Talk:Criticism of eBay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's get this article featured![edit]

Awesome article! Let's improve it up to featured status! Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is it? Whocanyoutrust (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propsoed merge of 2008 eBay boycott into Criticism of eBay[edit]

I propose merging 2008 eBay boycott into this article, as the boycott has not had long-term media coverage, nor any apparent large-scale impact to warrant its own article. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. This article is already non-notable for the reasons you mentioned, plus it is very short. If nobody objects after a week I think it should be merged. Ronark (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With no objections raised, I will perform the merger. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Ebay move to push out smaller & casual sellers?[edit]

I'm surprised there's nothing about what's obviously a plan to make ebay inhospitable to smaller sellers with this whole DSR (Detailed Seller Rating) "feature". 4 stars is called "good" but under 4.1 and you're suspended, though ebay doesn't educate buyers on this point. However, high-volume "diamond" level sellers are exempt from these sanctions. How 'bout that. Check out the ebay forum under the feedback topic. Sellers talk about things like getting ding'd because a buyer is mad at the postal rates, etc. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Got any reliable sources on this? Comments on the forums aren't any good for that. It's particularly difficult because, with millions of users, a few dozen complainers would be undue weight. (And, since day one, some people have complained about every single policy eBay has.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources? Sure, stated ebay polcy. Also reflection on the obvious realities of what the policies mean. It's far more than "a few dozen users". And irony of ironies, you're saying the word of "a few dozen users" isn't "reliable" yet on Wikipedia far fewer than that number regularly establish so-called "consensus".TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, original research. No, we can't use that. We don't get to draw our own conclusions on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Published Ebay policy is hardly "original research". The Borg-mind approach of Wikipedia keeps it the carnival of vagueness and unreliability that it is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I must have missed it. There's an eBay policy that says, "We're making eBay inhospitable to smaller sellers"? If so, feel free to provide links. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about criticisms of Ebay, this is an established and widespread criticism of Ebay. Ebay is hardly going to state "yes we're looking to squeeze out small sellers".TheDarkOneLives (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So provide a reliable source that makes such a critique. It should be really really easy, since this is an "established and widespread criticism". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course in the People's Republic of Wikipedialand a source is only "reliable" if it has a shiny corporate logo, stock options, and the slant of their stories is dictated by a board of directors. Dozens of blogs and Ebay's own user forums overflowing with real bona-fide people with just such concerns of course can't possibly be reliably reporting that they have such concerns right? Unless of course one of the minions from the previously mentioned "reliable sources" decides to report on it.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to debate Wikipedia's reliable source policy, there are appropriate places to do so. All I'm doing is pointing out one of the policies we are expected to abide by here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact of the matter is, eBay has hundreds of thousands of users. Complaints by hundreds of users is not much of a consensus anyway; you're simply talking about too small a percentage to be of any real significance. I'm not saying that eBay does not have controversial practices that may seem to be pushing out small users, but without any kind of *reliable* source (of which forum posts are not), such practices cannot be quantified in an encyclopedia. People are always concerned about policy changes, but a simple search of random products for small shows hundreds of small sellers who do not seem to have been pushed out. Ronark (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific issues in "Other eBay controversies"[edit]

  1. In what way is the Diebenkorn fraud either a criticism of eBay or a controversy? Someone committed fraud, was caught, was convicted.
  2. In what way is the settlement regarding PayPal and gambling a criticism of eBay? eBay did not own PayPal when the illegal activity occurred.
  3. In what way are the dueling lawsuits between eBay and Craig's List criticism of eBay?
  4. What the heck is that section regarding Buy.com talking about? DSR? Name usurpations? Buh?

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand the section on Buy.com (you 4th point). Buy.com does not have to pay certain fees associated with selling, as well as getting a discount on seller fees despite not having a high enough DSR profile (Detailed Seller Rating). Still, eBay's preferential treatment of Buy.com is clearly controversial. Ronark (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you might rewrite it to make it clearer to the casual reader what's going on? A single source talking about it doesn't really establish it as a controversy as opposed to something that annoyed some sellers (which eBay does regularly; I think since I left there, they've opened up a specialized department dedicated to researching ways to annoy the sellers.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it stands, I have no evidence, and admittedly little interest in eBay controversies. I only came across this article following a long link chain. I was merely describing my own understanding of the article. eBay is free to annoy its sellers as much as they choose (I quite rarely sell as is). If this article indeed gets merged (instead of simply deleted), some of these criticisms should probably be left out (they read more like an individual's complaints anyway). Ronark (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about diminishing traffic reports? Is that not "credible" enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.189.179 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult Text[edit]

Under the "Other eBay Controversies" section, the currently last item which begins "In July 2008, eBay started letting web retailer Buy.com list millions of items" is non-intelligible to the average reader. I'm a regular ebay user and I have no idea what DSR is etc.

Thanks


71.142.211.228 (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Ben[reply]


Oh/ tjat was me? I vandalized about ten ebay pages. zp o i hage like 5 usernames k? Suprisingly the brokenlinks still there. You hold my money for a handful of stuff i hold youre numbers.--Asfdg (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inability to contact[edit]

You can't call eBay on the phone for any reason, and they don't have a customer service department - even though they're a business with many billions of dollars in revenues. So if they say, steal from you buy making an unauthorised charge on a credit card linked to your account, for example, you can't call them to ask what they're doing. I challenge anybody to telephone eBay. After you fail, I challenge you to find another public company with billions of dollars in revenues that you can't actually contact. Shouldn't there be a section on this criticism page about the inability to contact eBay?

How about these criticisms too?: http://news.cnet.com/eBay-recommendations-upset-members/2100-1017_3-268654.html http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/are-unfair-takedowns-becoming-ebays-trademark-423?page=0,1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.242.30 (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have called eBay on quite a few occasions, in fact, I have been provided with a phone number to do so. So, although there may not be a phone number available to the general public, some users do have a phone number to use.

I have edited out one paragraph, as it was without a source, and seemed doubtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wulfysanjose (talk • contribs) 01:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My current experience, eBay currently does have a customer service department, but you have to dig through pages to find the phone number. However, the CS reps are lowly paid, and don't understand English well. For disputes, you need to ask to be forwarded to an eBay Resolution Center specialist, or suffer the scripted responses. --NuShrike (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this "criticism" or "controversy" worthy of the article?[edit]

From my talk page:

Dad's Army board game[edit]

I recently made this edit to the criticism of ebay article, which you removed asking "In what way is this a criticism or a controversy?".

I am going to assume from your biography that you live in the US, and I'm going to assume - and I apologise if I am incorrect in this assumption - that you have never seen an episode of Dad's Army. Dad's Army was a British sitcom from the 1960's/1970's which focused on a unit of the Home Guard from Walmington-on-Sea. Much of the humour from the sitcom relied on the platoon’s failure to participate actively in World War II. With the exception of one episode, the Nazi's do not feature in the series, although arrows with the Nazi swastika surrounding the British Isles do feature in the opening titles.

These same images also appeared on the front of the game board box. Ebay banned the image as being "potentially racially offensive", completely divorcing them of their context of a family-friendly, prime time sitcom. This is why it appeared in most of the major red top tabloids in the United Kingdom.

The incident recieved a lot of criticism in the article that I cited because - despite being set in the Second World War, Dad's Army actually had nothing to do with Nazism, and eBay has recieved a lot of press criticism for that. I felt it was noteable as it made several different news sources, not just the Daily Express that I quoted, but also The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Star and MSN News. All the articles made similar criticisms to the Express article - that eBay's decision was nonsensicle given that Dad's Army is not related to Nazi Germany, nor is it a pro-Nazi programme, and especially as eBay allows the listing of both fiction and non-fiction books relating to the Second World War which display the Swastika on the cover (or, to put it another way, eBay's decision was controversial)

I felt that this incident was a noteable inclusion to the article as it recieved SIGNIFICANT tabloid press attention (which I elaborated on in my entry) and the fact that the relisted item is now recieving significant attention on eBay.

Granted it may only be a "local" example to the UK, but there are many examples of, for example, people, that are only noteable in the UK, or US or Europe, or wherever.

I have undone your edit and re-edited my entry to clarify why this is a criticism of e-bay policy. If you wish to discuss the matter further, I look forward to your reply Billydeeuk (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to see how this is in any way encyclopedic. eBay's policy on Nazi-related material is clear and consistent; an auction box with a bunch of swastikas (and not the old southern Asian or Navajo variety, either) is naturally going be shut down fairly automatically. Certainly the article doesn't express it as a controversy about, or criticism of eBay. If there are more reliable sources indicating it is one, it might be worthy of a mention, but it doesn't seem anything like the rest of the criticisms and controversies in the article; rather, it's a slightly amusing example of the literal interpretation of a policy. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned, I believe that it is noteable because of the popularity of Dad's Army in the United Kingdom, and also because of the significant press attention that this story was given in the United Kingdom.
In the article, I have referenced this article from The Daily Express, however, the story also featured in:
The Sun
The Metro
The Daily Mail
The Scotsman
Sky News
The Scotsman
Worcester News (Mr Davidson's local newspaper)
MSN News
The Telegraph
and even featured in an Australian newspaper
The Herald Sun
Also, one of the criticisms is that the policy is not consistent. Indeed, if you were to do a search on eBay I have found history books here, here and here that all promenently display the Swastika. Similarly this Escape from Colditz board game and this Dad's Army video box set also display swastikas and yet have made it through eBay's policy. Futhermore, eBay also allows some historical items bearing swastikas, including stamps, letters and currency.
The Sun article actually mentiones these criticisms in more detail, but was unsure whether as a "Red Top" tabloid it would be deemed "reliable" enough a source.
Dad's Army is a large part of the UK's cultural heritage, and is a much loved family sitcom. I believe that, and the fact that it has recieved such widespread criticism in the British Press (as opposed to one newspaper taking a punt on it) is what makes it a noteable event, and thus worthy of mention in the "criticisms" section. Billydeeuk (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ebay pay pal payment requirement[edit]

I think clarification is needed as to whether Ebay requires that Paypal be the only method of payment. Surely there are other acceptable methods of payment allowed. Could someone clarify this for me. jbn (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No, there's no such requirement, in general. http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html spells it out. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

I've fixed the two sources for this section. Then I removed things that weren't in either of the sources. This has left the section with almost nothing, though. Perhaps someone might wish to expand this section with well-referenced criticisms? They might even come from those two sources. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paypal block of Wikileaks[edit]

In 'Other ebay controversities' it says "On December 4, 2010, eBay subsidiary PayPal decided to freeze the account of Wikileaks citing terms of use violations over the publication of leaked US diplomatic cables, inviting allegations that PayPal did so in response to US government pressure.[59][60] In response, a hacker group called Anonymous launched denial-of-service attacks against the main PayPal site."

How is PayPal's block of Wikileaks a controversity with ebay? I know that Paypal is owned by ebay, but aside from the ownership this has absolutely nothing to do with ebay. --82.69.35.198 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

major problem with feedback forum[edit]

The major problem with ebay's Feedback system is that as a seller, I am prohibited from leaving a negative comment on a buyer/bidder, regardless of the circumstances. I recently had a buyer refuse to pay, refuse to even reply to emails. Yet, I have no recourse. This is, in my opinion, a far bigger problem than the examples listed in the article. Elsquared (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 2007 hack/security breach of ebay/paypal?[edit]

WHY isn't the breach of ebay/paypal's servers by the romanian hacker known as Vladuz listed here?

And don't tell me it didn't happen - I WAS THERE AND SAW MUCH OF IT, including Vladuz posting the details of over 1,000 users!

184.20.111.149 (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of eBay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Criticism of eBay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of eBay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "ebay" name[edit]

Hello everyone! I am glad to know that all of you are doing great. I was always wondering why ebay's owner has chosen "bay" as a root name to do business at. First of all "bay" is a place where passive recreation takes place, people come to relax, sun tan, bath, swim, do anything but commerce. Bay is not a place for commerce. Bay is where solid ground, or beach, meets a body of water, yet it is a tourist place, not a commercial place such as quay, pier, wharf, key, waterfront, dockside. Most bays I have visited were deserted places with a few sunbathers and no commerce apart from some occasional ice cream or drink stands.

Thus I believe "ebay" should have become a travel agency, but not a venue or an auction site.

A much more suitable names for such a venue, auction site with multivendor capability would be something like any of the following:

quay equay epier ewarf evenue eauction edockside ewaterfront etc.

What do you think?

Tomaud (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Criticism of eBay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention of this major scandal?[edit]

2600:1702:30A7:E000:A8C0:123F:88CD:7B67 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, since wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_eBay&oldid=1206826556"