Talk:Chargeback

Questionalbe Undos

Please discuss proposed edits here, and keep in mind Wiki Conflict of interest rules.

The following contribution accurately and succinclty describes the flow of all monies involved in a chargeback. If you propose to remove it, do so only with legitimate evidence, and only if you're not employed/involved in the banking/credit industry.

Honest customers foot the bill for all fraud. Merchants understand the percentage of fraud that takes place, and increase their prices to cover this cost.

Banks and credit card companies profit from fraud. They retain their fees and commissions from the fraud itself, they levy fees for each chargeback, they make commissions (twice) if currency conversions are involved, they "hold" merchant remittance for 30 to 90 days to cover possible fraud (and profit from short term investment of this), and they usually increase the commissions they charge on all transactions to any business they consider "risky", and any who suffer unusually large numbers of chargebacks. Finally, banks also profit from the incrased prices merchants charge to cover fraud. In many cases, banks make 300% more profit from a fraud, than they do from a legitimate transaction.

203.206.137.129 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

The article also implies that -merchants- are the ones who are hurt all of the time, which is a biased, uncited opinion. This really needs to be resolved 128.138.135.61 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)JK[reply]

The merchant bears all of the brunt of a chargeback. If the merchant is unable to repay the chargeback (out of business, account closed) the acquiring bank must pay back the chargeback. This should be added to the article. John Conde 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam & Junk

This article is full of junk and what's with the 1 spam link? There are so many valued resources on the internet with this topic and yet a lack of education. Joe 16:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam keeps popping up from merchant-account-services.org ? Anyway to block this spam?

That article is one of the best I have read regarding chargebacks. How is that website spam anyways? There is absolutely no advertising anywhere on it, and is it one of the most objective resources about merchant services on the internet. I would love to see a better resource that is not some affiliate or spam adsense website! --Jestep 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That website is a very good resource. I would hardly consider it spam. If you don't think that link belongs then it can be discussed further.

The link is spam and offers no measurable value beyond what should already be listed on Wiki. It's your only contribution and furthermore there would be no reason to push it unless the site belongs to you. Wiki is an open expression of ideas and viewpoints, not spam links for your own personal gain. If you feel you have some meaningful value to add to this or any article than post it but stop spamming Wiki with your own personal links. Joe 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not their website. Please try to be sensible in how you approach this. You vandalized the article in your attempt to combat spam. You also falsely accused someone of being a spammer. It's great that you want to contribute but please try to do so in an intelligent manner. stymiee 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it's not their site? Why not just add the content to Wiki? Fact is, had it not been their site, once it was removed, they would have left it at that but instead, they went to register for an account, added the link back up and provided nothing else. What is one to think? Do you want spam to be the down fall of Wiki? Keep it clean. Joe 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I know who owns the site. It's not them. 2) They did the right thing to sign up to make changes. It's better then someone anonymous doing it. 3) They didn't just "add the link". They went so far as to comment in this talk page. I'd hardly say they are here just to spam Wikipedia.

You know who owns the site? Ok . . . . I guess it makes sense why you are coming to their defense. Wiki is not a place for people with agendas which you clearly have. Joe 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks. I am sure they are just as frowned upon as spam. stymiee 23:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the spam goes no one wants that. But making blanket assumptions about users and the content they add doesn't help wikipedia either. That's why talk pages exist. Not to flame other members but to discuss the article. So far two people have expressed concern about that link being removed/that site being called spam. An intelligent discussion about that link would be worthwhile and the rational way to approach it.stymiee 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that should be the focus. My problems with the link. 1) The page uses terms such as "Ultimate guide" which isn't within the Wiki style to make such comments. 2) The site is in no way an authority in the matter. 3) The site offers no clear contact info, again, questioning the legitimacy of the site and finally, if the site owner felt that the site had any value, they should have been here defending it, not continuing to spam wiki after it was deleted.

Once again, they aren't the site owner. And who says the site owner is the one who put it back? Please stop making assumptions. You're not helping anything.

That site was neither mine, nor did I put it there in the first place. As far as the site itself goes, just because there isn't contact information on the website does not remove it's legitimacy. Onto the topic of the link itself, it was a very good resource. Wikipedia is not meant to be a how-to guide, which is why that article was completely appropriate for being a link on Wikipedia. The title may have been a little over the top, but that doesn't make the link inappropriate. I didn't put the link there, so I'm not in any position to defend the title. Why am I pushing this link, to answer the question above... Because it is a very good resource, one of the only of it's kind out there. It is accurate, informative, objective, and clearly the owner is not making any significant gain from the website, as there is no advertising of any kind on it, in fact I cant even find a link to a business with the exception of the free web directory that exists on the same site. --Jestep 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chargeback definition is incomplete

Chargeback is also used to describe a Data Center or IT Department charging other departments and/or users for computer time/loads.

examples

http://whitepapers.techrepublic.com.com/whitepaper.aspx?docid=104886

http://www.virtual-strategy.com/en/roundtable-002

http://www.dmreview.com/article_sub.cfm?articleId=1048525

How does this addition get added?

Question.

Hi, I've read the article, it's not clear to me, do the merchants pay chargeback fee, like they would pay if a check bounces on them to their bank? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.36.136 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

references

Article does need references. I am correcting some false information, but really it should all be referenced. I also made a stupid comment in an edit summary here and nevermind what I said as it needs better references than what I suggested. William Ortiz (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]