Has anyone else copped this 4% surcharge for Very High SNAD rate ?

[dontmissthese]

Since 21st January this little charmer has dropped in my lap.

Additional 4% fee for Very High Item not as described rates

Thing is, according to the metric break down, my rate is NOT Very High.

Called ebay and it is being rectified.

Seems like a money grab because ebay has specified 0.40% as a return rate

based on a 'peer' group yet they have provided no details about what this

peer group is.

[dontmissthese]

I hope the internet will always be as it has entrenched itself as our 'knowledge' base.

At 79 years of age I should have a room full of books including encyclopedia but I just

Google. Thankfully most of my general knowledge is now hard wired but I pity ( and to

a certain extent fear ) those who rely on a gadget in their hands to add simple numbers.

The internet is nothing more than a modern Tower of Babel with a side dish of 'watching

you closely with a view to getting you to BUY'.

A massive solar flare will see billions of people staring blankly at the palms of their hands.

[dontmissthese]

Looks like a lot of thin ice in our futures.

Sorry but should have been more correctly stated as...

Looks like a lot of thin ice in our futures ( apart from those of articulate trolls ).

[brerrabbit585]

I'm not sure how they could provide any data without breaching privacy. They can hardly give us a list of which sellers they're comparing us to, or how many returns they have compared to ours.

Re "pretty much anyone can do the math", I think you're over-estimating most people's ability!

[digital*ghost]

My main point was that they are using 100% unverifiable data to decide on who gets charged higher fees and who doesn't. This puts sellers in a completely powerless position if they are affected by the extra FVF, because they have no basis for saying it isn't right, it's just a decision handed down from on high using data only eBay knows. (They could start by saying how many sellers I'm being compared to, sales volume etc, there's a lot of information that can be provided which eBay have opted not to). 

The other metrics are not unverifiable, if someone is bad at maths, I'm sure they can find someone who is decent enough to work out if it adds up - not so with the service performance metric.

The fact that any opened request counts, no matter what, is just further proof to me that this initiative is for getting more revenue, not discouraging bad selling practices.

[dontmissthese]

I am sure that ebay wouldn't provide the basis for their 'peer' calculation even

to the extent of providing the 'number' of sellers that formed the peer group.

[brerrabbit585]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

By my calculations, it would take 4 requests to put me in the "average" zone, and maybe 6-7 to put me in the "very high" zone. 

Let's say it's 8 - that's 0.36% of transactions. 

Very narrow edge indeed. 

---

https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/selling-policies/service-metrics-policy?id=4769

According to the policy you could have 22 returns for not as described without being subject to consequences (22 being under 1% of your 2,222 transactions).  You said it's clearly now less than 1% but the policy still says it's 1%.  I think that gives you plenty of wiggle room.  If your rate of returns for INAD went up to 22 you could expect the same to happen to other sellers, which would raise the peer percentage so that your rating would drop again.

Your rate is evaluated as "High" or "Very High":

• Item not as described: You're not performing as well as your peers in making sure that buyers receive the items they ordered as described in the listing, and in setting and meeting buyer expectations.
  If you're rated Very High in a category, but you had fewer than 10 "Item not as described" returns or your "Item not as described" rate is under 1% in a specific category during the evaluation period, you won't be subject to consequences.

[digital*ghost]

That does put it (or perhaps just me) in a better perspective.

....But I still don't like the whole system   

[dontmissthese]

No one is in disagreement as to the principle ebay is adopting but

to select a group based on the lowest number of returns while at the same time

encouraging buyers to return items seems a little unfair.

Surely it would be more fair to adopt a baseline return rate using an average

across ALL similar sellers. 

[brerrabbit585]

Try looking at it from a different perspective. Buyers are leaving ebay in droves because of sellers who are sloppy with their descriptions, or deliberately lie. One of the best ways to pull those sellers into line is to hit them in their hip pocket as it seems to be the only thing that'll make some people listen.

I realise it's not fair if cases are opened and then closed in the seller's favour, but ebay have given sellers a fair safety margin.

[digital*ghost]

---

@brerrabbit585 wrote:
Try looking at it from a different perspective. Buyers are leaving ebay in droves because of sellers who are sloppy with their descriptions, or deliberately lie. One of the best ways to pull those sellers into line is to hit them in their hip pocket as it seems to be the only thing that'll make some people listen.

I realise it's not fair if cases are opened and then closed in the seller's favour, but ebay have given sellers a fair safety margin.

---

I see that perspective, I just can't agree with this as the solution to it, nor can I agree with how it's been implemented. 

In carrot vs stick situations, carrots are proven to be more effective.

If a seller genuinely doesn't care, they can just up their prices.

The case I referred to previously, the buyer opened an INAD with the wrong seller. They realised their mistake, the case was closed by the buyer, ebay refused to remove the case from counting towards this metric.