The eBay/PayPal Bay Area GIVE Team Charity Auction

Hi everyone!

Just a quick note to tell y'all about the eBay/PayPal Bay Area GIVE Team's 2008 Holiday Charity Auction.  We're auctioning off some great items at unheard of prices (e.g. Breitling and Michele watches, Ray Ban sunglasses, Manolo Blahnik shoes, and even Farouk Flat Irons) and 100% of all the sales will go to benefit some great charities, like the Family Giving Tree and Second Harvest Food Bank.

The eBay/PayPal Bay Area GIVE (Grantmaking and Inspiring Volunteerism Everywhere) is a group of eBay/PayPal/Shopping.com/StumbleUpon employees in the San Francisco Bay Area who work with the eBay Foundation on projects to give back to our communities and planet.  All these items were listed (and will be packed and shipped) by eBay, Inc. employees during Charity Listing volunteer events.

Check out the San Jose GIVE team store here to see the listings:
http://stores.ebay.com/Bay-Area-GIVE-Team

And keep visiting, because we've got some more great items to list in the next week or so.

Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone out there in eBay-land.

Changes to the Resolution Center and Dispute Console

It's been said that the dispute resolution process on eBay and PayPal is kind of like the dentist's office. No one gets excited thinking about the dentist's office every day (well, except for dentists, I suppose). But if you have a toothache, it's all you can think about. The same holds true with dispute resolution: you probably don't think about it every day, but if you do have a problem (which can be as annoying as a toothache) you want the resolution process to work smoothly and efficiently, so you can get the issue resolved quickly and get back to business.

 

New drill for dispute resolution
Well I'm very pleased to announce some big improvements in the dispute resolution infrastructure at eBay and PayPal. To take the metaphor a bit further, imagine your local dentist's office upgrading from foot powered pumps and buzzing film-based x-ray machines to diamond tipped ultrasonic drills and computerized 3-D tooth scans.

The first change is a huge upgrade to the PayPal Resolution Center, which is the hub on PayPal where buyers and sellers can work out all their transaction and account problems. The Resolution Center was launched in 2004, and though many new dispute resolution "flows" have been added to it over the years, up to a couple of weeks ago it pretty much looked the same as it did when we turned it on four years ago. The new redesign has updated the Center and optimized everything in line with how we've learned people use it. For example, low volume users (e.g. buyers or occasional sellers) see a custom view with more help content and filing assistance, but as volume increases (e.g. professional sellers) the Resolution Center changes the view to make actions more streamlined. We've also cleaned up the tables and actions to present the most important information in an easily understood way.

But the improvements don't stop at just the front page. We've also launched wholly new dispute and claim flows, with major upgrades there as well. For instance, buyers and sellers can now negotiate partial refunds directly in the dispute phase of the process, and if both sides agree, the dispute is automatically closed and the agreed upon money moved from one account to the other. We've made the whole process much easier to follow, with clearer indications of where users are in the resolution process and simplified indications of what actions they need to take. In addition, we are now offering projected times for when each step in the claims phase will be completed, so users won't feel like their process is open-ended. We're also going to start communicating the reason for decisions much more clearly, so you'll know the rationale behind any outcomes you achieve.

 

Real-time dispute data automatically in eBay
However, the improvements aren't only on the PayPal site. We've also achieved something I've wanted to do ever since the first day I joined the company almost five years ago. We now have created a channel that exposes real-time PayPal claim and dispute data to eBay, and that has enabled us to put information into the eBay Dispute Console showing the current status of all PayPal Disputes and Claims currently in progress regarding eBay items. In the past, buyers have sometimes been confused when they tried to file an Item Not Received or Not as Described dispute on eBay and were then pushed to PayPal to complete the filing process. When they went back to eBay, there was no indication that a dispute was ever filed. Now eBay will know in real-time the status of the PayPal dispute and claim, and will be able to display it to the buyer right in their eBay Dispute Console. This should minimize confusion and improve response rates to disputes for both buyers and sellers.

I know you're curious to see the new processes, but let me be clear: I don't want everyone to intentionally create a transaction problem to check them out. As most everyone on eBay and PayPal knows, an occasional transaction problem is inevitable, so keep trading as much as you can and maybe (if you’re lucky? unlucky?) you'll get a chance to see these new tools in action.

Kudos go in particular to Scott Loper and Ted Fong, who lead the eBay Resolutions team, and Chris Wang, who runs Resolutions at PayPal, as well as Naresh Narwani, who led the console-linking project on the PayPal side. But these efforts involved dozens of engineers, usability designers, web developers, and quality assurance people, all working in concert around the world for more than a year. The successful launch of these improvements represent the end of this particular marathon effort, which we should acknowledge and celebrate, but it should be noted we're already hard at work on our next set of improvements.

As I said at the beginning, no one walks around thinking about the dentist's office every day except for dentists. The same is true for dispute resolution: as a resolution geek, this is what I love to think about all day and all night. And my focus on this area makes me doubly proud of all the great progress that has been achieved with these new features. These changes represent huge leaps forward in minimizing frustration and preserving trust. I hope you'll never have to take advantage of them, but they're there for you if you do.

A message to buyers on how to best leave Feedback: WAIT!

I've had a lot of discussions with Community members of late about how the new Feedback changes affect problem resolution on eBay. Many folks are used to working transaction problems out by mutual agreement, where the buyer and seller work together to solve issues. In this vision, the transaction partners are like the guys in the missile silo where they have to turn two keys at the same time on different sides of the room. Neither one can do anything unless the other side agrees.

As everyone is well aware, Feedback works differently now. It's no longer a mutual system. Buyers can't receive negs from sellers, and buyers can't have Feedback they left for a seller removed, so the notion of resolving problems by mutual agreement makes less sense. For example, if a buyer leaves a neg for a seller because the item didn't arrive, and it subsequently arrives, the buyer doesn't have the ability to remove that neg. In the past we used the mutual feedback withdrawal process to de-score those errant Feedbacks, but again, in a one-way Feedback world, mutual withdrawal doesn't make much sense, because there's nothing mutual about it.

So my new message to buyers on how to use Feedback is: Wait!  Do not rush to judgment in leaving a Feedback for your seller. It's always been a good idea to wait to leave Feedback, but now it's more important than ever. Feedback is now a set of one way doors, and once you pick one and walk through it, you can't retrace your steps. You don't want to make your seller frustrated and angry that they got a neg while they're still in the midst of working with you. Best to wait until they've met all their obligations before you weigh in with your final verdict on how it went. You don't want to have to apologize for jumping the gun and leaving a neg if it turns out that the seller did live up to their obligations and do the right thing. That undeserved neg will be a burr in the saddle for that seller for a long time to come, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Another key point is that once you leave a neg for your seller, you lose all your leverage in urging them to do the right thing. In fact, you may actually generate a fair amount of ill will, especially if you put them below the DSR threshold that gets them discounts on their fees. So it's vitally important to wait until the transaction is absolutely complete, meaning totally closed and done, before you pick which metaphoric door (positive or negative) you want to walk through.

Fortunately the language in the leave-a-negative Feedback flow is extremely clear. It asks the buyer to confirm that they've reached out to the seller, waited an appropriate amount of time post-purchase, and it makes crystal clear that once Feedback is left it cannot be pulled back.  So no buyer can claim that they don't understand how the Feedback process works.

So how do we get this message out to buyers? Well, if only we made every eBay buyer read this blog entry we'd be just fine, but that's probably not in the cards. So I suggest that sellers push this message out to your buyers. Combine it with whatever messaging you currently have in your automated invoicing systems that explains how the rating system works and how the buyer can contact you if they have any issues. Put it in your shipping notification emails. There's no way a buyer can look askance at a seller who is merely suggesting that the buyer wait until the transaction is completely finished before they leave Feedback. Proactive communication and reassurance is already the best strategy for protecting yourself from negs, but putting in this "wait before you neg" messaging is just an additional layer of insurance.

Is Judge Judy the solution to eBay's problems?

As a dispute resolution guy, I keep my ear to the ground on any developments in the world of online conflict management. And it appears there's been a mini-boomlet in innovation as of late. First came the launch of peoplescourtraw.com, which enables people in a disagreement to upload short video clips stating their case, which is then put to the site's visitors to decide. Then a few weeks later came AllRise.com, an Israeli startup that looks quite a bit like the Community Court eBay UK announced last fall (but subsequently canceled) in that panels of online juries decide cases submitted on the site.

The question these sites raise for me is how applicable these models would be to eBay and PayPal. A little while ago a friend sent me a post by Zac Bissonnette on a stock discussion board that suggested  Judge Judy would be an ideal solution to eBay's problems with sloppy sellers and fraudulent buyers.  The post included a link to a widely circulated YouTube video taken from a Judge Judy episode that dealt with a dispute between two eBay members. From the post:

"Kelli Filkins appeared on Judge Judy to defend plaintiffs' claim that she had defrauded them on eBay by sending them a picture of a phone they paid $240 for. She claimed that the ad said it was for a picture only.

What ensued is possibly the greatest smackdown in the history of Judge Judy -- who told Ms. Filkins that she is an "outrageous person." The sharp-tongued judge went on to say: "If you live to 120, you're not gonna be as smart as I am in one finger. You may weigh more, but you're not gonna be smarter than I am in one figure." Burn sauce!

Given Judy's reputation as a no-nonsense judge who will crack down on shenanigans, eBay could work out a licensing deal to brand its complaint resolution system as "Judge Judy" -- and run an ad campaign where she talks about her commitment to making eBay a safe place for buyers and sellers."

Objection sustained
Now as a dispute resolution guy, watching Judge Judy gives me hives. It seems less about resolving the problem between the two parties than about providing an excuse for Judge Judy to indulge her rage-a-holic tendencies by belittling and abusing the people in front of her. For some reason, people like to watch this kind of thing. I also think that because Judge Judy uses the trappings of the judicial system (big wooden desk, robes, etc.) people think that what she's dishing out is justice. She may "tell it like it is," (a la Simon on American Idol) but I think the "burn sauce" mentioned above is unnecessary and inappropriate.

All rise for Judge Griff?
That said, maybe members of the eBay Community would like to be able to bring their disputes in front of a forum like AllRise, the People's Court, or Judge Judy. Well, not Judge Judy, necessarily -- but maybe Judge Griff? If both the buyer and seller agreed to resolve their dispute that way then I don't see why eBay should prevent it. Maybe we could make it transparent and let others in the community come and review the processes as well, like this Judge Judy video.

I'd be interested to hear what readers of the blog would say about this idea (you can leave your comments on the Chatter blog discussion board). Personally, I think that resolving disputes by mutual agreement is the best way to go, because it builds trust and the members involved are much more likely to abide by a decision that they personally approved. But the judicial model does have a long track record of success, and it might be useful in some cases -- especially if it was a way for the Community to enforce the standards instead of eBay and PayPal employees.

The eBay Value Proposition (for math nerds)

I saw this web comic the other day about eBay and thought it'd be great to share.  Certainly makes figuring out optimal sales routes less complicated!

xkcd is a clever strip that bills itself as a "webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language."  It's a very funny look at the world from the perspective of science, mathematics, and the internet.

Doing Right by our Buyers

I feel that we in the eBay world don't do enough to highlight the good things that are happening every day in the marketplace between buyers and sellers.  Yes, we need to stay focused on preventing the bad experiences, and we have to do everything in our power to reduce the likelihood they will occur.  But I came across a story last week that reminded me why the vast majority of the transaction problems that are reported on eBay are worked out amicably between the buyer and seller without requiring involvement from eBay or PayPal.

Larry Phillips is an extremely experienced eBay stamps seller.  A month or two ago he received a multi-item purchase from a relatively new eBay buyer and he shipped the items out right away.  However, the buyer jumped the gun when the item didn't arrive in a couple days, and he filed PayPal disputes against Larry, firing off accusations of fraud.

Now this isn't a situation that comes as a surprise to any experienced eBay seller.  This happens quite frequently, as buyers often don't have any idea what a reasonable time is to wait for an item to arrive.  In fact, the number one type of buyer-reported problem we deal with on the site is Item Not Received, and the number one resolution we see to that problem is that the item eventually arrives and the buyer closes the dispute amicably.

As it turns out, that's what happened in this case.  The items eventually arrived, and the buyer was embarrassed that he jumped the gun.  In fact, he told Larry that he felt he had "egg on his face" and that he was "ashamed for causing any grief."

Now I have seen countless situations where the buyer reports a transaction problem and takes an aggressive tone.  As a result, the seller responds with a similarly confrontational approach, which generates ill will.  Then when the item eventually arrives, which should resolve the issue, the problem continues because of the tone taken between Buyer and Seller.  Such a clash can result in negative feedback and a sour taste in the mouth of everyone involved, even though the original issue was completely resolved.

Seller's masterful reply
Larry's response paved the way for the reconciliation in this case.  I think his email to the buyer (who, remember, had accused Larry of fraud unnecessarily) was masterful in its reserved tone in the face of buyer accusations.  Larry wrote:

"I am a reputable seller, and always try to treat my customers in the manner I want to be treated. Just please keep in mind that while I strive to give world class customer service every time, sometimes I get overwhelmed with orders, and being human, I sometimes make a mistake. But if you call that to my attention, I will always fix it immediately."

The beauty of Larry's language in his response is that it doesn't just fall back on "the customer is always right" platitudes. It emphasizes Larry's commitment to live up to his obligations as a seller, but it doesn't back away from the buyer's obligations as well. PayPal also played a key role in working this matter out. 

When the buyer emailed Larry to say that it was unclear how to close the dispute amicably, Larry suggested that a rep call the buyer to walk them through the process, which a rep then did.  That cleared the final hurdle, and then everyone could walk away from the process satisfied.

Research has shown that buyers who encounter problems and have them resolved to their satisfaction are more loyal than buyers who encounter no problem at all.  I think (and I suspect Larry agrees) that if we all stay committed to delivering these kind of smooth problem resolutions we can deliver a transaction experience that is not only equal to the direct shopping sites, but better.

Promoting Respectful Communications Online

A big reason why I came to work at eBay are the Community values that Pierre placed at the heart of the company from the beginning. We all carry them around on our badges all day, and they're even painted on the walls around here, so you know we take them seriously.  #1 on the list is "We believe people are basically good."  I think that eBay can be viewed as a huge sociological experiment to test that hypothesis, and we have demonstrated again and again that it is true.  Successful transactions outnumber problems by a factor of more than a hundred to one on eBay, and that's pretty strong evidence to back up Pierre's original contention. (I've written about this topic on my personal blog as well.)

That said, there are some hooners out there who, for one reason or another, are driven to treat others (be they transaction partners or fellow posters in the discussion forums) disrespectfully. Believe you me, I have read some dispute threads that would singe your eyebrows, they're so bad. Why people are motivated to talk to complete strangers this way continues to mystify me, particularly when their transaction partners have the ability to publicly rate and comment upon their behavior through the feedback system.

The ugly mask of anonymity
I think it has something to do with the anonymity of the internet. Individuals type things into emails that they'd never say face-to-face, probably because they aren't thinking about the other side as a real person, and they are insulated from the reactions their comments elicit. Also, people are quick to jump to conclusions about the other side (they're a criminal, they're a liar, etc.) and they don't take the time to connect with their transaction partners on a friendly level -- they just jump right in to the accusations and threats, as opposed to saying "Hi, how are you?  My name is Colin..." or the other things we'd say if we met a stranger face to face.

This issue isn't unique to eBay and PayPal, of course. The blogosphere has been wrestling with this issue for some time. Earlier this year the writer of a popular web column, Kathy Sierra, was victimized by some terrible online harassment. Many people were upset by what she experienced, and spoke out against the type of behavior that targeted her. It led to some serious introspection (led most visibly by prominent blogger Tim O'Reilly) about whether we needed an Online Code of Conduct.

Subsequent to that issue I attended a conference in England on online dispute resolution where many conversations took place in the halls about this topic, particularly regarding what happened to Ms. Sierra and how momentum could be built behind keeping communication respectful online. After several break out drafting sessions, a joint statement was drafted and adopted unanimously by everyone in attendance that encouraged internet users to be more thoughtful in their virtual interactions.

Online code of conduct
To support the statement, the National Center on Technology and Dispute Resolution at UMass-Amherst has launched a website, RespectPledge.org, that has the full text of the statement and offers a Respectful Communication Pledge that anyone who visits the site can sign. (Full disclosure: I helped to put the site together, and I'm a longtime supporter of the Center.) The goal of the site is to promote respectful communication online by offering a pledge that can be taken voluntarily by individuals. Also, it has a little icon you can put on your blog, website, Me page, or item listing that indicates you have taken the pledge.

Obviously, not everyone online will be interested in taking such a pledge. In fact, many of the worst offenders may think such a pledge is laughable.  However, stating these principles clearly and giving individuals a way to publicly affirm them may help to build a critical mass that promotes and sustains a culture of respectful communication online. 

RespectPledge.org seal
I'd love to see eBay members being more proactive about this issue. I think SquareTrade seals have helped to advance this cause for the past 8 years, and maybe this new RespectPledge.org seal will serve a similar purpose. I suspect that taking the pledge will urge some people to think twice before they jump to conclusions about someone online, or before they send a message that they would never say face-to-face. And perhaps seeing an icon on the listing of a seller indicating that the seller has taken the pledge will urge a buyer to begin a communication regarding a transaction problem with a constructive tone instead of an accusatory one.

Seller Exposure After NAD Claims

Here's my guess at the #1 seller resolution frustration scenario out there right now:

A seller sends an item they are very confident is as-described. However, once it arrives, the buyer files a not-as-described (NAD) complaint. Maybe the buyer legitimately disagrees with the seller about the item condition, maybe there's something more nefarious going on -- who knows. After several back and forth messages with PayPal customer support to get the facts of the case, PayPal decides for the buyer, telling them they have to ship the item back to the seller in order to get their refund. Eventually, the buyer does ship back the item, but much to the seller's chagrin, it's now either damaged or incomplete.  The buyer then gives the tracking number to PayPal and they get their money back, but the seller is out the shipping and insurance -- plus, they have an item that has lost most of its value.

This is not a new issue -- I have seen examples of this kind of situation for several years. In contentious, not-as-described cases, PayPal will usually tell the buyer to send the item back to the seller, and once delivery is confirmed PayPal will release the funds to the buyer. In most cases, we’d call it even at that point, as the buyer and seller are out the same amount. For example, say the buyer paid $15 plus $5 for shipping ($20). Then the buyer shipped it back to the seller (presumably at a cost of $5). Then they got their original payment amount back, which was $20. So the buyer is out $5 (the return shipping) and the seller is out the $5 for the original shipping, but they have the item back. The transaction was unsatisfactory, so PayPal pushed the “undo” button as best we could and shared the cost between the members.

Returned item is damaged

However, what if the buyer damaged the item before they shipped it back, so the seller is out more than just the shipping? As if the seller wasn't frustrated enough with the time spent on the claim process and the decision by PayPal, now the damage to the item adds insult to injury.

Let me be clear that PayPal does not relish the role of playing decision maker in cases like this. We're not able to look at the item directly, which makes determining the appropriate outcome in a not-as-described case quite difficult. We’re asked to make the call because the buyer and seller can’t work the issue out directly, and we work hard to make the best call we can in each situation. But someone is going to be disappointed by the decision, and we don't like disappointing our customers.

It's understandable for members to suspect foul play, even when there might be none at work.  For  instance, an unscrupulous buyer could send an empty box or a box of junk just to get the tracking number (just as a fraudulent seller sometimes does). Once the buyer has the tracking number they can present it to PayPal to get PayPal to release the funds back to them. I've looked into this particular scam and found very few actual examples of it happening, but customer service is aware of it and prepared to handle it should it arise. 

Let me be clear, though (as I was in my prior post when I was addressing sellers): if a buyer does try something like this, it is clear buyer fraud -- just like if they were to send a fake money order or file a false protection claim. I don't think we need any buyer who would act like that in our marketplace.

The good news is that the odds are very high we'll catch any buyers that try this little scam. We track the number of PayPal claims a buyer files. Only a tiny percentage of buyers file more than one claim a year (the majority files none). If a buyer files multiple claims, particularly multiple SNAD claims, they will stick out like a sore thumb. Also, sellers have the ability to report suspected buyer fraud if they lose a SNAD claim – just click the “report buyer fraud” link on the right hand side of the closed claim in your Resolution Center and you'll see the link to do so.

Send me your experiences

I've been chatting with some folks at PayPal about ways we might be able to offer help to sellers victimized in this way in a more systematic fashion. I think PayPal needs to get on top of this issue, because it's a particularly bad experience for sellers. Until then, let me know in the Chatter discussion forum if you've gone through a situation like this one. It's helpful for me to learn more about individual cases that may fit this pattern so we can determine how best to address it.

Stringing along buyers

I've just heard a report from a very experienced member (more than 3000 feedback) that they are encountering an increasing number of sellers stringing them along when they encounter a transaction problem. For example, the sellers may say things like, "Oh, I sent the item, I can't imagine what's wrong..." or "I'll check what happened with my shipper, just wait a few days" or "it just bounced back through the mail, let me send a replacement." All of these things are fine to say if they're true, and they're just what you want to hear if you're a buyer with a problem. But the experienced member asserted that these sellers are stringing their buyers along for a more insidious reason: they want the buyer to lose their eligibility to file a dispute or claim.

Buyers can only file a dispute on PayPal up to 45 days after the payment is made, and up to 60 days on eBay after an auction closes or the buyer makes a buy-it-now purchase. As sellers are usually much more savvy about eBay and PayPal's rules and resolution processes, buyers often don't know what their eligibility window is prior to experiencing a transaction problem. That leads to a situation where an unscrupulous seller can mislead and distract their buyer for long enough that the buyer loses eligibility, and then the seller can act with impunity knowing the buyer is no longer able to file a protection claim.

Let me be clear: there is no excuse for a seller to engage in this kind of behavior. Even if the seller sugar coats their delays with apologies and empathetic responses it's still seller abuse if it's just an attempt to deny a buyer redress by waiting out the filing window. It's deception, pure and simple.

I've had some sellers come up to me and tell me horror stories about how abusive buyers had been to them in the past. They often present these as "once bitten, twice shy" scenarios, saying that they'll never be so foolish as to trust a buyer again. Each seller has to make their own choices, and if a seller wants to be very strict and firm in insisting upon terms for their transactions that protect them against unreasonable buyers, that's their call. But if a seller takes that mistrust one step further to justify this kind of manipulative behavior, then that's not acceptable. No seller has the right to deceive their buyers, and it is unreasonable to punish future buyers because of the unreasonable actions of a previous buyer.

All buyers should get this message loud and clear: if your seller has not addressed your concern, and the end of the filing window is approaching, you should file a dispute to preserve your eligibility for protections. Even if the seller seems responsive by email and friendly, buyers must be aware that they should still file. The dispute can be easily canceled later if need be, and no action will be taken against the seller's account. Also, buyers should know that if a seller pulls this on them, they should make sure to leave the seller a neg and to clearly explain what happened. That may protect a future buyer from being "seduced" by the same tactic the next time around.

The experienced member who informed me about this issue ended their message by asking, "Without trust can eBay even exist?" My answer to that is an emphatic no. eBay is based on the premise that people are good. Trust is the lifeblood of our marketplace. There is no avoiding the truth that this kind of cynical, strategic behavior on the part of some sellers cuts to the heart of eBay. I think all of us should have zero tolerance for this kind of thing, for while it may benefit the seller who does it in the short term, it harms all of us (buyers, sellers, and the marketplace) for the long term.

 

Filing disputes beyond the eligibility window

I just had an exchange with a very experienced eBay member who had a seller string them along so that they missed the filing window for an Item Not Received dispute. His question was whether it was still worth it for them to file the dispute (even though they knew they would not be able to follow through with it) just so that eBay would be aware of what happened. He also observed that some of the links to file disputes disappeared after the filing window closed, which made him even more curious.

It’s an interesting question, and I thought the issue would be valuable to raise on the Chatter.

We do in fact welcome Item Not Received (INR) or Significantly Not as Described (SNAD) reports even if you’ve passed the filing window. It’s also true that some of the links to report INRs and SNADs do disappear once the filing window has passed (such as the link in the My eBay drop-down menu next to the item).

The rationale for this is that if someone has missed the filing window it makes more sense to not to urge them to start the process as opposed to starting the process and then telling them they’re ineligible for it.

However, for savvy users who want to ensure eBay is still notified of the situation, it’s still possible to initiate the process to get the report into our system even if you are prevented from proceeding because you’re beyond the filing window. To do so, just file through one of the links that is not connected to a particular item. One such link is at the top of your dispute console – as it is not connected to any particular item, it never disappears.  Another link is available on the INR process help page.

You’ll need the item number to file on these pages (it’s automatically entered if you use the My eBay link, but if you use these links, you’ll need to enter it yourself, as the site won’t know which item you want to file the INR regarding). Once you enter the item number we’ll note the filing in our records even though you can’t continue in the process.

Folks often ask me why we limit the amount of time buyers have to report disputes.  There are some legal reasons – we have to resolve these issues before buyers lose their eligibility to file a chargeback through their credit card issuer, for instance – but we also think it’s appropriate to not make sellers liable for item disputes for all eternity after they make a sale.  In the vast majority of cases the buyer should know if they have an issue within a month or two after the transaction.