From: Kim Andrews on
Peter Parry wrote:
(mucho snippage)
> Whether or not eBay chose to remove this and similar _ratings_ is a
> commercial judgment which is most likely to be based upon the overall
> cost of policing such disputes rather than dear old Spackers

All of which would be fair comment if they hadn't removed the rating and
then *put it back*. A human was involved in this decision. It was not
automated.

I've already said how little credence I put on conspiracy theories in
general, and I think the levels of ebay-centric paranoia displayed here
are ludicrous, but on this one particular matter I believe that impact
on fees could easily be a contributory factor to the decision making
process. You say that their policies will be based on business factors
and going with the balance of probabilities, but for some reason accept
that cost of policing *is* relevant, but impact on fees *isn't*?

If the policy as stated in some ebay procedure (that we'll never see,
sadly) says "if in doubt, reinstate score), how sure are you that your
assumption of the driving financial factors are right, and no others?

If it says "always reinstate score", how much are they saving on
policing, when a human is already involved in the process, and has to
undertake *another step* to put the score back?

Oh, and if I get Spacker continuing to imply that I've somehow joined
his camp by holding this opinion, I may never forgive you for prolonging
the discussion! ;o)

Kimbo xx
--
www.bykimbo.com
From: Road_Hog on

"Kim Andrews" <bykimbo(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ck8ofF3e1oelU1(a)mid.individual.net...

> Oh, and if I get Spacker continuing to imply that I've somehow joined his
> camp by holding this opinion,

> Kimbo xx
> --
> www.bykimbo.com

Obi-Wan Kenobi vocie FX

The force is strong, you have gone over to the dark side Kimberly.

/FX

Yoda FX

Fight it, you must Kimberly.

/FX


From: Kim Andrews on
Road_Hog wrote:
> "Kim Andrews" <bykimbo(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6ck8ofF3e1oelU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
>> Oh, and if I get Spacker continuing to imply that I've somehow joined his
>> camp by holding this opinion,

>
> Obi-Wan Kenobi vocie FX
>
> The force is strong, you have gone over to the dark side Kimberly.
>
> /FX
>
> Yoda FX
>
> Fight it, you must Kimberly.
>
> /FX
>
>

:o))))


Kimbo xx
--
www.bykimbo.com
From: Peter Parry on
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:37:04 +0100, Kim Andrews <bykimbo(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Peter Parry wrote:
>(mucho snippage)
>> Whether or not eBay chose to remove this and similar _ratings_ is a
>> commercial judgment which is most likely to be based upon the overall
>> cost of policing such disputes rather than dear old Spackers
>
>All of which would be fair comment if they hadn't removed the rating and
> then *put it back*. A human was involved in this decision. It was not
>automated.

You have great faith in automated systems :-).

>I've already said how little credence I put on conspiracy theories in
>general, and I think the levels of ebay-centric paranoia displayed here
>are ludicrous, but on this one particular matter I believe that impact
>on fees could easily be a contributory factor to the decision making
>process. You say that their policies will be based on business factors
>and going with the balance of probabilities, but for some reason accept
>that cost of policing *is* relevant, but impact on fees *isn't*?

Yes, because the cost of policing is large and the impact on fees is
microscopic. The decision on removing comment is a no brainer - they
can't afford not to. Nor, to a large extent, can they afford to
ignore daft complaints. Always removing the score along with the
comment would encourage false claims of defamation from those wishing
to eliminate negative scores. Leaving the score in most cases will
minimise the benefit to be gained by shouting "defamation".

Most arguments about feedback are trivial, but if each required an
eBay staff member to make an individual decision and write a unique
reply the cost would be large. By having simple and rigid rules the
decision making in most cases becomes a simple "chose from a list".
Even in such cases it is probably that the cost to eBay of the dispute
exceeds the fees they got from the transaction.

>If the policy as stated in some ebay procedure (that we'll never see,
>sadly) says "if in doubt, reinstate score), how sure are you that your
>assumption of the driving financial factors are right, and no others?

Simply because of the potential order of magnitude of cost.

>If it says "always reinstate score", how much are they saving on
>policing, when a human is already involved in the process, and has to
>undertake *another step* to put the score back?

They work to a checklist. Possibly the first person to see it felt
(rightly) that the comment was so repugnant that it warranted removal
of both comment and score. Possibly later they decided it wasn't or
someone else looked it over and decided that no matter what the
comment was the score doesn't warrant removal _by the rules_. As a
matter of policy they won't want to step outside those rules as it's
expensive.

>Oh, and if I get Spacker continuing to imply that I've somehow joined
>his camp by holding this opinion, I may never forgive you for prolonging
>the discussion! ;o)

I can see that being a considerable disincentive to discussion!
However, lets give him a new conspiracy theory. eBay introduced
changes in policy so they met EU law and to attempt to pre-empt more
lawmaking being aimed at them. One consequence of this was that many
dubious dealers were disadvantaged and made much complaining to no
avail.

Suddenly a batch of problems spring up. Mostly with new or until
recently dormant accounts with little trading history. There are
rumours that the people behind these accounts are the same shady
dealers who really didn't want these changes and are out to discredit
them by any means they can. That sounds a lot more credible than some
of the other theories :-).
From: Kim Andrews on
Peter Parry wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:37:04 +0100, Kim Andrews <bykimbo(a)hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> then *put it back*. A human was involved in this decision. It was not
>> automated.
>
> You have great faith in automated systems :-).

Point missed by a mile, I'm afraid. I have *no* faith in automated
systems, at least, not ebay's. :o)

<snip a load of stuff I don't agree with, but am happy to differ>

> I can see that being a considerable disincentive to discussion!
:o))

[...]> dealers who really didn't want these changes and are out to discredit
> them by any means they can. That sounds a lot more credible than some
> of the other theories :-).

Yeah, but *only* if they arrive in black helicopters.



Kimbo xx
--
www.bykimbo.com