posted on January 25, 2001 10:13:02 PM
Steven, Amy has some really good points. You are just starting out, and I think this is a good thing, what is being said and questioned here. Everyone starts out with one set of rules...everyone. Yours started out well, but it could be made BETTER, and thats the whole point, is it not? You are getting some valid responses here, from some REALLY intelligent/savvy people (trust me on this) and what they are telling you, or asking you is reason enough to take back to the other folks to pour over and use. You are getting some "gnarly" free advice...take advantage of it.
And I want to commend you for sticking around and answering the questions. Thats a good point, in my book.
posted on January 25, 2001 10:18:33 PM
Steven...it is not as simple as the computer makes us lazy. It has a lot to do with the buying public and how they percieve things. And how they can be manipulated.
Your personal ideology is not the question here. Its not whether you see the glass half full, or half empty..or just drink durn it. It has to do with how the logo will be percieved and what the consequences of that are.
You are trying to fit the human psyche into a mathmatical formula...something I'm not sure can really be accomplished.
You are excluding from your equation things like what the feedback says, whether the feedback came from a buyer or a seller (and no, just because someone was a good buyer does not mean they will be a good seller...they can be honest but have absolutely horrible people skils), whether the items sold were high end or low (a person may be a great seller of low cost post cards but be terrible with high end antiques if they don't KNOW what they are selling).
You leave all these things, and more, out of the equation because they have little impact...and maybe individually they do...but do they have the same negligable affect when looked at as a whole?
I seriously question using a mathmatical formula to predict the results of human interaction.
By the way...also have the CEO look into the statement "that a trusted, unbiased, third party verified their legitimacy"....if I go back to your site right now and sign up just what are you going to do to verify my "legitimacy"? You are telling the buyer he can trust me because of your logo...but the only thing he can really trust about me is that my feedback numbers were such that I got a 95 or more on your reliability meter.
posted on January 25, 2001 10:19:16 PM
Steve -- Thank you for your apology.
However, your new comment is even more offensive!
The implication is that I can't judge integrity since I am dishonest!
I can't prove my honesty.
But let me use a widely knwn example: Mr. Clinton made a mistake when he was a young man. He smoked pot. He later admitted, saying "I smoked but I didnt inhale".
This same man passed numerous anti-drug statures, preventing people from making the same mistake he did. When he made the mistake he was young and ignorant.
When I made the mistake I was young and ignorant.
I smoked, but I didn't inhale.
Now, let me prevent other people from even manipulating the feedback system. As you let your president pass drug regulations.
posted on January 25, 2001 10:29:49 PM
I don't see the difference in concept between the example of the computer aggrandizing our lifestyles, and the seal aggrandizing our lifestyles.
In terms of fitting the human psyche in a mathematical formula; it can certainly, certainly be done. I haven't come clse to doing that, but it is important, from a philosophical standpoint, to be cognizant that everything originates in math, and as such everything can be explained through math. What goes up must come down.
For the third time, you are right, certain things are excluded from the algorithm. However, factoring in all of these missing pieces, the algorithm still works extremely well. So well, that with all of these flaws only 1 in 50 people will be misrepresented.
So, you are right, the mathematical formula does not perfectly encase every aspect of "human interaction", but it coes damn close.
In terms of the legitimacy statement; what do you think of replacing 'legitimacy' with 'reliability'? Will that do?
Remember, that this company has only been in existance for 3 days. There are still many flaws in it. I profusely thank you for helping point them out!
posted on January 25, 2001 10:37:05 PM
Past performance doesn't guarantee future performance ... good feedback, logo or otherwise.
For example, let's pretend I'm a thief. I start selling on eBay, with the ultimate goal of ripping a bunch of people off. But of course, it's harder to do that with no feedback because people tend to be less trusting of a newbie seller.
So I sell a few things, buy a few things, and build a perfect feedback rating of 40 or 50. It doesn't take long, and it's pretty easy and relatively cheap to do. Let's say I qualify for a ReliableMerchants logo, so why not get one of those as well? Heck, it can't hurt!
Now that my ducks are in a row, it's time for the scam. Let's say I list a huge Dutch auction for 1,000 thingies at $10.00 each. Or $25.00 each. Or more! People have no reason not to trust me, after all, I have perfect feedback and a little logo.
So the bidders send their money, and I fly off to some warm place with hunky guys all around and nobody ever hears from me again.
Did my feedback give any implication I was going to do this? No. Did the little logo warn anyone? Nope.
The key word in any rating system is "probably". If I have great feedback, I probably won't rip you off. If I have a little logo saying I'm reliable, you'll probably be okay.
But ripoffs can, and do, happen!
And regarding a person's feedback being from both selling *and* buying, I'm much better at selling. I'm a picky, often impatient buyer. In fact, one of my negatives is retaliatory from a SELLER. From what I understand, the algorithm that determines where a person qualifies for the logo or not wouldn't take this into consideration. Right? What about retaliation negatives from non-paying bidders?
FWIW, I rated a 100%+ ... but I don't see that the logo offers any additional insight into my trustworthiness, versus my feedback profile itself. In fact, I would think my feedback profile is a much better indication of my reliability than a logo, since the bidders can actually read the comments and see what happened in each situation. So, what's the purpose of having a logo, especially if sellers are (eventually?) expected to pay for it?
(Gosh, ... I just realized how long-winded this post has gotten. I'll hush now!)
"MEMBERSHIP IS GIVEN ONLY TO THOSE WHO ARE ABOVE THE LEGAL AGE OF 18, AND UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH THE USER AGREEMENT. Age is verified through the necessity of a credit card to sign up."
So maybe you aren't a member? Just an evaluator?
So they are asking folks to fork over their CC info, apparently- as a way to verify ID and age (although I believe that CC companies are peddling CC's to 16 year olds now).
Maui- your page at the RM site says:
"mauimoods is a Certified ReliableMerchant."
(I know you, Maui- and you ARE certifiable! LOL.)
But Certified?
Steven- how do you verify that someone is who they say they are? I know you send a password to the email that is attached to an eBay user ID--- but someone can sign up at eBay with a bogus name, buy 40 or 50 $1 widgets (or whatever your minimum is)- and become a "Reliable Merchant" with a bogus name, and no selling track record at all.
Or am I missing something? Do you require CC, or not? If not, how do you verify ID?
Thanks,
Steve
[ edited by magazine_guy on Jan 25, 2001 10:43 PM ]
posted on January 25, 2001 10:47:36 PM
thedewey -- You also just hit the nail on the head!
With your permission, can I quote you?
Our system of rating buyers, as you correctly state, is not a 100% guarantee. There will always be pretty 'Femme Fatals', who want to get a paid trip to Hawaii.
This is why we require a minimum amount of time for one to be registered on eBay, as well as a minimum feedback rating. This way, there will be less paid vacations.
But still, you are correct, there will be some people who will bypass the system. There will be those who wait the 3 months of ebay membership needed to join RM in order to get their vacation. This is why, as you point out, the rating system is not 100% accurate.
This is also why, it is mostly accurate. We will obviously never be able to week out those who ar really determined -- willing to wait the three months, and develop a feedback rating (hey, it's Hawaii, it's worth it!)
Hence, our rating system is not perfect. The really determined crooks will get through. And the rest, the other 98% of transactions, it will do fine in. For those transactions the seal will help prevent scams.
You pointed out an error, I will have that error removed from the site -- Credit Cards are not required for verification, as we have decided to make this a free service.
Being an evaluator, who can't sign up for his own service puts me in sort of a wierd position, if you know what I mean!!
You also mention more vertification. I personally think that requiring somebody to be an eBay member for a while, and establish a rating, is verification enough, but I can see what you are saying. What alternative can you suggest?
posted on January 25, 2001 10:53:08 PM
stevenebin: Does feedback given by people who are no longer registered Ebay users count in the rating?
Do you examine negatives to see whether they were deserved or not? Right now, I have 13 negs.
1 was before feedback had to be transaction-related. He claimed I never sent him his merchandise. Which is true since he never won anything from me. Of course, there is no way I can prove this.
8 were retalitory. An examination of the date and time the feedback was given would show that it was retalitory.
1 was pre-retalitory. He gave me a neg when I filed a NPB alert on him. Of course, that made me look like I was retaliating when I gave him his deserved neg. He was suspended soon after.
1 was from a bidder who said I didn't get in contact with him. He later found out that his mail filters were putting my email in the wrong folder. He responded to the neg admitting that I did nothing wrong.
2 were from the same bidder who negged me when his merchandise didn't arrive after 3 weeks. He claimed a relative was handling his feedback and wasn't supposed to give negs. We later got everything settled and he placed an appropriate response to his negs.
8 of my negs were retalitory and could easily be determined by a computer.
1 is from a suspended user, which also could be easily determined by a computer.
3 were mistakes which could be determined by a visual inspection.
1 can't be proven either way.
So, which of these would count against me in my rating?
What about multiple feedback from the same user. If someone wins 3 items in the same day and later leaves 3 positives for me. Do they all count? What if he wins 3 seperate auctions each a month apart and leaves feedback a month apart? Certainly a bidder who buys from me month after month should count more than one who buys multiple items in one transaction.
[ edited by bkmunroe on Jan 25, 2001 10:55 PM ]
While you're tweaking the site, take a look at these things:
"Therefore, those who meet the criteria for our seal are, rest-assured, fully reliable."
I don't know anyone who is "fully reliable," and I certainly wouldn't call anyone "fully reliable" based on a number crunch of his/her feedback profile.
"The 5.5% response rate was when the service had cost $40 - - we’ve decided to lower it to a monthly fee of $4 instead. This way anybody can quit when they want to."
Is it free? Or $4? How long does the "evaluation" last before you start charging the CC's?
I am so busy all day answering emails (I got 2300+ emails today), that I miss the bigger picture. Why the emails are coming... Where the mistakes are...
The reason for many of the price-related mistakes, by the way, is because we only decided to omit the fee three days before the site launched, and the three days which ensued (before the launch), were extremely hectic.
in fact, I assume you read that in the press release -- Our business plan changed after the press release. Imagine that.
Why? The big boss finally gave in to not charging. (the big boss is the term I use for the VC firm).
So, again, I thank you very much for helping me out with these things.
Right now, I am trying to make a list of these errors.
posted on January 25, 2001 11:10:09 PM
stevenebin -- I'm glad you see my point about there being no absolute guarantee that a particular seller won't rip you off .... but am still curious as to why you feel your logo is a more accurate indication of reliability than the eBay feedback system.
How is it better than a feedback profile? Why would I want a logo? And if you're eventually going to charge for it, what benefits are going to be provided to me and/or my buyers?
(And I'm still interested in knowing how your company acquired our e-mail addresses. It couldn't have been from here, as some of us don't release this information. If it was done legally, why can't you say how the addresses were obtained?)
posted on January 25, 2001 11:11:25 PM
"Are you reliable?
Find out for free."
Like I need a website to tell me I am "reliable." Like I don't know how I treat my customers, and how quickly I pay for the auctions I win.
The fact that I have regular customers who bid on my auctions every time I choose to list tells ME something. My feedback is a testament to how I handle my online business, which is an adjunct to my wee antiques shoppe.
I need no little icon to tell my customers ANYTHING. And (as of this date) I've turned down several offers to be a PowerSeller. I don't want THAT icon, either.
--SkorpioGal (who tried not be nasty, but couldn't help the sneering tone)
posted on January 25, 2001 11:12:39 PM
But Steven..it is those 1% who will reduce the validity of your logo.
Media reports aside, the vast majority of ebay transactions go off without a hitch. the incidence of fraud is very low percentage wise...but raw number wise it doesn't look low.
You may only have 2% failure rate (1 of 50), but if you have a large number using your logo...and my suspicion is that a very large number of ebay sellers would qualify for your logo...then the raw numbers may kill you.
If enough people rely on your logo as proof that they won't be scammed by the seller, then every one who is will spread the word that your logo is not to be trusted...just like the power seller logo isn't trusted.
You need to clarify what your logo is telling the buying public. My suspicion is that you are trying to predict the possibility of the transaction being satisfactory to the buyer..he got what was represented, on time, the seller was friendly, emailed promptly, was left feedback first. I suspect you are not really trying to predict the possibilty of fraud...the several times you have stated that the probability of fraud was low indicates to me that fraud is not what you are attempting to address.
There is a difference between a buyer looking at your logo and saying..."hmm, my chances of being satisfied with this transaction are high" and a buyer looking at your logo and saying "hmm, this must be a honest seller as ReliabilityMerchant has certified him..I won't be ripped off.
The first you can predict...the second you can't.
For the first, most sellers will probably see no need for your logo...their feedback already tells the same story. For the second, you can't do it without putting yourself in line for numerous lawsuits from people who WERE ripped off by those 2% you ignored because the 2% ruined your statistics.
If you can find a way to guarantee to the buyer that this seller will not defraud him, you will have a valuable service the online auction industry needs...but, as you have agreed to, there will always be people who can work the system to their crooked advantage and you can't stop them....so there is no way you can guarantee the seller is NOT a crook. And THAT is what is really needed...that guarantee.
posted on January 25, 2001 11:18:20 PM
I most certainly do agree with you that this system isn't an absolute guarantee.
To satiate your curiosity --I believe that this is a better system than the current eBay system for a number of reasons. But most of all because the eBay system doesn't convey what it is intended to convey -- how reliable somebody has been in the past -- Our system does.
As an exceptional seller, (and I assume you are, if you on this board), you would join for two reasons. First, because when buyers see exceptional sellers like yourself using the seal, they begin to associate the RM seal with those exceptional sellers who earn it. And second, because our market studies indicate that potential customers are more likely, (I belive more than 40% more likely), to purchase from somebody with verification.
It will help most sellers in the situation where a buyer is choosing between two similar items.
posted on January 25, 2001 11:19:38 PM
Again,
I wouldn't release how the email addresses were obtained because, I don't know if the other members of the company would allow me to. (If they do, I'll le tyou know tomorrow privately, to satiate your overwhelming curiosity).
I am sooo tempted to quote my mom, that there are no guarantees in life!
You are most certainly right about that 1 or 2 percent reducing the integrity of the entire system. This, in the end, is by my own admition, what may kill the service.
The reason it probably won't have such a big impact is because, that 1% can only make 1 sale before they are caught, while the other 99% are making hundrends of honest sales.
Math (I know, I know), dictates that if 1 person is making 1 sale, weighed against 99 people making 100 sales; only 1 out of 9900 auctions holding an RM seal will result in a fraudulent transaction.
You are 100% right about the minimal fraud on the internet. Probably a tenth of a percent of the transactions on eBay result in 'fraud' (I am using that loosely). With this system about nine-hundredths of a percent will result in fraud. Much better!
Of course I can't guarantee those numbers. That's just a combination of hope and abstract.
The most important thing is to maintain the integrity of the seal.
What ebay failed to do with the Powerseller seal.
If it means raising the required threshold it will be done.
posted on January 25, 2001 11:33:33 PM... the eBay system doesn't convey what it is intended to convey -- how reliable somebody has been in the past ...
So, your company feels that my 3,200 total positive feedback comments (1880 unique) doesn't show that I'm reliable? Sorry, but I don't agree with that at all.
... because our market studies indicate that potential customers are more likely, (I belive more than 40% more likely), to purchase from somebody with verification.
I was "ID verified" with eBay for a while, even paying the $5 fee to have the little red checkmark logo. I inadvertently un-verified myself when I changed my telephone number in my contact information, but even when I was verified, it made no difference at all on the number of bids my items received. None. Sorry, but from my experience, verification didn't change anything.
posted on January 25, 2001 11:38:58 PM
thedewey -- In the exceptional cases, such as yourself, honesty is blatently apparent.
However, the eBay system gives a HISTORY. We translate that history into a meaningful number, that we are 98% confident is accurate.
There is an enormous difference between being ID Verified, and ReliableMerchants certified!
I think we all agree that the RM system isn't 100% accurate -- but we also agree that is is fairly accurate. That it does convey something that eBay doesn't spell-out.
posted on January 25, 2001 11:41:15 PM
I MUST GO TO SLEEP NOW!!!
It is about 2:40AM here -- your conversations so engaged me that I have been here, partially neglecting my emails, for a good number of hours.
my email address is available on my site. Please email me with any questions, suggestions, and crticisms -- I look forward to hearing what you have to say!
posted on January 26, 2001 12:24:08 AM
Steven..hopefully you will look at this thread tomorrow and see this response
You said
"the eBay system doesn't convey what it is intended to convey -- how reliable
somebody has been in the past ..."
I hold that the logic here is flawed for this reason...
You are interpeting only what is in the ebay feedback file of the individual seller...there is no other evidence you are using...all you have done is taken the raw data and evaluated it, using your mathmatical formulas and tables.
Any ebay user can do the same thing...without your math. He has at his disposal the same raw data you have. A user can look at my feedback and see how long I have been a user, he can see the number of unique feedback I have and determine how many transactions I have had, he can see how many negatives and determine the negative ratio (if he is poor in math he can go to Vrane and put my id in and Vrane will do the calculations), he can do the same for the neutrals...and he can draw the same conclusion your site did...he is highly likely to be satisfied with a purchase from me.
But that user has some data you are ignoring...he can see how many total positive feedback I have and can draw a conclusion about my repeat business, a conclusion that some customers are so satisfied they come back again.
A user of ebay who understands the feedback system would be able to tell from my feedback left numbers how many transactions I have likely done. A user can also look over my transactions for the past couple of months (the ones still on the system) and see if I sell high end or low end items most of the time and see what kind of feedback I got for each.
He can read the feedback and find out that I am very good at packing (I have lots of feedback for that) and then look at my last 30 days of auctions and see i sell mostly glass and china items that are very breakable...the feedback and knowledge of what I normally sell would give him confidence on bidding on an expensive piece of porcelain, knowing it will probably get to him safely.
He can look at the feedback posts and and see that I am complimented on my friendliness and good communications and be assured he will have a pleasant transaction.
He can look at my feedback left and see that I give feedback to all my customers promptly.
In other words, a smart buyer is able to extrapolate the same information your logo tells him...plus a little more.
If, on the other hand, your assuming the buyer only looks at the number next to my name then yes, the buyer is not getting a good picture of the seller's reliability. but if the buyer uses the feedback system the way it was meant to be used, he will get a VERY GOOD picture of the seller's reliability.
posted on January 26, 2001 01:23:27 AM
Way to go Steven, on being a successful Ebay seller since 14!! Tried to get my Ebay Helper into Ebay back when he was 12, just to help me out w/ listing & what not. Of course things are alot easier now that I have AuctionWatchs AMpro software.
Anyways, his parents just couldn't see him making $ that way. Direct quote from his Dad "Gotta make money the old fashioned way w/ hardwork & labor".. HA whatever, this coming from a guy who's had 6 jobs in the last year, while I took the 5 months off work & attended college too.
Meanwhile, my Ebay helper has of course gotten himself into the normal 14 year old routine. Mainly wasting time on the "little things that seem important right now." Sheeshhh
For all the time he now wastes he could have been 25% partner in my small business & made money doing things the easy way, w/ more time for himself. Sigh
ANYWAYS.. I am going to check out your site & see if it's what I've been looking for, as I full well intend to make EBAY my only source of income this year & anything that can help along the way is greatly appreciated.
posted on January 26, 2001 01:46:20 AM
When someone posted about this particular spam a few days ago, I tended to agree with the majority. Run, don't walk, away from these people!
It is interesting to extrapolate feedback into some estimation of future action. I don't know that any bidder with a few reading skills can't make the same estimation! I am a bidder, primarily. I bid on items that require a strong comfort level with the seller. I have passed up some sweet stuff because I have corresponded with the seller, corresponded with other bidders, researched old auctions, and of course, read feedback.
Since this is a seller service, and since it isn' t really a bidder protection service, it's all a little suspect. Numbers can be massaged, after all it's a seller membership you are answering to.
What about systems that prevent members who NARU from fraud coming back under different ID? Fifty feedback and three monthes isn't much with a few dutch auctions.
I am prolly one of many who don't click on logos, what's to prevent sellers from "borrowing" the image for an auction to sell a camera for $1600 or a diamond for $2000 or an empty box for $400? Then drop out of site and rereg?
As long as this service is partial to sellers, a service paid for by sellers, then it is weak and flawed.
Will sellers with private feedback use it?
Feedback is pretty weak especially when a seller can pretty much eat a neg for lunch against high numbers. And in PS2land it's easy pickings.
I guess it seems like another layer of misinformation. It is additional advertising. I work in media, advertising isn't truth, it's the polished surface of truth.
Amy may play the devil's advocate and may seem negative, but brings up points that appear to have you defensive and on the ropes. I am frankly impressed at her analysis.
BTW...Spamming is never good, no matter what kind of advertising double talk you explain it away with.
Mathematics is the language of science. Great, a scientific stamp of approval that is just another layer of static between bidders and the knowledge they need when trying to make an intelligent decision in an environment like ebay.
I know that this stamp of approval in no way guarantees anything. It is just a niche in the yet untapped feedback market.
Too bad.
Clever, I guess, but I would rather see Ebay get off their lazy dead and get serious about fraud etc.
I don't mean to rain on your parade, you seem fairly articulate and enthusiastic.
Why not use your alogarithm to maybe offer something educational and helpful for bidders? (I can hear it now, as with all advertising-speak, "I am doing good for bidders, I am offering them certifiable merchants"
posted on January 26, 2001 02:04:06 AM
Sounds good to me. I don't know what some people's problem is, whether they want a 100% iron-clad guarantee, or whether they just enjoy sharpening their claws on a newcomer. I get a thousand spam emails a day and believe me, I got over it a long time ago. Kwicher-whining.
This is a free service designed to protect eBay buyers by providing a rating, such as the Better Business Bureau. Does having a BBB seal of approval guarantee any particular sale? Obviously not.
I see no need for this service as I believe my feedback speaks for itself. OTOH, if someone wants a cute icon for their auction, I'm not going to go ballistic over it. The bottom line is STILL caveat emptor.
Nice going, Steve. I hope your enterprise is rewarded. 'Hopefully this thread is a lesson to take criticism with a grain of salt. You are obviously very intelligent and motivated. I wish you success. GratefulDad About Me
I wasn't going to say anything, but I can't keep my fingers still at times. Since you are sending out unsolicited emails to gain customers how do you REALLY feel about the first "buyer's tip" offered on your site?
