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.

[gutterpunkz05]

I always new I was special.

(You don't have any peer benchmarks)

Thats what it says

[springyzone]

---

@dontmissthese wrote:

I guess I will just have to keep wondering about the 'size' of the peer sample.

In my selling area there may well be 50,000 sellers.

What if eBay has selected 100 of the lowest return rate sellers.

It's hardly a representative sample.

Why not an 'average' return rate across all 50,000 sellers ?

It shall remain one of life's great mysteries unless the overall impact

is so severe financially that a 'class' might compel ebay to substatiate

the basis for it's 'peer' data.

We can all dream 🙂

---

I've no idea of how ebay chooses a core peer 'average' but I do know this much. In most cases, if you are trying to work out where the middle mark is, you take the top & bottom 10% out of your calculations. They will skew your score.

So by rights, in a group of 50,000 sellers, those 100 lowest return rate sellers would not be in any calculation.

I think a major concern though would be what DG brought up, in that if a buyer opens a case against a seller & that case is found in the seller's favour, that that is still being included in the stats. That's crazy & it makes me wonder who is guiding these calculations.

I'm no Maths whizz but even I would know better than to do that.

[dontmissthese]

You stated...."but their policy sounds to me as though they compare you to all the sellers in your category with similiar terms and prices (and places you post to)."

EBay's use of the word Peers tends to imply a select group. This group ( as in number of sellers ) remains unspecified.

[brerrabbit585]

---

@springyzone wrote:

---

@dontmissthese wrote:

I guess I will just have to keep wondering about the 'size' of the peer sample.

In my selling area there may well be 50,000 sellers.

What if eBay has selected 100 of the lowest return rate sellers.

It's hardly a representative sample.

Why not an 'average' return rate across all 50,000 sellers ?

It shall remain one of life's great mysteries unless the overall impact

is so severe financially that a 'class' might compel ebay to substatiate

the basis for it's 'peer' data.

We can all dream 🙂

---

I've no idea of how ebay chooses a core peer 'average' but I do know this much. In most cases, if you are trying to work out where the middle mark is, you take the top & bottom 10% out of your calculations. They will skew your score.

So by rights, in a group of 50,000 sellers, those 100 lowest return rate sellers would not be in any calculation.

I think a major concern though would be what DG brought up, in that if a buyer opens a case against a seller & that case is found in the seller's favour, that that is still being included in the stats. That's crazy & it makes me wonder who is guiding these calculations.

I'm no Maths whizz but even I would know better than to do that.

---

It's not an average if you take out the top & bottom 10% when you do your calculations, especially if 99% of the peer group have no returns and 1% have a lot of returns, putting them in the 'very high' category. 

There have to be at least 50 sellers in the same category with similar terms and prices before they can do a peer average, according to what I read yesterday (unless my memory has failed me overnight).  If there's a few thousand sellers in a category (hardly likely in Australia) I'd imagine they'd compare ALL of the ones with similar terms (eg. returns or no returns) in the same way that they compare us to all the other sellers for the rest of our stats in the performance summary (called market rather than peers there because it's all of that category, not just those with similar terms).  That means if you have different terms to most of your competitors you're not likely to have peers and you're less likely to get stung with the extra 4%.  In some categories very few sellers offer returns so anyone who does offer them would be a lot safer from comparisons. 

[brerrabbit585]

---

@dontmissthese wrote:

You stated...."but their policy sounds to me as though they compare you to all the sellers in your category with similiar terms and prices (and places you post to)."

EBay's use of the word Peers tends to imply a select group. This group ( as in number of sellers ) remains unspecified.

---

They spell out what peers means - those sellers with similar terms to you.  Peers means equals..  I don't know where you get the idea that it implies they pick and choose which of our peers they want to compare us to.  I'd say that you're just choosing to read it that way because of your circumstances. 

[fred_foofighter]

---

@brerrabbit585 wrote:

---

---

It's not an average if you take out the top & bottom 10% when you do your calculations, especially if 99% of the peer group have no returns and 1% have a lot of returns, putting them in the 'very high' category. 

---

Actually it is an average (Mean), its called a Trimmed Mean where the a percentage of the high and low outliers are removed.  A more rigorous way would be to removed data that is +/- 3 SD (Standard Deviations).

[gec2002]

---

@brerrabbit585 wrote:

---

@dontmissthese wrote:

You stated...."but their policy sounds to me as though they compare you to all the sellers in your category with similiar terms and prices (and places you post to)."

EBay's use of the word Peers tends to imply a select group. This group ( as in number of sellers ) remains unspecified.

---

They spell out what peers means - those sellers with similar terms to you.  Peers means equals..  I don't know where you get the idea that it implies they pick and choose which of our peers they want to compare us to.  I'd say that you're just choosing to read it that way because of your circumstances. 

---

The problem is some sellers are more equal than others, and eBay don't spell out who your peers are.  eg you sell CDs and you sell mostly new CDs.  Are your peers

1. Anybody who sells CDs

2.Those who only sell new
3. Those who sell the same % of used
4. Those who sell the same number as you exactly

5. Those who sell the same number as plus or minus 100

5. Those who sell the same number as plus or minus 1000

Who knows only eBay and they won't tell you.

A 4% additional fee is a approx 40% increase in your fees ie from approx 10% to 14% we aren't talking a trival increase.  The criteria for a seller to get this size of increase in fees should be absolutely clear.  It's hard not to see it as a revenue cash grab, when the criteria are so vague.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[brerrabbit585]

As I've already said in a previous post, they DO spell out that item condiition (new or used) is one of the criteria, so they won't compare someone who sells used items to someone who sells new. The number you sell is irrelevant as it works on percentages, except that very small sellers won't be compared to anyone, according to what's shown in the screenshot below.

Even if they did compare us to the 30 sellers in a category with the least returns for INAD, if we're a lot higher than them we should be asking ourselves what we're doing wrong, which is the whole point of the system.  I'm not talking about scam prone categories like clothes and a few others.

[dontmissthese]

Learned something new. I have always thought of peers as higher ups.

I can't know everything I guess.

In my case ebay actually made an error in calculation and lumped all

returns rather than calculating based on NAD returns.

[gec2002]

---

@brerrabbit585 wrote:

As I've already said in a previous post, they DO spell out that item condiition (new or used) is one of the criteria, so they won't compare someone who sells used items to someone who sells new. The number you sell is irrelevant as it works on percentages, except that very small sellers won't be compared to anyone, according to what's shown in the screenshot below.

Even if they did compare us to the 30 sellers in a category with the least returns for INAD, if we're a lot higher than them we should be asking ourselves what we're doing wrong, which is the whole point of the system.  I'm not talking about scam prone categories like clothes and a few others.

---

I am sorry i must have missed where does it say new vs used.  In the case of CDs all my service metrics have is category Music and my total transactions which includes some used with mostly new.

The only info I can find is

"Peer benchmarks are comparisons of your rates of 'Item not received' and 'Item not as described' requests to other sellers offering similar products under similar circumstances, including selling price, terms of sale, and shipping destination."

and

"What are peer seller benchmarks and how are they determined?

A peer seller benchmark represents the performance of all sellers who offer similar products. You can use this information to make comparisons and identify opportunities to improve your business practices.

When determining peer benchmarks, we will consider factors that we believe impact the published metrics, including the listing site, location of the buyer, product category, sales price, item condition, and more."

So what does "other sellers offering similar products under similar circumstances" mean the exact same mix or not.  Please explain