.C. 1354.7(c)(1). 34 is the Title of the United States Code; 1354.7 is the section, (c) is the subsection, etc. Federal regulations are similarly numbered, except with C.F.R. instead of U.S.C. Can you provide a full citation for the statute, so us non-banking law experts can look it up.
As far as the quotes from the web pages, they don't match what I remember. Now, it could be that I'm remembering a different page from the one you're quoting (perhaps one later in the verification process, where the user actually tells Paypal to make the two little deposits), that the page has changed since I verified, or that I'm remembering it wrong.
Since I don't have a throwaway checking account to verify, and don't want to enter phony bank account into the system (and probably be told to submit my DL, utility bill, fingerprints & DNA sample to keep my account -- which I would prefer to do in the event that Paypal someday cleans up its act) in order to confirm my recollection, I guess I'll have to let it rest.
I would, however, appreciate it if anyone who *does* decide to become verified would copy and all of the language from the verification pages regarding withdrawals and post it here.
And a final note regarding statistics. It is true that the number of complaints posted here, or reported to the BBB, is very small in relation to the total number of transactions. But only a tiny fraction of Paypal users know about this board, or the BBB.
By comparison, there are, what, 50,000 posts about eBay on this board (probably covering a month) -- positive, negative, neutral -- but 5 million auctions running at any given time. So the ration of tranactions to posts is something like 400 to 1 (much higher if we only counted on-topic posts). So those 364 complaints that make it to the board annually may well represent 150,000 users who have been screwed.
The better comparison would between Paypal and Billpoint, competitors in the same industry. While Billpoint is smaller, it is not all that much smaller. But on another site (which has a separate board for both Billpoint and Paypal), the ratio of posts (largely complaint driven) is about 100:1. And, while the BBB gets 30-40 monthly complaints about Paypal, it had gotten one -- count 'em -- one complaint about Billpoint. I don't think Paypal can claim to be 360-480 times the size of Billpoint, but it gets 360 to 480 times the number of BBB complaints.
All of these numbers are estimates & recollections, and my assumptions are likely not statistically valid, so they probably have little to do with the *real* numbers. But, by the same token, Damon's attempt to compare the number of problem transactions posted here to the total number of Paypal transactions is based on equally faulty statistics. Damon's statistical analysis assums that *every* disgruntled Paypal user knows about AW and posts their complaint here, or knows about BBB and complains there, and that just ain't true.
posted on April 27, 2001 10:08:27 PM new
Hi booksbookbooks,
I am not going to even bother getting into the verification issue in this thread. I have covered it repeatedly and I see no point in going over the same information.
I brought up the statistics for a reason. It was to make two points:
1. Account restrictions are not as common as you seem to think they are, regardless of how many posts you mention. Let's say you multiply the number I gave by 10. What would that percentage be versus the current user base and the daily growth? Exceptionally small. I also advised that account restrictions are cleared fairly quickly with the proper documentation supplied.
2. You don't know why the account was restricted, yet you assume that an anonymous poster is being totally honest as to why the account was restricted. Have you contacted any of the users to see why their account was restricted and compared the reason against the terms of use?
Yes, some posters would not be aware of the boards, just as many board posters would not be aware of the positive issues that users report to our customer service center or to me personally.
You also seem to completely ignore the threads about happy users and sensationalize all the issues that come on the boards from disgruntled users (and non-users that have not used the service).
Users come to forums for several reasons:
1. To interact and get feedback from a community of diverse individuals.
2. To vent when things are not going well.
3. To say things are going well.
The main point is that some information and some of the problems reported are indeed valid.Others may not be as valid as the post would indicate.
With a user base of 7 million users there will be issues with some customers. Our job is to fix them if we have been in the wrong (or even if we are not wrong). I will point to the statistics that I have to stand by my case and statements---
7 million users
200,000 transactions per day
20,000 accounts (or close to it) opened every day
BBB complaints-
From all numbers advised of at this time, they have been cut in half. This would reduce it to around 15 or 20 complaints per month (my favorite complaint was from a non-user that has never used the service and could not have had a service issue). A fair percentage of these are user error (sending payments to the wrong email address or not understanding how to send money) and we are trying to make messaging as strong as possible to prevent user mistakes---but we will not be able to eliminate them entirely if users do not take the time to learn how to use the service or read the terms of use. We have, however, addressed the customer service staffing issue(75 new representatives added to help get responses to users in a timely, and accurate, manner)
I will back up my information with internal statistics.I will back up my information with stories on the company.I will not rely on rumors or speculations to make decisions ,or unfounded accusations, against any company based on relatively anonymous posts. I come to the boards to educate our users and stop rumors about the service.
If you think I am dishonest, or that we are trying to steal information for nefarious purposes from you,I can't change that. I will, however, stick to policy and tell you the why. You don't have to accept the answer, but I am giving you the correct answers and the reasons for a specific policy.
posted on May 5, 2001 05:16:27 PM new
Congratulations on an almost complete evasion of the points I made:
(1) The absurdity of your claim that "gaming" the verification system would reduce a buyer's protection under the Buyer Protection Program (unless the real purpose of verification is to allow Paypal to make unauthorized withdrawals from the seller's account)
(2) Your inability to cite anything more than the meaningless, unidentifiable "Section C or E" as substantiation for your frequent references to federal law. "Section C or E" of what?
(3) Why Paypal is perhaps 4 times as big as Bilpoint, a company which provides the same service, but gets 400 times as many serious complaints. (Could it be that Billpoint is run in conjunction with an established bank, with decades of experience in financial transactions, and Paypal is run by a guy who spent three months as a teller trainee?)
Every company gets complaints, and has dissatisfied customers, including the companies that are members of and govern the BBB. I am confident that they know how to distinguish valid complaints from invalid, and how to distinguish an honest attempt at resolution from stonewalling. The BBB is not a consumer advocacy group with an axe to grind; it is an organization run by businesses for businesses.
You can say that the people who are screwed over by Paypal are only a tiny fraction of users, and you'd probably be right. So would Firestone, if it said that it had made hundreds of thousands of tires, and only a few dozen resulted in fatal rollover accidents. Or Ford, most of whose Pintos didn't incinerate their occupants. But why, when it is obvious that competing companies can provide the same services or products without the casualties, would anyone select a Firestone tire, a Ford Pinto, or Paypal?
Damon, I recall when Paypal gave the assurance on these boards that it would always be free, and backed it up with the "we make our money on the float" stories on the company. Was that a "correct answer"? Why should we believe the assurances, and the stories that back them up, today?
There was a time when Paypal did exactly what it said it would do, did it well most of the time, and responded promptly and helpfully when it failed, sometimes going beyond what was required of it to satisfy their customers. In those days, I was an enthusiastic user, and there were very few horror stories on the discussion boards (even when adjusted for the smaller size at that time).
Something has changed since then. I don't think it's the boards, and I know it isn't me.
