I Might Owe eBay an Apology (RE: New Seller Standards)

[digital*ghost]

And fellow forum members.

I started a new thread on this since it's important info, and I've been one of the ones ranting the loudest about the new late shipment policy and how it will affect sellers. 

I read the US policy, glanced at the Aus one, saw that they virtually mirrored one another and left it at that, but... there seems to be one key difference (because I didn't read the Oz one as thorougly as the US one, I don't know if this is an update after uproar, or it was always like this).

• To qualify for Top Rated Seller status, Australian sellers can have a maximum of 0.5% of transactions with defects and a maximum of 5% of transactions with late shipment (that do not meet the new "on-time shipping" requirement).
• To meet minimum performance requirements, Australian sellers can have a maximum of 2% of transactions with defects. Sellers who do not meet minimum performance requirements will fall Below Standard. 

There is no maximum percentage allowed for late shipment like there is in the US, which a seller could exceed to fall below standard. So it would appear that while you can lose TRS via 'late' shipments, you can't be restricted or suspended from selling.

I do hope that this is correct, and I also apologise to fellow forum members if my info (and ranting) was misinformed and caused unnecessary stress. 

[joethenuts]

sometimes changes need to happen ,sometimes there a pain, scammers  and thiefs are at there top in b&m stores also,

i am afraid changes have to happen to try and stop sellers and buyers doing the wrong thing.

[joethenuts]

i dont have a problem with what you do , i am talking about sellers complaining about buyers saying they did not get there items, and wonder why they have to pay .because they took there envelope to the postoffice with proof of a photo.

also was i talking to you

[go-tazz]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

The thing is, those of us who don't use trackable postage services do so with a full understanding of what is required by eBay / PayPal to defend a claim. But it's more than that, I for one have always made the deliberate choice to provide low-cost, untracked postage on items below a certain value, and take full responsibility for that choice, no one here has said they wouldn't or don't. eBay and PayPal requirements don't even matter to me in that sense, I couldn't care less if they required proof of delivery or accepted the sworn testimony of a phone psychic, my buyers, and my business, take precedence over what eBay wants, and that's exactly how it should be.  

---

I do exactly the same as in my case if I raised the price of some items by $3 dollars then no one would buy them,

(that's exactly the same as needing to send them registered as that has tracking).

If all items had to be sent with tracking then there would be a sharp drop in sales from sellers that sent via the

letter rate services,

If it came down to having tracking on all items it would be pointless for me to sell single items,(I only buy stuff with money I receive from selling stuff so it would curtail my buying as well),

[digital*ghost]

---

@joethenuts wrote:

 i am talking about sellers complaining about buyers saying they did not get there items, and wonder why they have to pay .because they took there envelope to the postoffice with proof of a photo.

also was i talking to you

---

I don't care who you were talking to, I decided to talk to you, specifically because this: 

talking about sellers complaining about buyers saying they did not get there items

was completely irrelevant to anything anyone in this thread has said. No one in this thread complained about buyers saying they didn't get their items, so bringing it up was pointless. 

That would be like me posting some interesting facts about the history of stained glass windows in your "let me explain...." thread. I mean, I could find that subject really interesting, and want to talk about it all the time, maybe even in a way that suggests I think everyone else should be just as interested in the subject, as well agree with all my opinions about it, but ultimately posting about it out of the blue in unrelated topics would be outright silly. 

[digital*ghost]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

 I didn't read the Oz one as thorougly

---

And still yet did not. Ugh... 

Just thought I better add this quote to the info in my OP.

If you're not meeting the minimum performance requirements for:

"On-time-shipping" – we may email, call or alert you in your account and may limit some of the postage options available to make sure buyers have the right expectations on delivery times. You'll still be able to run your business on eBay, as we will not restrict your selling activity.

Not quite sure how that's going to work, but the potential for fairly significant interference and would be as good as restricting selling in a lot of cases (if they limit available postage options to trackable services). 

[dylan11235813]

do they say what the minimum performance for the shipping time is ?

[mbselections00]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

 I didn't read the Oz one as thorougly

---

And still yet did not. Ugh... 

Just thought I better add this quote to the info in my OP.

If you're not meeting the minimum performance requirements for:

"On-time-shipping" – we may email, call or alert you in your account and may limit some of the postage options available to make sure buyers have the right expectations on delivery times. You'll still be able to run your business on eBay, as we will not restrict your selling activity.

Not quite sure how that's going to work, but the potential for fairly significant interference and would be as good as restricting selling in a lot of cases (if they limit available postage options to trackable services). 

---

And no doubt that would mean they would enforce/impose a minimum requirement of Registered - and sure, we may still be able to run our business on eBay, but we would have none, as the cost of post would be prohibitive for low value items.  Sorry, guess that's really what you were saying in the second bit - which is definitely how I see it also

[mbselections00]

---

@dylan11235813 wrote:

do they say what the minimum performance for the shipping time is ?

---

That could be interesting for those intending to extend out to 4 and 5 days shipping time - maybe ebay will not see that as reasonable . . . . . .  just a thought

[mbselections00]

I Might Owe eBay an Apology (RE: New Seller Standards)

Just a quick comment on the topic of this thread digi - I don't think so !!!  If the new Standards are so bloomin complicated someone as experienced as yourself has trouble interpreting them, then heaven help the rest of us

[sueken4812]

Well in my capacity as a buyer on ebay .... I must say, that not all sellers are as pedantic as we are in posting items quickly.  
I have experienced sellers take anywhere 2 to 4 weeks to post ..... yes one seller took 4 weeks to post me something.  
It was only that I really wanted the items, and she had said she was getting married and going on honeymoon.  
Then didn't get around to posting before she left.  So I let it ride.  But I had to laugh she didn't mark the item as posted until she returned......I can remember getting the email.

And I have quite a few sellers take 2 weeks to post things.  I don't agonise over it, and as a seller I'm not going to ping them for it, they could get vindictive and do it back to me....... so I just don't ever buy of them again.    But it may be that it happens often, and perhaps this is why the new rules have been introduced.