posted on January 25, 2001 07:59:50 PM
Well, personally I don't care how "nice" this guy is or what a great service he offers when he harvests my e-mail address from ebay. He did not get it from this message board.
Also by putting "ebay" in the subject and at the bottom of the e-mail he tries to make it look like he is an affiliate of ebay which he is not.
I consider this spam and I got spammed by him twice already. FYI, ebay also considers this spam.
I worked hard for my feedback and the rating speaks for itself. I am wondering if I really need an icon to make me look even more trustworthy?
posted on January 25, 2001 08:36:29 PM
I didn't say that SPAM was good. I said that some SPAM was "desirable".
The email messages sent from ReliableMerchants was indeed desirable. Normally, significantly less than 1% of the people follow up on SPAM by visiting the site, (I believe the number is .2%).
With the email we sent out 6+% of the people signed up for our service. 9+% visitied our site -- The numbers speak for themselves -- The sign-up rate is immeasurably higher than normal, and the site visit rate is 45X higher than normal SPAM. This is what I classify as desirable SPAM. email which people want to receive.
The auction with a picture from Microsoft's web-site is VERY much legal. Let me quote from their web-site:
"Microsoft does not allow use of our box shots on third party software packaging. However, Microsoft does not object to third party use of box shots of our products in advertising, on documentation, in books and other printed matter, on video tape, in software applications, on World Wide Web pages... no further written permission is required:"
Please next time review the facts. I did nothing wrong, and had looked into the legality before using the image.
ReliableMerchants looks down upon fedback padding. I regret what I did -- I was unfamiliar with the eBay world, and its policies when it happenned. Recall that it was the first two feedbacks I received.
posted on January 25, 2001 08:38:49 PM
Steven...from your site I read this
"Therefore, those who meet the criteria for our seal are, rest-assured, fully reliable.
These people will receive our unique and personalized graphic seal of approval. This induces an awareness in potential customers of a merchant's integrity and that a trusted, unbiased third-party verified their legitimacy. The result of all this will be an increase in the amount of people that are willing to bid simply because they have more confidence in the seller,..." (bolding mine)
You are basically guaranteeing the reliability of those who carry your seal and giving the buyer the impression that they do not need to read the seller's feedback as they can rely on your mathmatical formulas instead. Yet, when I just went and had both my IDs rated it was obvious that the numbers were crunched but the texture wasn't examined.
The texture (what was said) of a feedback file gives a lot of clues to the seller's reliability...as it also gives a lot of clues to the personality of those who gave negatives. The texture also can show negatives that were in fact given as positives (the seller did enough of the transaction right that the buyer didn't want to give a neg or neutral but the buyer was still not fully satisfied). The texture, along with deeper investigation into a negative leaving buyer, can also reveal that a neg was in reality given in retaliation for a legitimate neg the seller left the buyer.
Your rating also leaves out another part of feedback that can be a predictor of how satisfied a buyer will be with a seller...the number of feedback the seller has left..and whether he only leaves feedback AFTER the buyer leaves his.
Another form of fraud on ebay that I think is much more prevelant than anything else...and something that REALLY will turn buyer off..shilling...isn't even addressed by your method.
I know of two individuals who would rate 100+ on your scale but they both shill...their own auctions and each other's. both currently carry the OAUA logo on their auctions...and it is not unreasonable to presume they would love to have your logo too...and would qualify.
You say you have tested your method, but failed to say how. How many sellers did you rate and then follow their record to see if your rating predictions were accurate? And for how long did you follow them?
Do you want a copy of your good spam posted there? If you get lucky it might not be listed too close to a bad spam and might only get a warning from your upstream provider. On the other hand, you could get sued for the unauthorized use of ISP's hardware (spam use) and your upstream provider can cut you off without warning (unless you use UU.Net). Have your legal department look into this.
The privacy policy includes vague terminologies regarding mergers, since we do plan on merging. I assure you that when we do merge, no email addresses will be sold.
If you merge, the email addresses will be aquired in the merger. Client lists are part of the assets.
posted on January 25, 2001 08:42:14 PM
I don't see how the formula can be used as a reliable indicator of anything.
For example, I have 66 neutral feedback comments. Many of my older neutrals were of the "Hi, can't get your email - email me" variety. This used to be a common practice on Ebay. It also used to be a very common practice for the seller to leave neutral responses to feedbacks in thier own feedback file to respond to other comments. I left a dozen or so of the neutrals in my own file when I had a problem with my vengeful ex-wife emailing all of my customers with a bunch of lies. (This was all a few years ago before Ebay had the capability to respond to each comment. And before Ebay started breaking down the Positive/Negative/Neutral totals on your feedback page.) I also in my feedback, for example, have 16 feedbacks that were converted to neutral because the users are no longer registered users.
How does this formula of yours address the older neutral feedback issues for those of us Ebayers that have been around since the early days of Ebay feedback?
posted on January 25, 2001 08:44:19 PM
Shaani -- you accuse RM of harvesting email addresses from eBay yet you don't know how RM got the email addresses. It is simply not your business how we got the email addresses, but suffice it to say that it was done in a fully legal manner, in accordance with State and Government statures.
Next, the Spamming is legal as well. In accordance with the following:
Netizens protection act of 1997 (HR 1748 105th congress), Consumer Internet Privacy Protection act of 1997 (HR 98 105th Congress), and finally, the Data Privacy act of 1997 (HR 238 105th Congress)
--------
In essense, SPAM is illegal if it is for commercial purposes -- Sign-Up is FREE. Supplement this, with the fact that the email advertises integrity, and you get one very legal SPAM.
Do you think I would have let SPAM be sent out, without prior approval from lawyers? Do you think I would send out SPAM if I thought it would marr the sites credibility?
posted on January 25, 2001 08:52:58 PM
Steven...whether you classify it as spam or not...those on the recieving end of it SEE it as spam. Not to good for your image.
I also was intrigued by your defense that the spam was desirable by evidence of the click through rate and therefore "good" spam. In my opinion, there is no such thing as good spam.
I also was very turned off by your "its none of your business" response to the person questioning where you got the email addresses.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:01:41 PM
Nowhere is the Reliability of a ReliableMerchant guaranteed. The algorithm holds up to the 98% confidence level, this means that 1 out of 50 people will be immue to the grade.
Nevertheless it does work for 49 out of 50 people.
Your next point is truly interesting. You mention that the texture of the comments aren't evaluated. (The words aren't parsed).
Interestingly, in a previous version of the algorithm, they were! The algorithm went through each and every word of each and every comment. This is a superb idea in theory but not in practice.
The advantage to parsing the comments is minimal. We gain .5% confidence. The algorithm will hold true for 1 more person in 200! And for that, it will take a full minute longer to grade for many people.
So, we had it in a test-version of the algorithm, and it is a good idea, but the bsacrifice is large, and the benifits minimal.
The algorithm doesn't address shilling because we don't believe that can be easily quantified. Even if it can, again, this is a good idea in theory but not in practice. It is tantamount to saying that the Yahoo!(TM) search engine would be better if it looked at every single thing in every page in every search. Sure there would be increased accuracy, but there would also be a sacrifice, and that is time. The sacrifice isn't worth th reward.
How long have I previously tested out the algorithm? About 16 months!
When i founded ReliableMerchants, it was bibin.com. I developed an algorithm, tested it out on 3000, (of which 168 signed up), and from the results fine-tuned it throughout the year, with an actuary, as well as several other people.
The bibin.com home page has been taken down, but if you want to see what it was like, I will put it back up.
You can search for bibin.com (Item description search), on eBay. I believe that there is still somebody who uses the bibin.com seal.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:03:14 PMSPAM is illegal if it is for commercial purposes -- Sign-Up is FREE
You are registered as a dot.com site. Therefore you are a commercial entreprise. The fact that your service is presently free is irrelevant. You stand to gain commercially if you merge, sell, and/or begin charging when and if traffic ever permits it.
Every person paying for an ISP pays a hidden surcharge because of the added costs from SPAM. Spammers are essentially marketing their companies to their potential customers with their paid resources. Please, think again if you still think this is desirable. Would you send a snail mail ad postage due?
Do you think I would send out SPAM if I thought it would marr the sites credibility?
IMHO it already has hurt the credibility of the site.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:04:07 PM
I say that it is not anybody's business because it isn't. I am not even allowed to say if I wanted to! This is a business and there are other people involved.
I am sorry if this turned anybody off. I am not allowed to say.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:07:23 PM
The fact that it the service Free is certainly not irrelavent.
From what I have been told, this is exactly what makes it legal.
But you are right, it is in the eyes of the reciever -- If you really think that it is upsetting people then I will most definitely stop. I personally think, however, that it does more good than bad.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:09:39 PM
You mention that you don't see how the algorithm could be a good indicator of anything, because people leave neutrals on themselves, and because some neutrals are just that, 'neutral'.
The algorithm only takes into account unique neutrals by other people. If you leave a neutral on yourself, it will not be taken into account. Similarly, if somebody leaves two neutrals on you, it will not be taken into account as two.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:14:37 PM
I understand the reasons of the questions, I really do. But it seems to me that maybe the CEO could come in if hes a mind to, and help Steven? Concerning spam...when I first started ebay, if someone hadnt spammed me AW site, I would never have known it existed, as well as many other sites I came across that I LIKED. Everyone has to start from somewhere. This place offers something free (for now anyway...when it isnt free anymore, then I will not use it if I feel it isnt worth the cost). I go by my instincts, and even though there are some rough edges and things they need to "enhance", I still dont regret TRYING them. And it seems Im not alone in that, either.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:20:39 PM
Steven..from your own site comes the words "those who meet the criteria for our seal are, rest assured, fully reliable"
This IS a form of a guarantee...and one that can lead an unwary buyer into a false sense of security.
Your seal can also lead to some real rip-offs. All it takes is someone with a plan to defraud...that person sells enough on ebay..(or buys) to qualify for your seal then puts up fast 3 day dutch auctions for multiple high end items and voila big fraud...and the buyers that were defrauded trusted your logo
Since your system does not look at the texture, it has no way of knowing if the feedback is for buying or selling, low price items or high, dutch auctions or single. Your logo would be a great advantage to someone who is planning a big scam.
Your logo would lull the buyer into being even less vigilant than they are today.
By the way...I just looked at the ebay TOS...a minor (you) is not allowed to conduct business on ebay because they cannot enter into a valid contract. So..is your id really yours or is it your mother's. If it is yours, you are already committing a fraud on your customers because they are unaware they have entered into a contract with someone who is not legally able to form that contract.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:21:00 PM
Don't let them get to you Steve. Sometimes I wonder if the Posters here have a good word for anything!
Anyways, I think the site is an interesting concept and we may decide to sign up. As for the SPAM, I agree with you, there are good kinds of SPAM and your email falls into that category.
I hope the rest of y'all will be a little more polite to the man (boy?) since he has at least taken the time to come and answer your questions.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:32:01 PMSteven, WELCOME. I have a simple question on determining the feedback percentage total.
Not all sellers use two IDs on eBay - one for buying and one for selling. Some use only one ID for both. In your formula does it interpret between a positive for buying or selling, or are all positives combined?
Edited to add welcome.
[ edited by brie49 on Jan 25, 2001 09:41 PM ]
I see your point. I will have the webmaster remove that phrase.
BUT
because the seal can lead to a few rip-offs, certainly doesn't preclude the integrity which it represents.
I don't mean to be harsh, but in my humble opinion, your argument is flawed at the core. In essense you are saying that because there will be a few people who will be able to better scam people with the seal, we should prevent all of the other, honest, people from reaping the benefits of the seal.
As I mentioned, the seal holds up to the 98% confidence level. 1 out of 50 people could be con-artists.
However, 49 out of 50 people increase their sales, and instill a sense of trust in their customers.
In terms of the minor thing -- there is actually a (rather funny) story behind it -- Yes, my mom signed me up for eBay, and she has been signing the documents for ReliableMerchants. not that I mind, but the law forced me to give my mother a percentage of my company so that she can sign the papers, so that it can be legal!
Imagine -- your mom signing your patent. What a bummer.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:34:01 PM
Genxmike...it looks to me that all the posters are being polite.
But we are asking hard questions...which is as it should be. the young man is representing something that could affect all of us and we need to know just what that effect could be before we decide to use his service or not.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:39:45 PM
The formula does not destinguish whether a feedback was left for a sale or a purchase.
Again, doing so is good in theory but not in practice.
A good buyer does not necessarily make a good seller. But usually it does.
However, 'usually' is not enough to formulate an accurate algorithm. Rather, our service is simply not for buyers, and as such we are not concerned whether a buyer is a good seller.
The service is meant to attract people who primarily sell.
Will somebody who primarily engages in buying -- signup for the service for the 20% of his eBay activity which involves selling? (Assuming that 1 out of his 5 transactions are a sale)
Probably not.
But again, 'probably', and 'usually', aren't enough to base an algorithm on.
There is a simple mathematical concept. And that is that two wrongs make a right. -1 + -1 = 0. No + No = yes
Applying this concept, 'probably' + 'usually' = anomaly
To illustrate this concept: Multiply the 20% which represents the probably, by the unassigned usually. Say we assign a value of 9 -- 9 out of 10 times a good buyer makes a good seller. We are left with the '1' ugly duckling which the algorithm has to account for. So we are looking for the remaining 10%...
Now we are working with .20*.1 = 2%
You are asking me to adjust my algorithm for 1 out of 50 users!
Again, I told you in many was, it holds up to the 98% confidence level. This is a perfect example, where for 1 out of 50 users it will not work.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:40:23 PM
Something doesnt make sense to me, so forgive my ignorance. Amy, you said thatcustomers wouldnt use more insight with the logo and could be scammed by someone with bad motives. Couldnt the same be said for ANY logo claiming one to be a good merchant? What about power sellers? How many are not so good as sellers themselves? Its up to the bidder to check the feedback, which is right there for them to see, not just RM logo or any other "claim" they have as to being "honest".
posted on January 25, 2001 09:48:09 PM
Steven...rather than being flawed, the core of my concern is very relevant.
If you peruse the different OAI boards you will soon see that many of the buying public does not practice Caveat Emptor...they do little investigation before they plop down their money...and frequently get ripped off because of it.
Right now, a buyer...someone who is an adult...will do something as dumb a spend over $400 for an empty, wothless box. Why?
Because they don't use the tools available to them...the feedback system, reading the auction carefully, asking the seller questions to clarify things, using their own brain, etc.
Let us say that your logo becomes widely used. That could easily then lead to the buyer being even less vigilant than he is today...he could become lulled into thinking that he won't get hurt if he buys from a seller with your logo. but, as I pointed out, your logo is ripe for the scam artist to use to lure unwary buyers into being ripped off.
You keep saying that only one out of 50 would be bad. What you aren't considering is that your service would be a draw to the crooks out there...in practice it could easily be many more than 1 out of 50. If the tools to successfully scam are in place, as I think your logo could be, the crooks WILL find it and exploit it...they are already doing it with paypal.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:53:39 PM
Steven, maybe you should send this whole thread to the CEO and other powers that be? Lots of sense being said here that you might want to implement in your TOS and remedies to "fix" things that are open for scammers.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:57:16 PM
Amy, I did not mean to insult you. Surely, your comment was relevant, but it is also flawed.
You think that giving out seals, will result in laziness on the bidders part, and a result of the bidder's laziness will be scams.
That is a fine comment. However, a computer too aggrandizes our lifestyle. It too makes us lazy. Would you say that overall a computer does more harm than good? Because I have a treadmill, I don't jog outside. Does this mean that the treadmill is bad? Does it make me lazy, or does it inspire synergy toward getting 'fit'?
When i say that your comment is fundamentally flawed I refer to you focusing on the empty half of the cup.
It has been a longstanding opinion of mine, that in business and in life, one should not look at the glass as half-empty. Nor should one be optimistic and state that it is half full. One should just always be ready to drink.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:59:08 PM
Maui..yes, any logo that claims to assure the buyer of the seller's reliabilty would be subject to this.
The difference, as I see it...power seller logo doesn't really SAY the seller is reliable although the implication might be there.
The OAUA logo is a little stronger...it says the holder abides by the code of ethics of the OAUA and has been verified by the OAUA to be who he says he is.
This one uses a much stronger word as part of its logo...reliability. This is a much stronger tie to the idea that the user won't be scammed if he buys from this seller.
And yes, the buyer SHOULD use all tools available to him, including perusing the seller's feedback himself. But this logo tells the buyer he doesn't NEED to do that, he can instead depend on the logo because this company has ALREADY DONE IT FOR THEM!..That is not a desireable idea in my opinion.
posted on January 25, 2001 10:11:48 PM
Reposting my earlier post, excluding the auction link, per moderator (Joice- now we need to invite BOTH the seller and the buyer????????)
**********
Can you tell me more about "good spam?" I've never heard of that. So eBay sellers who spam are OK with ReliableMerchants.com? As long as it's for a worthy cause? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me.
that you used microsoft's photograph from their site, and even linked to the pic on their server. Did you have permission to use their copyrighted work? If not, is copyright infringement something that ReliableMerchants.com condones in a reliable merchant?
Also, I noticed that your first two feedbacks are among a small group of folks who seemed to have purchased things from each other. What does ReliableMerchants.com think about feedback padding?
***********
Steven: I wasn't aware of Microsoft's blanket permission- thanks for clarifying and sorry to incorrectly imply that you copyright infringed.
Still- for someone who is not old enough to have his own eBay account, who admits spamming and feedback padding-- for that person to ask strangers to send him their credit card information so he can pass judgement on their "reliability" and "integrity"-- well, that's a stretch.
Amy: If you have information of any OAUA member shilling, send it to me and I'll see that it's investigated.
