Talk:EBay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The correct title of this article is Talk:eBay. The initial letter is shown capitalized due to technical restrictions.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the EBay article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Info on what I'm adding and why it should stay

Ebay is taking the right of having private feedbacks away from sellers as of 10/26. You will not be able to list an item to sell if your feedbacks are private. eBay has not bothered to notifiy sellers of this. The info here: http://www2.ebay.com/aw/core/200610.shtml#2006-10-02120653

Also many people are complaining to ebay at: http://pages.ebay.com/help/newtoebay/suggest.html

Anomo 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh excellent. I always hated the idea that sellers could have secret feedback. If I remember right, the "private feedback" policy started when it was eBay's policy that feedback could never be removed. I do wonder how you can say "without notifying sellers", though, since today is October 5th, it takes effect on the 26th, and you linked us to exactly where they are giving such notice. Further, I don't see in what way it is a "controversy" -- at least, your edit doesn't explain it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Before, people had a choice whether to user private feedback and sell from private feedback and negs still show up as a number and percentage, but eBay takes away that choice. Anomo 04:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it what way is it a controversy? Got a reliable source describing it as a controversy, so we can properly characterize it as such? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversies"

Couple of comments about the "Other controversies" section:

  1. Why is the Diebenkorn scam an "eBay controversy"? There was no controversy; there was an unethical art dealer committing fraud.
  2. Why is PayPal's paying that fine stemming from before eBay acquired them an eBay controversy?
  3. Is the Baazee CEO episode still active? What's the status of it? Isn't it more of a general website controversy rather than anything relating to eBay?
  4. In what way are the ticket scalping issues controversial?

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had someone Auction Snipe me twice! >:( Does this happen to anyone else? -Timmyfan

[edit] finally change it to look like eBay

Link on WP for script: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Edit Top 70.111.218.254 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Party Providers for eBay

A note about the third party providers/auction management software that help automate business on eBay?

Inc: Marketworks Channeladvisor Fruition

to name a few

19/10/2006

[edit] Unusual items

I've tightened up the "unusual items" section, removing those that were only referred to by eBay item numbers (or copies of eBay listings), given that anyone who wants to can post something odd on eBay and then list it here. I've changed the comments so they say that external source for "unusualness" need be provided. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eBay Template

For anyone who likes to shop at eBay:

eBay This user is an eBay addict.
{User:Bearly541/Userbox/Ebayaddict}}

Bearly541 03:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eBay Stores

I am new to Wikipedia so please forgive my ignorance.

I have added a new section on eBay Stores.

Does anyone know how I add my cite in the References area? http://www.proimpulse.com/ebay-store-design/ 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't. Wikipedia doesn't permit self-promotional links. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What are all the References at the bottom of the page then? There are several self prmotional links there like 1, 5, 6, links to Auction Guild, etc.

Did I miss something?http://www.proimpulse.com/ebay-store-design/ 17:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How are those self-promotional? Some of those may be a little sketchy as good sources, but they aren't blatently promotional. Take #6; it's a reference to an article in the International Herald Tribune; a well-known newspaper. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources for what sort of content is allowable in the References section. And read Wikipedia:External Links for more advice about not linking to a web page under your control. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I understand now about References and Wikipedia:External Links. I wanted to link to a page on my site that is directly related to eBay Stores and the design of them (eBay Radio even interviewed us on this).

Thanks again! http://www.proimpulse.com/ebay-store-design/ 20:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Such a link would be in violation of the external link policy. Please stop adding it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acquisitions & investments

Under Acquisitions & investments, there needs to be some sort of edit to the statement "ebay aqcuired kruse auctions."

There needs to be grammar check, and information on when the aquisition occured. -(Theemojesus 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Frequency of fraud

During I think it was about 2003, a new MMORPG, Eve-Online, started.

I spent about six months playing, during which time I learned how to make a lot of in-game currency, which I was then selling on ebay.

A small number of other people were also engaged in this activity, and we got an idea of who was who through the ebay listings.

We found that fraudenlent buyers were a *major* problem. Buyers would pay with stolen credit cards and it would only be later that the payment would be recognized as fraudent. With Paypal in particular this was a major problem, since Paypal then billed the seller for the fraudent payment and because Paypal exlude virtual goods from their insurance programme. With other forms of payment (Western Union on-line money transfers, for example) this wasn't a problem because WU would honour the payment once it was made.

As a result, I began to track *all* the sales of ISK (the in-game currency) for a period of about two months.

It turned out to be very easy to spot a fraudent buyer. They would bid over the going rate and they would often bid on many auctions concurrently. This was of course because they weren't spending their own money and because they wanted to get as much ISK as possible before the card was detected as invalid.

There was only *one* case of a more sophisticated fraud, who built up a +5 reputation before going on a fraud spree. He did well, because ebay at that time only showed the current rating, which for him of course was only going down by -1 each time someone gave a negative feedback that he'd defrauded them. (From that episode, I learned to always check the full user history).

What I found was that about *HALF* of all bidders were fraudulent.

I emailed one seller who lost the equivelent of 3000 dollars of in-game currency.

I think this information is quite interesting and I wish/intend to add it to the Ebay page.

Any comments/suggestions?

Toby Douglass 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It isn't interesting. Suggestion: Don't add it. KarlBunker 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's interesting, but it most definitely will get shot down as original research. Gzuckier 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If I write up the work, can I not refer to it from the Wiki? Toby Douglass 13:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No. It's original research, and you don't get to insert it into Wikipedia either directly or by reference. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm offended by your tone. I have no ulterior motive to "get it into the Wiki". Fraud is an issue with on-line auctions and objective statistical information is useful - and THAT is why I've been prepared to do the work necessary to write the work up and publish it. Toby Douglass 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you're offended. One of Wikipedia's official policies is no original research. Of course fraud is an issue, and of course objective information is useful -- but Wikipedia doesn't allow you to include your own research. On the other hand, if you publish it and it's deemed a reliable source, another editor may choose to use it (and you can recommend they do so here on this page.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That's cool - I was wondering if I could write it up and then add it in. I'll get it done, then put a pointer to it here, you guys can review it and add it if it's acceptable or give me feedback if it is not. Toby Douglass 13:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Great! I look forward to seeing it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Despite my comment above, I think this would be extremely interesting--to fans of this particular type of game who sell or have considered selling their in-game currency currency on eBay. To the rest of the world? To eBay users in general? to WP readers interested in eBay? Not so much. In the first place, your research only covers this one type of eBay user, and in the second place, the only real lesson from your research is: "exercise a little caution if you're selling an item that appeals to teens and children." KarlBunker 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest?

I note an unusual amount of edits by Jpgordon wiki admin and ex ebay employee. I wonder if this is the best person, a self stated former employee & ebay programmer, to be chronically editing and monitoring the page, and by comments, apparently this is a pet project. STeve65.8.240.227 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair question, certainly. I've tried to tread pretty carefully. I wouldn't mind hearing from other editors regarding this. Have I been crossing the boundries of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? (Actually, I'm a little surprised this hasn't come up earlier.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charity Auctions

I threw in one, it would be cool to see other people add other ones that they know of. They run around 5 or 10 a week and have an entire department dedicated to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jazzmaster j (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Validity of the "unusual items" page?

Isn't this highly subjective? Only an external link is required? This section seems out of place in Wikipedia and doesn't contribute to the article nor does it even list some of the more peculiar items that have sold on ebay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.124.45.194 (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Well, yeah. It's smaller than it used to be...none might well be better. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I once saw someone trying to sell a link to a website. Upon closer inspection, I saw that the link was stated in the product description. Even better, there were bids on it.69.251.157.48 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)ARANDOMGENIUS69.251.157.48 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Thanks again. Cbrown1023 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Why is it even particularly worth mentioning? It's one of a slough of free and non-free listing tools available from various sources, and it's one of a slough of software tools available from eBay. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ebay, not eBay

The logo says "ebay", or maybe ebaY, not eBay. 67.188.172.165 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the site itself consistently uses "eBay". --Someone Else's Problem 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking on Google, that's correct. BuickCenturyDriver 23:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
From the horse's mouth:
The eBay Name
It is usually permissible for you to refer to eBay in a descriptive manner on your website, in item listings or in advertisements. For example, you might say "Check out my antique items on eBay," or "I sell on eBay." (By the way, eBay is always spelled "eBay"; it is never spelled "Ebay" or "e-Bay.") You should not refer to eBay in any way that might lead someone to believe that your company or site is sponsored by, affiliated with, or endorsed by eBay. [1]
Lanternshine 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The "ebaY" thing is popular among one particular community of eBay detractors. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So is 'egay' but I wouldnt mention it on the wiki page 62.25.106.209 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor customer service

Some users have been frustrated with Ebay's customer service. All problems must be resolved by email, there is no way to speak directly to a person. Email responses are often canned responses. The frustration with Ebay's failure to improve has given rise to a petition calling for customer service improval.

This text has been removed 3 times without a valid explanation. According WP:RS this classes as a primary source. Incidentally, I have no affiliation with the petition website. Although at least one of the reverters works/worked for eBay.

Could you please give your reasons rather than just starting revert war? Pgr94 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a petition page exists isn't enough to establish that this issue is notable. Stories in mainstream news outlets would do that. Apart from the issue of notability, I doubt (though I don't know offhand) that it's within WP policies to include a link to a petition page in an article. KarlBunker 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not. There's no reliable source. Online petitions are neither reliable sources nor indicative of anything. And, for gosh sake: 275 signatures. Pretty trivial even for an online petition. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As a longtime eBayer, I will attest that the issue is, indeed, notable. Having spent countless hours in some of eBay's chat rooms, I've found that the matter of lack of accessibility is a sore subject for many -- especially newbies. For the most part, eBay veterans are accustomed to it and find the chat rooms themselves to be the best available workaround, but it doesn't mean that they like it. Additionally, there is Live Help, which offers real time assistance via chat. I've used it quite a few times and have generally found it useful; others have not had that experience. The topic itself is not inappropriate to the article, although I agree that the link to the petition page is of dubious value.
Lanternshine 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt your experience or the validity of your opinion in the least, but mere mortals like you and I don't count as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. KarlBunker 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
And, of course their customer service is terrible. It was quite good when I first started working there, but went downhill way quickly as the company and customer base grew exponentially, and never regained its stride. As Karl points out, our personal experiences aren't relevant. Now, if we had a good reliable source -- say, a Consumer Reports expose of eBay customer service -- we could use it. But that petition really isn't any different than just you or I whining about it here; in fact, it's worse, because there's no way to identify any of the signatories; it could just be one guy who likes to type. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The "Items and Sevices" section reads like an advertisement to me. Anyone else get that feeling when they read it? worthawholebean talkcontribs 05:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibited items

Does the list belong in the article, or should it be kept to prose and an external link to their policies. I'm aware the topic is notable enough to include, though I don't know if a list of prohibited items is good encyclopedic practice. Richard001 00:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was kinda strange to include the prohibited items as well. It's one of those things that are in the user agreement. I would suggest that a simpler way to deal with the prohibited items is perhaps in one of the auctions that made headlines that violated that listing policy, we describe that the item was listed as being prohibited and then link to the prohibited items from there, as well as including a link at the bottom to "prohibited items". DanielZimmerman 14:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not so controversial items listed in "controversies and criticisms"

I cannot fathom how "misspellings" can be listed as a controversy or a criticism. I also do not think that sniping should be included in this list. The entire section could probably be organized better with some additional information on other problems that ebay has with dealing with fraud. DanielZimmerman 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the misspellings and search engine portions at the end of this section. It just didn't belong there. DanielZimmerman 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
After removing the mispellings (again) and the sniping section, another user reverted them back. I have since deleted the mispellings (yet again) and put a [citation needed] tag on the sniping portion because there needs to be some reference as to why the sniping section belongs in a section about controversy and criticisms of eBay. DanielZimmerman 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud section: Part Deux

In the most recent archive it is mentioned that the Fraud section has a lot of what appears to be OR. I tend to agree, especially with the lack of citations in this section. I will be working on a rewrite unless anyone has any objections. DanielZimmerman 14:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

i think under fraud they should do the chinese mp4 player scam.. as ebay is flooded with counterfit music players with hacked memory (1gb made to look like 4gb) and maybe links related to it 82.24.175.199 01:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caps

Why doesn't this article use the {{lowercase|eBay}} template? 134.250.72.142 21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, it does? The very first thing in the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi items?

Does that mean it's impossible to get such items as Hitler Youth knifes? Or does that just mean pro-nazi books and such? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.174.93.102 (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Dunno about "impossible", but definitely against the eBay rules. eBay will generally remove items that bear the marks of such organizations, such as relics from the KKK or certain Nazi memorabilia.[2] --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ebay HAS allowed a nazi flag to be sold on its site, you just cannot show the swastika in the picture. If you dont show the swastika then ebay has no "proof" that what you are selling is an actual nazi item. DanielZimmerman 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/b/a/Talk%7EEBay_c1bf.html"