Here is another intereting question on limiting buyers.

[thecoinhunterca]

Has anyone experimented with not shipping to buyers with less than a specific amount of feedback (for the purpose of argument  let's use 10) ? These limits can't be set so the only way it could be done is through the case refund system. Is it "Ebay Legal" to include such terms in the seller's terms and conditions? Keep in mind that I'm not looking for an opinion whether this is good business practice but strictly whether this breaches Ebay's guidelines.

Just an FYI that this was suggested solution to me (while discussing my outstanding case) by an Ebay CSR. Basically saying that if for some reason you can't or is not possible to offer tracking, then to cancel the transaction.  

[dmil8030]

Hello 'coinhunter',

As you know, it is not possible to bar new users with low feedback.  What I find unclear

is your assertion that,

<< the only way it could be done is through the case refund system>>.

Do you mean to, say, systematically refund all buyers with a feedback of less than 10 (or whatever

arbitrary number the seller chooses)?

Once a buyer has paid, that buyer can leave feedback.  Wouldn't that be rather risky?

Wouldn't it be better to set your seller preferences to only ship to certain countries where

problems are less likely to arise?

You've seen this link about all the many ways to keep prospective buyers away from your items:

http://pages.ebay.ca/help/sell/manage_bidders_ov.html#set

To my knowledge there is no specific ebay policy prohibiting sellers from having some line in

their listings about wanting to hear from low-feedback users prior to bidding.  It is, however,

unenforceable.  What if a zero-feedback newbie snipes it at the last second?

You can remove bids from your listings before the auction ends, but that is all you can do.

There is not yet a 'newbie block' available. 

Refusing to sell to newbies is not a violation, at least I haven't found a policy about that specifically.

But if you cancel and refund on someone who genuinely wants the item, well, do so at your peril.

After all, ebay can't very well give sellers the option to remove bids from their auctions whilst

simultaneously telling them they are not allowed to do it.

If you are worried about false 'not received' claims then you will want to send your items using a

Delivery Confirmed service.  If an item is not worth the cost (like cheaps CDs, for example) then

you will want to 'self-insure', -- add a few cents or so to every item you sell to cover your cost

in the event you have to refund yourself for a 'not received' claim.

Use airmail, not Surface mail.  But I'm sure you already know that.  And keep in mind that the

attendants who handle the phone calls at ebay live in a country where shipping is really cheap.

They have no idea what Delivery Confirmation to Australia would cost.

The 'rule of thumb' for cheap-o shipping is not to send anything with a value you are not prepared

to lose.  If you cannot stand to absorb the cost in the event of a loss, use Delivery Confirmation.

And be sure to set up your listings to accommodate this.

[thecoinhunterca]

Dmil.  Forgive me for the harsh tone but some of the responses here are just tiresome and they don't lead to improvement. Towing the company line isn't a solution. I know you're not and Ebay CSR  but you sound exactly like one.  It's like hearing the same record over and over and over again. But thank you so much for pointing out the blatantly obvious and reminding me of the existing rules and possible methods (inside the box) that most experienced Ebay users are already well aware of.

Let's be very clear on something. Ebay does not provide seller protection. Period! A system where the ONLY thing that a company does to protect it's sales force is to check if an item has a delivery confirmation is hardly "Seller protection" On August 20th it will do even less, but that's a different thread. The topic of self insurance has been discussed here at nausium. Call it what you want, it's just cost of doing business. If you feel that you need a "piggy bank" next to your computer to throw a quarter in it evrery time you make a sale to make it work, then so be it. The point is that if the burden of protection now falls on the seller (more and more so over time)  then the seller should have a say on how that's done. The idea of choosing your buyers is just another method of self protection. I see it no differently than limiting countries one sells to (an option you suggest). Some countries are higher risk and so are some buyers. So you call one a peril and one is protection? If I'm expected to self protect then allow me to choose the method of how I do that.

Many sellers have been after Ebay to put more "brains" behind the case system. If the item doesn't ship and if the user is fully refunded, there should be no repercussions for the seller and that includes feedback. In theory, at that point the buyer hasn't paid and shouldn't be eligible for feedback (I'm using your thinking here).

Mentioning removing bids or using your sniping example is irrelevant. We have a "buy it now" system with Ebay that many sellers use. In theory neither would apply and actually makes my argument that something should exists to block it or be able to effectively deal with it after the fact.

As mentioned in another post. Maybe Ebay should disallow non tracked shipping if it's such a "promoter" of it. I wonder why it doesn't do that...Hmmmmm...Oh wait...Tens of thousand of transactions are sold daily based on regular shipping costs and are shipped regular post daily.

Your comments on shipping methods are irrelevant to my specific question in this post and already discussed in other threads.

Finally, I'll pull out the rest of my hair if I continue to hear the statement "don't sell what you can't loose it". Albeit technically true, it's not remotely the point that anyone who is challenging the lack of seller protection on Ebay is trying to make. And certainly shouldn't be the official "motto" on a group help forum.

[brandeentertainment]

Set it in up in your store to block buyers with less then x amount of feebback in your ebay preferences...

Not sure if thats what you want but seeing as your not looking for opinion this post is short and sweet ...

Yes it is ebay legal and not sure the section your talking about setting it up in but thats not where it is ..

Yes I have expereimented with it but I do not want to tell you how it worked though because that is an opinion and you don't want those

[thecoinhunterca]

Brandee. I know the option. It only allows settings between -1 and -5 feedbacks. Ebay always assumes that a 0+ is a good account

[dmil8030]

thecoinhunterca wrote:

<<Forgive me for the harsh tone ...>>

As I'm sure you know, if you have to apologize for your harsh tone, perhaps you ought not to speak harshly. 

<<the responses here are just tiresome and they don't lead to improvement>>

This is easily explained because the boards on which you continue to post are member-to-member

chat boards and no one here has the power to make your changes for you, even if they wanted to.

Although I'm sure you already know that.

<<Towing the company line isn't a solution>>

Possibly not as you see it, but it does seem to be the only option.  Too much shall we say "innovation"

could become an awful lot like selling somewhere else.  As the saying goes, "it's ebay's playground and

they set the rules".

But of course you will have heard that many many times before.

<<thank you so much for pointing out the blatantly obvious...>>

Well I did simply make an effort to kindly respond to your query.  You asked about  <<not shipping to buyers with 

less than a specific amount of feedback>>  and specifically asked   <<Is it "Ebay Legal" to include such terms in

the seller's terms and conditions?>> wondering  <<whether this breaches Ebay's guidelines>>. 

I'm surprised you don't already know the answer to that, although maybe you do and posted merely out of a

desirous longing for that which you knew in advance did not exist. 

<<Ebay does not provide seller protection.>>

Sure it does.  The following link outlines how to avoid ever being scammed or losing money, although

you will have read over it numerous times before:

https://www.paypal.com/ca/webapps/mpp/security/seller-protection-learn-more

<<the burden of protection now falls on the seller >>

Who, in your highly experienced opinion, should it fall on?  The burden of seller protection falls

on the seller the way the burden of buyer protection falls on the buyer.  Have you not read the

countless posts every week here about buyers who blame ebay when they lose? 

You'll have already heard of that over and over and over again, of course.

<<the seller should have a say on how that's done.>>

Why then, with your vastly superior knowledge and experience, do you not offer some of your

undisputedly brilliant suggestions to your colleagues here? 

Presumably a system so thoroughly fraught with imperfections as this current one would be equally as

intolerably unsuitable in everyone else's considered opinon, though it's a wonder that ebay has any sellers

at all, given that the present system is as abhorrent as all that.

I say, however do they manage?

<<Your comments on shipping methods are irrelevant to my specific question in this post and

already discussed in other threads.>>

Ooops.  My bad.

I should have seen immediately that the content of your post was entirely fresh, new and original, 

and thus deserving of a much more progressively creative reply.   What was I thinking.

It's not such a marvel that you do not always get the kinds of responses you might prefer, 

not when talking to you is about as much fun as drinking bleach.

Best of luck 

[thecoinhunterca · Accepted solution]

"should have seen immediately that the content of your post was entirely fresh, new and original, 

and thus deserving of a much more progressively creative reply.   What was I thinking."

Exactly. So you'll try harder next time???? 

[rose-dee]

---

@thecoinhunterca wrote:

Has anyone experimented with not shipping to buyers with less than a specific amount of feedback (for the purpose of argument  let's use 10) ? These limits can't be set so the only way it could be done is through the case refund system. Is it "Ebay Legal" to include such terms in the seller's terms and conditions? Keep in mind that I'm not looking for an opinion whether this is good business practice but strictly whether this breaches Ebay's guidelines.

Just an FYI that this was suggested solution to me (while discussing my outstanding case) by an Ebay CSR. Basically saying that if for some reason you can't or is not possible to offer tracking, then to cancel the transaction.  

---

Your question implies that buyers with lower FB cause the most problems.  I don't think a lot of sellers would agree. That issue aside, you won't be breaching eBay policies by cancelling such transactions, but under the new Seller Performance guidelines, you'll soon rack up a lot of defect points for seller-initiated cancellations. 

The only transaction cancellations that will be permitted without generating a defect, starting April 16th (tomorrow) will be those initiated at the buyer's request. 

I don't know how long ago the eBay CSR gave you that advice, but it's no longer going to be appropriate unless you're willing to get a defect every time you follow it. 

Better to exclude countries (or whole continents) that seem to be more problematic than attempting to weed out newbies through cancellations.  Not only that, but sooner or later you may drive off a lot of your customers if your cancelled newbies leave complaints or retaliation in FB because you unilaterally disposed of them (don't forget buyers can still leave FB even for a cancelled transaction). 

The only reason I would ever initiate a cancellation without a buyer asking me to do so would be if I'd made such an egregious error that it would get me into bigger trouble than getting a defect (for example, accidentally listing something that was no longer available). 

[rose-dee]

I wanted to add that I'm not sure what you meant by "case refund".  If you were referring to simply refunding any low-FB buyer's money after they have paid for an item, well, there is no eBay rule against that, but you might soon find yourself with a lot of thwarted, angry buyers who will leave appropriate FB/DSRs, which will affect your defect rate anyway, so why risk it?

Quite honestly, I think the risk of the occasional loss or bad experience from a new eBayer is much less critical than the risk of having your Seller Performance status drop below standard.  The latter will adversely impact the visibility, placement, etc. of your items, which will affect your sales volumes.  Too many defects might ultimately mean losing the ability to sell entirely.  So, just because an action is allowed on eBay doesn't mean it's smart to do. 

[thecoinhunterca]

Well Dee, we just might disagree again. Everyone knows their own buyers and the market they play in. If I feel that my business model risk works better by limiting buyers instead of countries and/or continents, than I would like to have that choice. Think about it. In this day and age of world economy you're willing to cut out most of the world vs a small segment of higher risk users. I understand why Ebay would have a difficult time allowing the practise. It goes back to giving the old adage of how is someone supposed to be a 100 feedback buyer if they don't get a shot with 1. So again we are back to risk. I prefer to take risk internationally with a smaller individual base some other sellers may like it the other way, but give us the choice. You're correct in saying that the case scenario that was suggested by the CSR (a few days ago) may be difficult to implement with any sort of frequency under the new rule. Thinking about it though, I would welcome the functionality of being able to do that repercussion free.

Lastly you state "The only transaction cancellations that will be permitted without generating a defect, starting April 16th (tomorrow) will be those initiated at the buyer's request. "

Are you suggesting that sellers opening cases for non payment will generate a defect? 

[rose-dee]

---

@thecoinhunterca wrote:

Are you suggesting that sellers opening cases for non payment will generate a defect? 

---

No, only sellers who initiate a cancellation without being asked by a buyer to do so will get a defect.  An Unpaid Item Dispute, if opened as such, won't be counted as a defect. 

As an aside, one small bone I've had to pick with eBay is that they link the two together at the start of the process -- if you choose "Cancellation", you get one route, if you choose "Unpaid Item Dispute" you get another, yet they both show up as "Unpaid Item Dispute" on the transaction details.  I suspect this is what shows up on the buyer's side too, which could be disconcerting for newer buyers who don't know the system well.

I can't imagine eBay will ever allow sellers to restrict low-FB buyers.  The difficulty is that new buyers would stop coming to eBay if they continually found themselves blocked.  Apparently eBay is now worried about losing buyers, judging from the pronouncements made in this year's Spring Seller Update, so they .  And let's face it -- everybody started at "0" at some point, so if you're eBay and you need to attract new customers to the site, you have to let them through the door. 

Nonetheless, in my view, blocking buyers with "x" number of strikes in a given time period (as eBay permits us to do), does effectively weed out the real troublemakers, but only as long as sellers continue to report buyers who flagrantly break the rules or cause havoc.  I think there has been some progress made by eBay in taking those reports more seriously.