posted on July 20, 2001 05:43:21 PM
Did you know that when a buyer and seller want to retract feedback, they can pay $15 to someplace called SquareTrade and they'll remove netural or negative feedback?
posted on July 20, 2001 06:39:44 PM
well i don't think thats exactly how it works.........esp. if you never respond to their emails............heres the details
posted on July 20, 2001 08:46:53 PM
Yes, that's EXACTLY how it works! If both parties agree to have the feedback removed, you just jump through the hoops, pay the $15, and in a few days the neg is gone.
Your case is assigned a mediator. The mediator asks both parties how they would like the case resolved. If both parties agree that the feedback should be removed, it's Presto-Chango... No more neg...
Square Trade makes $15 (less any cut to ebaY) and they move on to the next suckers, er, case.
posted on July 23, 2001 10:38:49 AM
Hello ecom and blueyes!
My name is Mae and I'm an employee of SquareTrade. I'd like to give you a little more information about SquareTrade to clear up any confusion.
Skeetypete gave you an excellent link to learn more about the feedback removal process. And while it is true that SquareTrade can assist in removing feedback, this may only be done if 3 criteria are met.
1) Both parties enter into dispute resolution
2) Both parties agree to remove negative feedback
3) A SquareTrade mediator presides over the case.
Using a mediator is one authorized way to submit feedback removal to eBay as required by eBay's feedback removal policy:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/fbremove.html
The services of a mediator to read and respond to each message that both party sends for the duration of the case costs more than $15, however eBay is kind enough to subsidize the fee for its users.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to email me:
[email protected]
posted on July 23, 2001 11:54:56 AM
Well, this is interesting, but I think it would be hard to get both parties to agree to remove the negatives. Plus, who pays for this, buyer, seller, or does it not matter?
Currently the only person allowed to request a mediator is the person who filed the case. This means that if you are the person responding to a case, you can't access a mediator, you can only respond to messages left by the other party.
This means the person who files the case pays for the mediator, whether buyer or seller, however, sometimes whoever pays is reimbursed by the other party and sometimes both people split the fee.
-Mae
An employee of SquareTrade
[ edited by SquareTradeMae on Jul 23, 2001 12:03 PM ]
posted on July 23, 2001 12:37:46 PM
SquareTradeMae:
I've got a question for you. I have 3 negative feedbacks from 1997 on my record and are the only negatives I've received. They are all from the same person, who didn't know how to use feedback, as the were submitted as negs, but were positive messages. They also left 4 positive feedbacks, and this was all for one transaction. If I were still able to contact that person, would it be possible to get the 3 negs & 3 of the positives removed to leave only 1 positive? Would each feedback cost $15, or if the other party agreed, could all six be removed for the one fee? How would that work?
posted on July 23, 2001 02:09:05 PM
Hi Lotsostuff!
I am sorry to hear of your unfortunate transaction. However, in your situation, it sounds as if the other person would probably agree to remove the negatives. Therefore, I think we may still be able to help you.
There is no time limit as to when you can use SquareTrade's mediation service. If you can contact that person, and they agree to remove your negative feedback during mediation, we can submit it to eBay for removal. During the mediation, you and the other person can agree to the terms of your settlement, allowing both of you to decide what will be removed.
SquareTrade is primarily a mediation service, not a feedback removal service. Our policy is that you pay by each case filed. You can file a case against the same person for different transactions. Therefore if all of your negatives were left by the same person, and you enter into dispute resolution with them and both of you agree to have them removed, you will only pay $15 to remove them all, because you are resolving any problems that occurred with the same person.
posted on July 23, 2001 02:22:40 PM
Well... this is just amazing!!!! Thank you for enlightening all of us that "sweat" negs. No wonder Butterfields doesnt have any negs to speak of (just glowing transactions) and they charge an arm and a leg for "packing and shipping".
posted on July 23, 2001 05:39:45 PM
Let's see. ebaY will remove feedback (at no cost to them) only when certain, very specific criteria are met.
Yet when both parties agree to have the feedback removed through Square Trade (and ONLY if a mediator is paid for) ebaY removes the feedback every time.
We all know how anal ebaY is about squeezing every last cent onto the bottom line. It just seems a little weird that they would SUBSIDIZE the removal of feedback when they could easily and quickly do it for free.
I'm not accusing anyone posting in this thread of being less than truthful, but I must say that I'm very skeptical of the statement that ebaY pays a portion of the Square Trade fee. It just doesn't fit in with the other 99.9% of their policies. Of course ebaY and Square Trade may have other deals where ebaY gets their cut, but I seriously doubt that ebaY actually pays Square Trade anything at all at the end of the day. If anything I would be willing to bet that ebaY comes out ahead in the money game with Square Trade (and any other "partner".
posted on July 23, 2001 07:12:40 PM
A good number of Butterfields' negs disappeared early on. They had a VERY poor feedback profile for their first few months in business.
posted on July 23, 2001 07:18:51 PM
MrBusinessMan...it really does make sense, honestly it does
Ebay can only remove it under certain circumstances because to do other wise would put the "venue" status in jeopardy. But when they are told to do so by a "mediator" then they aren't making the decision themselves and "venue" isn't compromised.
Mediator services are like getting a court judgement (kinda, sorta)...ebay got an "order" to remove the feedback.
It doesn't surprise me that ebay would subsidize the mediation...this way they are giving the user a way to remove feedback without them (ebay) stepping on the wrong side of the venue issue. Kind of like having the cake and eating it too.
posted on July 24, 2001 10:29:35 AM
Hello MrBusinessMan,
For more information concerning Amy's post, Jeffrey from eBay held a workshop on feedback removal. It is located on the community workshop board and is titled: Monthly Trust & Safety Workshop: Feedback Offenses and eBay's Feedback Removal Policy
Conceptually, I agree with you about ebaY protecting their "venue" status. But they're only one well-placed lawsuit away from losing it anyway with all the changes they're making.
I would argue the other side of the coin. This policy IMO does more harm to their "venue" status than if they automatically removed the feedback when both parties agree to it. That way they would eliminate themselves completely from the decision to remove feedback or not. In other words, a TRUE venue. Let the parties involved leave feedback as they see fit AND remove erroneous feedback when BOTH parties agree that it should be removed. By insisting that a 3rd party get involved (including ebaY itself) ebaY is actually backing away from a "venue" status. A TRUE venue would leave it to the parties involved to resolve disputes between themselves instead of interjecting their own "criteria" into the process, which includes paying $15 to a mediator to tell ebaY, "Yes, both parties agreed that the feedback should be removed" when an email from both parties to SafeHarbor (with full headers from the ebaY registered email addresss) would serve the exact same function).
[ edited by MrBusinessMan on Jul 24, 2001 01:19 PM ]
[ edited by MrBusinessMan on Jul 24, 2001 01:21 PM ]
posted on July 24, 2001 02:42:24 PM
MrBusinessman...whether we feel ebay is already stepping over the venue line or not isn't important. Whether we think using a mediator removes ebay's venue status is also unimportant. I was trying to explain what I saw as ebay's reasons for what they are doing. I wasn't defending them, just giving an explanation.
As long as they think their actions keep them within the legal meaning of "venue", they will continue to follow the course they have set.
If your right and they lose their venue status then you can say "I told you so"
I agree with everything you said (no surprise there ). But I also feel that ebaY is missing the ball if they think the mediator deal is a better way to remain "just a venue" than a completely "hands-off" approach, especially when a "hands-off" approach is completely free for them.
By requiring a paid mediator's involvement before removing feedback, they are acting LESS like a venue than if they simply left it up to the parties involved. I'm not rebutting your possible reasons for ebaY's actions. You're most likely correct. What makes no sense to me is the reasoning behind those actions.
Here are the options concerning feedback removal when both parties in the transaction agree that the feedback should be removed:
Option 1 (currently used by ebaY):
One of the parties has to open an account with Square Trade and pay for a mediator to get involved. The mediator asks that party how he would like to see the issue resolved. He responds that he would like to have the feedback removed. The mediator then sends the other party an email basically regurgitating what the first party said. The mediator asks party number 2 how she would like to see the issue resolved. Party number 2 agrees that the feedback should be removed. Party numbers 1 and 2 each receive an email stating that the case is resolved and ebaY will be notified that the feedback should be removed. Of course ebaY doesn't have to remove it but they ALWAYS do. A few days later the feedback is removed.
Option 2:
Both parties send ebaY Safeharbor emails from their ebaY registered email addresses stating that they agree that the feedback was in error and that it should be removed. ebaY verifies that the emails are actually from the parties in question and immediately removes the feedback.
Option number 2 not only has the benefit of being free to ebaY (and the users), but it also completely fits in with their stance as "just a venue" as they aren't making a decision regarding the removal of the feedback in any way. They have acted as a true venue should and left it to the parties involved to resolve the issue.
By requiring that one of the parties pay a fee to a 3rd party, ebaY is actually backing away from venue status sincv they made a decision involving the feedback removal (the decision to require a paid 3rd party who is COMPLETELY unnecessary to the procedure at hand. After all, what's the difference between a mediator telling ebaY that both parties have agreed that the feedback should be removed via email when the parties involved can just tell ebaY directly?
The only plausible answers are:
1) ebaY mistakenly believes that doing business in the current manner will better protect their venue status. If this is the case I believe they art in error.
2) ebaY has a deal worked out with Square Trade where ebaY AND Square Trade make money for basically doing nothing.
I don't blame Square Trade for making such a deal. It's easy money. Send a few of emails and collect $15. What doesn't make sense is ebaY's motivation for this type of deal. It provides no real benefit, yet according to the Square Trade rep ebaY is actually subsidizing it. Go figure.
[ edited by MrBusinessMan on Jul 24, 2001 03:11 PM ]
posted on July 24, 2001 03:09:03 PM
Mr. BusinessMan,
As you know, eBay recognizes SquareTrade as one of 3 outside parties who are authorized to submit feedback removal requests.
I am sorry that you feel that a mediator is completely unnecessary to help in feedback removal. However, one reason for this is the need to make sure there are no underlying issues involved that caused the negative to be left in the first place.
Additionally, for $15 you are accessing a Professional Mediator who will take the time to understand the situation, respond to both parties and work with both people to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.
-Mae
[ edited by SquareTradeMae on Jul 24, 2001 03:20 PM ]
posted on July 24, 2001 03:11:53 PM
Hello MrBusinessMan!
I just wanted to apologize for the misunderstanding. I did not mean in any way to imply that you are not acquainted with the negative feedback removal policy. On the contrary, I believe that you are well informed concerning the way the system works.
The reason I sent you the link for Jeff Dvorak's Workshop is that in addition to detailing HOW the system works, Jeff also explains the reasoning for WHY the system is the way it is. He explains legal issues as to why eBay can not become involved in feedback removal. Being a non-eBay employee, these are questions I am not qualified to answer.
posted on July 24, 2001 03:20:10 PMHe explains legal issues as to why eBay can not become involved in feedback removal.
This is a flawed premise. By requiring mediation, ebaY IS becoming involved. By allowing the parties involved to resolve the issue on their own, they would remain completely neutral and uninvolved. In other words their actions are diametrically opposed to their reasoning behind the actions.
The only way to remain uninvolved is to not get involved. By requiring a mediator to act as a middleman to relay emails from the users to ebaY (instead of allowing the users to send the emails directly) ebaY is choosing to get involved.
Additionally, for $15 you are accessing a Professional Mediator who will take the time to understand the situation, respond to both parties and work with both people to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.
If both parties agree that the feedback should be removed, the mutually agreeable solution has already been reached. A mediator in this instance is completely unnecessary. Again, all the mediator does is relay the same information to ebaY that the parties involved could easily send directly to ebaY. I know firsthand from experience that there is no actual mediation done in cases where both parties are already in agreement. The mediator simply acts a relay person to send the info to ebaY.
Please don't misunderstand me here. I'm NOT saying that Square Trade is unnecessary. They can be very beneficial where a bona fide disagreement exists between two parties. But in cases where both parties are already in agreement that the feedback should be removed (more common than you might think), there is NO justification for requiring a mediator's involvement before removing the feedback.
[ edited by MrBusinessMan on Jul 24, 2001 03:28 PM ]
posted on July 24, 2001 04:29:08 PM
I keep coming back, lurking through this thread and shaking my head. Everyone is so worried about that negative feedback, (me too!) but there is a real problem with the feedback forum that is never addressed or brought up. Go look at hugovox and guddolf and you'll get an idea of what the problem really is. I know they are both NARU'd, but the last one took awhile and it made me quit selling for this past year.
Now, here comes this person, Mae, who works for SquareTrade making statements about their relationship with e-Bay so that we believe in them and give them our money when we've already agreed with the other party in the auction that the negative feedback should be removed. The line is, "We've got an "in" at e-Bay and for 15 bucks we'll fix your problem." It just makes me feel like saying, "Hoof, poof, woof. Go-away corporate entity."
Also, I can not believe, Mae, that E-Bay is actually subsidizing SquareTrade in its mediation process between the buyer and seller. I believe that if E-Bay has ever paid SquareTrade money for mediation then it would only be to protect itself and it wouldn't be for much money.
Would you please tell me what SquareTrade's revenues from E-Bay are. Maybe then my heart will soften and I will believe you.
If you can't divulge this information, can you tell me if those revenues exceed $50K? If its over $50K, I will be impressed, but only mildly. That would be in excess of $50K a year.
posted on July 24, 2001 07:46:01 PM
MrBusinessMan...mediation is an acceptable legal method to adjudicate a civil matter. Using a mediator can be equilivant to having a case heard by a court of law. The findings can be just as binding.
The venue stance for ebay on feedback was always that they could not remove any feedback but that the person involved could take legal action against the other party. If I remember right, ebay has always said that feedback could be removed if they recieved a court order to do so.
Since mediation is a quasi-court able to settle civil disputes then accepting the "court order" from a mediation service would be the same as a court order from a court of law.
In the case of ebay just accepting the word of both parties that they want the feedback removed there can be underlying issues that invalidate the request by one or both parties (coercion, payoffs, etc). This could put ebay into a very sticky situation at a later date.
By letting the parties utilize a mediator, ebay is basically telling the parties..."take it to court and we will abide by the court's decision"
As to whether their present course of action puts the venue status in jeopardy...remember, they have a corp of lawyers who are more than likely well versed on this. I'm sure they have already considered the arguments you have presented before they went along this path. I'm sure there are strong arguments and legal principles that support ebay's position.
But all of this is so new...the rules are being written as we go along...so who knows how it will all play out in the end.
I just know one thing...we better pray that ebay continues to be seen as a venue. If they aren't we can kiss the online auction industry goodbye and go find another day job. If the auction sites are not considered a venue they will not be able to survive. Not the 600 pound ebay gorilla or any of the "wannabes"...they will all go poof!
Once again, I agree with what you're saying. But I still disagree with the premise that a 3rd party mediator helps ebaY maintain a venue status. A true "venue" will not get involved in the feedback removal process at all. By requiring a 3rd party mediator they are actually getting involved where they should not. If they were truly "just a venue", they would take a 100% hands-off position and leave it to the parties involved to settle their differences. Then they could truly say they had no say say whatsoever in the feeback removal decision. They CAN NOT say that under the current system. Underlying issues between the parties are irrelevent to ebaY if they are truly a "venue". The policy of requiring a 3rd party to settle user disputes is in itself a decision regarding feedback removal, and I maintain that a well-placed lawsuit will bring their venue status to a halt. ebaY knows full well that most users with disagreements will just let a legitimate issue drop rather than pay a third party and go through the Square Trade hassle just to remove an erroneus feedback comment. By adding such an onerous requirement they are indeed making a decision regarding the removal of feedback.
I'm sure you're correct that ebaY has an army of attorneys giving ebaY what they consider to be the best advice available. But so did Microsoft (Microsoft's attorney fees could probably BUY Ebay) and we all know how that one ended up, even though the final resolution is yet to be seen.
IMO ebaY is blinded by the bottom line. As I'm sure you're aware, I'm a firm believer in doing whatever is beneficial to the bottom line (within my own personal ethical boundaries and the law of course). But I'm even more concerned with maintaining a viable, prosperous business. It seems at times that ebaY is short-sighted when it comes to their own business. It's please the stockholders at whatever cost. IMO that isn't a sound long-term strategy. But then again Meg and Pierre are already mulit-billionaires so maybe the long-term prospects for ebaY isn't all that important to them, just short-term profits and soaring stock options to be cashed in when the balloon gets ready to burst.
I won't disagree that the loss of venue status will be a bad thing for online auctions and their users. But it is indeed coming regardless of who it ultimately hurts or helps. ebaY will see to it with their ill-advised changes and policies.
[ edited by MrBusinessMan on Jul 25, 2001 10:09 AM ]
posted on July 25, 2001 02:30:30 PM
ECOM, great title, Mae must be the Pope!
Mae said "one reason for this is the need to make sure there are no underlying issues involved that caused the negative to be left in the first place." But if the mediator simply agrees with the parties then what is this garbage about "underlying issues"?
Looks like a $15 scam to me.
posted on July 25, 2001 03:24:31 PM
Well, I left a positive comment for someone and accidentally left it as a negative (don't ask me how I ignored the warning screen, I just did!). I heard about square trade and happily paid the $15 to explain and get the feedback removed--I've dealt with eBay before and it was clearly worth the $15 to get the results I wanted without dealing with, ummmm, morons.
eBay customer service has always been evasive, confused and inaccurate. I'm delighted to be able to deal with Square Trade in matters like this.
posted on July 25, 2001 04:59:55 PM
> If both parties agree that the feedback
> should be removed, the mutually agreeable
> solution has already been reached. A
> mediator in this instance is completely
> unnecessary.
In cases like this, couldn't SquareTrade just give a 50% discount to have the mediator relay the message to eBay?
.
