eBay

ra_prok · ‎01-06-2015

I have shipped about 20 xbox games via oversized letterpost for $2.20 worth of postage. Now Canada Post lost one, the most expensive one I've sold ($30). The buyer says he didn't get it and I have no reason to doubt him, just as he has no reason to doubt that I put it in the mail.

I've called CP, opened a ticket, and they said because I didn't get tracking or insurance, there is nothing they can do. I'll refund his money because I'm a trusting person but is there anything else I can do? Does ebay or paypal provide seller insurance for stuff like this or is it my bad because I didn't get tracking? I can't find anything in their documentation.

I just can't sell a video game on ebay and charge $10 shipping for a trackable package... that's just dumb. Most of my games only sell for $15!

Did I just learn a $30.00 lesson?

pjcdn2005 · ‎01-07-2015

@rose-dee wrote:
@pjcdn2005 wrote:
"I agree that ebay tends to create policies that are one size fits all I honestly don't feel that their policies are meant to isolate or eliminate small sellers. However, they don't always seem to realize or think ahead about how some policies will negatively affect the good sellers."

Unfortunately I can't agree. I don't see eBay as being quite so naive (or stupid). They do make blunders, and sometimes roll out policies before all consequences are fully considered.

However, there are underlying agendas and purposes that none of us ordinary folk will ever know, but we can see the general trend. In my view that trend is not one-size-fits-all, but rather that all sellers are being made to toe the line under policies that were conceived primarily for the benefit of the bigger retailers. If that weren't the case, I would not have noticed Rodney's faux pas with such clarity, nor would it have been quickly removed from the board. The door opened just a crack, and was quickly shut again.

I don't want to repeat my reasons here for my views on eBay's focus, but I set some of them out in Post #9 of this thread: http://community.ebay.ca/t5/Seller-Central/Not-Easy-to-Sell-on-eBay/td-p/286977

"I believe that the remark 'from the horse's mouth' that you are referring to was made about one policy in answer to a comment or a question by another poster. The rep agreed with the poster that the policy being discussed might benefit larger sellers more but did not say or suggest that the new policies were being implemented for the benefit of the larger sellers."

Actually, that is exactly what Rodney said, or I would not have been so alarmed. And doubtless that is precisely why it was removed from the board with such haste.

The discussion concerned a seller's complaints about the difficulty a policy change would cause, but Rodney rationalized it by saying that the policy was designed to accommodate larger sellers. A horse of a completely different colour.

We agree then that the remark was about one specific policy. I remember him saying that it might benefit big sellers, not that it was designed for that reason but even if he did say that, that is not the same as saying that all new policies and rules and site changes were aimed at larger sellers which is what your earlier post stated as fact.

"Instead eBay decided to direct its corporate mind, particularly since about 2012, to tailoring policies and rules (and incidentally, the functioning of the site itself) to meet the needs and desires of its highest volume sellers and commercial retailers.

I'm not guessing at this premise; as I've said on other occasions, it came straight from the horse's mouth"

rose-dee · ‎01-08-2015

@pjcdn2005 wrote:
We agree then that the remark was about one specific policy. I remember him saying that it might benefit big sellers, not that it was designed for that reason but even if he did say that, that is not the same as saying that all new policies and rules and site changes were aimed at larger sellers which is what your earlier post stated as fact.

"Instead eBay decided to direct its corporate mind, particularly since about 2012, to tailoring policies and rules (and incidentally, the functioning of the site itself) to meet the needs and desires of its highest volume sellers and commercial retailers.

I'm not guessing at this premise; as I've said on other occasions, it came straight from the horse's mouth"

'pj' -- The operative word in my original comment was "premise". I was extrapolating from Rodney's gaffe based on what else I was seeing going on with eBay policies at that time and afterward.

That obvious slip, which attempted to excuse the downsides for small sellers of one policy by means of the lame and generalized argument that it was necessary to meet the needs of eBay's biggest sellers, could have been applied equally to almost every new policy eBay has introduced in the last 2 years. That rationale was so weak that its glibness was telling. Rodney just rattled it off in a very nonchalant and almost unconscious fashion, like someone restating the obvious for the umpteenth time. It's called the 'tip of the iceberg', and that is exactly what I believed was happening that day.

My conclusion as to overall eBay policy wasn't a fact, but it wasn't much of a stretch either. I think my deduction was proven by the rapidity with which Rodney's remark was erased from the record (it was gone the very next day). If it had not been so embarrassingly representative and revealing of eBay's big picture agenda, I doubt it would have been removed.

It's like the politician who is asked if he's slept with a particular woman on a particular day and says, well, he just met her for lunch on that occasion, then quickly attempts to retract the remark -- you know there has to be more to that story, and he knows that you know he's just confirmed it. (Remember Clinton?)