Talk:eBay/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

"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

In the "Other Controversies" section it states that "eBay discourages sellers from using independent money-wiring companies such as Western Union and MoneyGram". I assume that this was added as people feel that this discourages competition for eBay's payment service, PayPal. If that is the case would this still be the case if that is not the reason it is discouraged? Both WU and MoneyGram discourage the use of their services on eBay as well: http://pages.ebay.com/securitycenter/mrkt_safety/instantcashtransfer.html#western If this is not the reason that this is considered controversial could someone clarify this? Kaid 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I removed several. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved to discussion down the page. Kaid (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Free third party providers can be found on ebay.com under seller tools. The best one I have found is Turbo Lister.

Income being derived from Ebay on an automated basis is more than using third party providers. A discussion of third party providers that provide income on Ebay can be found here

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)

eBay Template

For anyone who likes to shop at eBay:

{User:Bearly541/Userbox/Ebayaddict}}

Bearly541 03:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, but this is a forum for discussing improvements to the eBay article. ANNAfoxlover

Why did the creator request deletion? William Ortiz (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Acquisitions & investments

I'd like to confirm that e-Bay didn't acquire MercadoLibre, they just bought 19% of the stock and signed a deal that endend a couple of years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.244.172 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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))

Ebay did not acquire Mercadolibre.com, just a small percentage of it. This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.234.165 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

MercadoLibre.com was not aquired totally, only a 19% of the stock. Look for the mercadolibre article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.3.108.21 (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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)

External links

• http://pages.ebay.com/turbo_lister/
• http://pages.ebay.co.uk/turbo_lister/
• Turbo Lister Forum
• http://watches777.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watches777 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

[MAGBAZA]http://www.magbaza.com/ Adds Trust and Reliability to Buy From China by ebay Headquartered in Hongkong, China, MAGBAZA and its operating subsidiaries provide MAGBAZA services that facilitate and accelerate purchasing from China by assuring secure settlement and providing supplier investigation services and other helpful services. It’s a fast growing team with representative offices and cooperators all over main cities of China. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.221.116.199 (talk)

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)

So why is the wiki page name EBay, not eBay? -- LeCour^T:C 01:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Technical reasons. All article names on Wikipedia begin with upper case letters. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:42, 20 April 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)

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)

The SEC filing of eBay's July 2007 10-Q is a reliable source, stating: "We believe that government regulators have received a substantial number of consumer complaints about both eBay and PayPal" http://investor.ebay.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=950134-07-15993 Customer service procedures are explicitly mentioned there as among the "substantial number" of inquiries from federal regulators. Wphamilton 17:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked that link and the section than mentioned consumer complaints seemed to be referring to fraud rather than customer service. I may have missed that though. Could you provide more information as to where the reference to customer support complaints can be found there? Thanks. Kaid 15:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It says, "We have responded to all inquiries from regulatory agencies by describing our current and planned antifraud efforts, customer support procedures, operating procedures and disclosures." The customer support procedures appears to be distinguished from anti-fraud measures, as you would expect. The quote is in the context of the "substantial number of consumer complaints" received by federal regulators. I don't think we'll find a more credible reference than eBay's own filing with a federal agency. Wphamilton (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

EBay does, in fact, have a phone support department, but that service is limited to members of the rank "Gold PowerSeller"

This could be put more accurately. General phone support during business hours is available for "Silver Powersellers" ($3,000 per month). Gold level powersellers may call an "account manager" who is assigned to their account and a number of others, up to hundreds. Top level powersellers and subscribers to Anchor Stores have 24/7 dedicated support. It may be better to express the criticism more generally if at all since none of this really shows the true picture. Should this section even be included without references to litigation, testimony etc? Wphamilton 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And now, even more accurately, eBay offers phone support for all eBay Store subscribers as well as PowerSellers of Silver level and above. (Premium and Anchor stores get 24/7. http://www2.ebay.com/aw/core/200709041243562.html) Kaid 04:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added the information about phone support as well as cleaning up the section a little. It was a bit confusing to say they offer no phone support and then turn right around and say they do. Close reading did clarify but this way seems less confusing. Kaid 07:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing the citations for this section I am concerned that A) they do not support the claims in the section and B) they do not even refer to eBay. The three currently listed are:

1) http://slightlyrandom.com/?p=20 2) http://www.instantservice.com/news/20041230.html 3) http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/03/business/service.php

Citation 1 actually discussed how good eBays support is, 2 briefly mentions eBay in a bigger article about customer support on the internet in general and number 3 doesn't even mention eBay at all. I am not the most active or knowledgeable Wikipedian, so I would ask for advice on this. Do these sources support the section? Should we ask for more sources? What is the best way to improve this section? Thanks. Kaid 15:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Kaid

NPOV

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

• Kinda, yeah. Improve it! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 {{Fact}} 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)

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)

Remember the eBay scam thing? It's listed as #16 on the top 25 Web Hoaxes and Pranks list! Just look on the 4th page of this link. --Angeldeb82 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mm. What in that link says anything about scams? Hoaxes, yeah. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I sue you 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Fraudsters (irrespective of how menial the fraud) are creatures of habit and if they are committing fraud on eBay, they are committing it elsewhere. Several have tried it on me and I have recovered every penny (including postage) - it's actually quite easy, just think like them. Remember there are more ways of skinning a cat! 00.36, 24 July 2007 (ISU)I sue you 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

And the buyer has no proof he's actually getting one... Someguy1221 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I find this somewhat weird. I was on there trying to buy a m43 field cap on ebay. Most of the results (and there were lots of listed items) said that I could not view/purchase the item when I tried to click on them because of "legal restrictions in your home country". I live in New Jersey, in the United States of America, and I have never heard of such a prohibition. Furthermore, I was allowed to click on and get to the details page of some of the hats. Ironicly, this ones were what I would think would be the more controversial ones addorned with Totenkopfe, the Reichsadler, and also ones in the iconic "pea-pattern" Waffen-SS camouflage. I have no idea what this was all about... they aren't even banned in Germany to the best of my knowledge (plain ones, without explicit Nazi symbols that is), seeing as their Gebirgsjäger still wear basically the same hat. Does anyone know the status of this? (And by the way don't want it because I'm a neo-nazi or something... I actually planned to put a hammer and sickle or hammer and compass symbol on it) --KobaVanDerLubbe (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction to above: I noticed now that some of the hats with the symbols were not full size but were for action figures. Others, though, such as the Waffen-SS one, were actual hats. --KobaVanDerLubbe (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Phone number

Ebay's US phone number 08887493229, is not a "closely guarded secret", even if ebay does not publish it. First of all, it's public information. Second, it can be found doing a simple google search. Hardy secret, I would say.

[3]Toll free General phone support is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 1-866-442-3229. For Trust and Safety related issues (such as feedback removal, non-paying bidder, ended listings or suspensions) call 1-866-442-3229 6am-6pm PT, seven days a week.

Shill bidding

I detected a blatant case of shill bidding and reported it to eBay. I cited a dozen or so auctions in which it happened in a completely obvious fashion (e.g. items accidently bought by the shill bidder were later 'resold' by the original seller!!). I received absolutely no reply to my emails to eBay and the fraudulent seller is still on line and still shill bidding!! eBay is a disgrace KarenFischer 12:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Karen, ebay only cares about the seller. The people who pay for items (the buyer) don't matter. No buyers no ebay. And Jpgordon most be getting well paid for defending them. 81.151.68.233 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I beg your pardon? They don't need to pay me anything, and I stopped working for them over fiver years ago. This, however, is not an eBay complaints forum; it's a page for discussing how to improve the Wikipedia article about eBay. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[[4]]Actually Ebay will side with the Buyers every single time, i have been a platinum seller since 2004 and i have lost every dispute, to say the truth i only answer the disputes so Ebay would not say i did not show any interest in helping solve the issue,because i know they just side with the buyers! Why? because Ebay does not have any control over the buyer, but it SURELY does over the seller!! Watches777(Watches777 (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)).

Prostores

I added Prostores to this eBay wiki entry because Prostores is owned by eBay as well. i need to improve on my Prostores article I wrote and I'm sure the people that come to this eBay link should help me on that now. The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 14:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Countries

A list of countries that eBay has websites for should be added to the article. Does anyone have any infomration on this? ANNAfoxlover 02:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See footnote #1. RedSpruce 10:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you pronounce 'eBay'?

I always thought the pronounciation of eBay was like in 'bay', 'hey'. The other day I heard someone say it like 'ebuy' or 'ebye'. Which is right?

88.91.213.194 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Were they Australian or something? eBay rhymes with May and Hay and Day and Oy Vey. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ive always heard it rhyming with hay. that sounds like an accent. Maddie ^{was here} 05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Feedback abuse

Feedback abuse:

A practice among some sellers is to hold feedback hostage. Even though the buyer paid promptly, the seller refuses to leave feedback. A further abuse of this is that some sellers deliberately withhold feedback so that if a customer is not satisfied with a purchase, no matter how legitimate their reason is, the seller may then use their feedback for malicious retaliation against the buyer, intentionally damaging their feedback score and reputation, and thus, their buying and selling ability, as buyers and sellers both often rely on the feedback score in deciding whether or not to do business with a particular individual. Abacene

"retaliatory Feedback is strongly discouraged on eBay" "some eBay members choose not to leave feedback" These are word-for-word quotes directly from Ebay, which acknowledges that the problem does exist. Source: Ebay - Direct word-for-word quotes

I have added citations for a couple of third-party sources that examine eBay's feedback weaknesses, and added a cite from eBay's own policy pages for good measure (diff). This should satisfy WP:V for the information that is already there. The topic is already covered in the article, it just needed some references to back it up. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that just citing eBay's policies alone is not good enough - just because they say "don't use retaliatory feedback" doesn't mean there actually is a problem with it (that would be drawing your own conclusion from incomplete evidence). To draw an analogy, most countries have laws against murder, but that does not mean all those countries have problems with high murder rates. You need someone else to say "this is a problem", and to cite them, before you say likewise in a Wikipedia article. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the latest change from Ebay about feedback policies.

The eBay Feedback system was designed to provide a simple, honest, accurate record of member experiences. Focusing on customer service includes doing everything we can to grow customer confidence in our sellers.

• Buyers will only be able to receive positive Feedback.
• Positive repeat customer Feedback will count (up to 1 Feedback from the same buyer per week.)
• Feedback more than 12-months old won't count towards your Feedback percentage.
• When a buyer doesn't respond to the Unpaid Item (UPI) process the negative or neutral Feedback they have left for that transaction will be removed.
• When a member is suspended, all their negative and neutral Feedback will be removed.
• Buyers must wait 3 days before leaving negative or neutral Feedback for sellers with an established track record, to encourage communication.
• All Feedback must be left within 60 days (compared to 90 days today) of listing end to encourage timely Feedback and discourage abuse.
• Buyers will be held more accountable when sellers report an unpaid item or commit other policy violations.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Watches777 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fiscal accounts

I think the fiscal accounts are not encyclopedic and the section should be removed. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

# of Sellers for whom eBay provides 'primary income'?

This used to be in here and is a valuable metric. Somehow it got cut. Could someone please put this back in? I haven't followed the edit discussion here or I'd do it. I've seen eBay estimate 1.3 million primary-income sellers in the US, but I don't know the original source of this data. Thank you.

"Customer Support"

Well seeing as the customer support is so great and I can't edit this section, can someone tell me the UK number where I can enjoy this service? I want to report someone setting up a fake account at my home address. Considering the hassle I have had trying to inform eBay, I think my addition (previously posted by another user a few days ago) was rather benign. 195.137.127.145 21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your addition was pointless and trivial. Since you can't use eBay without registering, and since it costs nothing to register, the fact that you can't get customer support without registering is a complete non-issue. RedSpruce 22:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why I should register with eBay in order to inform them that someone has set up a (business) account falsely at my home address. This account is clearly going to be used for fraudulent activities and should be investigated. With fraud a serious issue, I think that the company's response to this is non-trivial. 195.137.127.145 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW: I have now seen the three-revert rule, and apologise for breaking this. 195.137.127.145 aka 155.198.204.97 09:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's silly that you have to register to get support in a situation like that. But in the first place it's still a trivial inconvenience that you do have to register, and in the second place, you're talking about a situation that probably applies to about one in a million users. Therefor it's not worthy of mention in this article. RedSpruce 09:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I shan't try to keep the addition in the article. Hopefully, it's one-in-a-million. Although, I'd like to point out that the sentence, "In addition, .... to sign up for an account first." was taken from an old version (17:06, 12 July 2007), so I can't be alone in finding it inconvenient. Also, in contacting eBay, I was doing it on behalf of my parents- they don't even have internet or an email account to voice their concerns. 155.198.204.97 10:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is about 2.4 Million earn a living on eBay.

Ebay mobile

I was suprised to find no mention of Ebay's mobile offering. Perhaps because the full offering is not available in the US. Anyway here is the link:

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/mobile/

Mathiastck 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Something seems to be wrong with the external links. Two are the same. I don't know why we need the support page.

One is very unclear (http://pages.ebay.co.uk/mobile/). Why is it there? Is this an ad for Ebay? Perhaps it would be better to mention using ebay with mobiles somewhere in the text above. Plus: why hasn't it got a name?

The last one, most-watched, is OK is guess (though removing it would be OK as well).

HJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.83.206.204 (talk) 22:55:58, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah. I've removed the non-useful ones. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Overstock

Why is Overstock Auctions listed as one of "eBay's rivals"? With about 1/1000th of the listings (not even including eBay store format listings), and barely even a net profit compared to billions every quarter, Overstock Auctions rivals auctions on some private websites, but hardly eBay. This hype from 2004 Overstock press releases doesn't belong here. Is the idea to list those sites considering themselves competitors of eBay, or realistic competitors? If the former, there's a list of about a dozen which may merit inclusion. Wphamilton 22:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Overstock is a notable company that also offers online auctions. Seems appropriate, regardless of comparative balance sheets. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of Overstock as a rival is a personal opinion, and it is not appropriate to say that a company that merely offers online auctions is a rival. Overstock is not particularly notable as a host for auctions. At best, this line should be removed until someone provides a credible source demonstrating rivalry or competitiveness.

ebay 13,458,116 listings, Bidville 1,096,362, eCrater 743,967, uk.ebid.net 546,452, blujay 214,495, tazbar 151,105, ePier 146,365, AuctionQuests 95,793. Overstock is WAY down the list with 17,000, not even an also-ran at this point.

Wphamilton 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious that your only edits on Wikipedia involve trying to remove Overstock.com from this entry. Do you have a particular interest in this matter? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious why you think that matters. I have suggested a number of edits on this page which have been implemented, and I don't appreciate your personal attack. Wphamilton 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That certinaly does matter. There are policies regarding that, such as WP:SPA and WP:COI.Tabor 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe these policies prohibit my correcting a mistake on one entry. Just develop a consensus, without attacking the person—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wphamilton (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how it was an attack on you as a person. Please explain. Tabor 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please explain. Asking for one's motivations when evidence suggests there might be a conflict is not a personal attack, but rather an attempt to ensure policy is followed and that we are building the best possible encyclopedia. Perhaps you can shed some light on the situation. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence suggesting a conflict of interest. None. Impugning someone's integrity without cause is an attack. Clear enough? Wphamilton 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see how you are considering this an "attack". It seems to me (and this is not an attack either) that you are taking what was said out of context. Tabor 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not an attack, perhaps, but it's a pretty obvious failure to assume good faith. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't assumed anything. I made an observation and asked a question -- which has yet to be directly addressed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You haven't assumed anything. I can't imagine you're unfamiliar with WP:AGF. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

Hi there, can someone add Turkey to the Ebay countries list (reference #1)? They have recently opened a Turkish site as well.. I tried to add it but apparently article is locked.. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.28.232 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Profits and Transactions

Someone should fact-check this section please. 1) eBay expansion has failed in China, not merely Taiwan and Japan. 2) Not all states require sales tax from out of state sales. 3) The section also seems to deny or ignore the expansions which are not strictly attempts to penetrate markets in new geographical regions. Those are the expansions which have been powering eBay's recent growth, moreso than opening new countries. Wphamilton 08:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Profit or net income in the right hand side box

Can some one please inculde the net income or profits of this company as found in all the other companies articles. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilhuilgol (talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Korea

I'm confused...So how big a share in this Korean auction site does ebay have? Do they entirely own it now?--Josquius 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Re.:Unusual Items

Rush Limbaugh placed a letter that allegedly "smeared" him on Ebay. It went for $2.1 MILLION. this happened two days before the time shown here on sig. Can this be stated ? Google Ebay, Rush Limbaugh to see this matter, and the letter itself. 65.173.104.140 07:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea, but I'd also nominate this Titan missile base (which I just read about in Penny Arcade). --DocumentN (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Expectation of reasonable behaviour from eBay customer care to its customers.

Not all of us spend all our lives on the computer, and think it reasonable to have a telephone number and correspondence address for eBay to resolve problems. My problem started when out of the blue I received a letter fro a debt collector, stating their client eBay & some reference number that didn’t make any sense to me. I paid the money since I don’t like threats of legal action over me. The money has now been refunded by the debt collector.

The facts are that when I sent an email to eBay using their link to a message box, it bounced back. Other emails were replied to with a questionnaire to which my problem didn’t match any of their “tick boxes”. Other replies were of the brain dead type.

The point is I think it quite reasonable to have a correspondence address & telephone number to sort out problems. There’s something wrong with a company which doesn’t like giving out their address & only has a premium rate number, linked to some section of eBay I’m not interested in.

Anyway I was given eBay’s address in Europe from the debt collector in good faith as:

eBay Europe SARL, The Atrium Building Old Navan Rd Blancharstown Dublin 15 Ireland

The sensible thing would be for one user of wikipedia to check this out. if it is proved correct then it should included in the Customer care section of Ebay on the main pages. I did this but someone took it off, stating vandalism or some other nonsense.

Andybrookestar (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• In my experience, eBay doesn't really want to receive inquiries from its users as then it might have to answer them. One of the employees of eBay who regularly edit this article likely removed your addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.23.57 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Our personal experiences, personal opinions, and personal research aren't anything we can use on Wikipedia. If a reliable source has documented such issues, we can use that material. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy continues

So, why is the VT thing an eBay controversy? Would it be a Wal-Mart controversy if he'd done his deed with a shotgun purchased at Wal-Mart? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. So far as I can tell, the transaction was legal. While tragic in its context, there isn't anything necessarily controversial about the purchase from eBay's perspective. I've removed it. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, now there's another "controversy". An editor has inserted this:

* In November 2007, eBay began this survey of which one of the things it was about was forcing sellers to automatically leave positive feedback for buyers if the buyers paid quickly, making the sellers lose feedback privileges.

I removed it, asking in what way it's a controversy. It's not even a statement of policy; it's asking a question; there's no indication any policy change is in order. So, there might be a debate (not that the insertion points to any such debate), but controversy? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I re-removed the feedback concern. If eBay was currently forcing sellers to leave positive feedback if they were immediately paid I could see this as a controversial issue. However a survey asking about hypothetical situations does not seem to be enough to merit inclusion, even if the said survey appears to be an official eBay survey. Kaid (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to press this issue anymore. William Ortiz (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is article locked?

eBay has decided to rollout their Finding 2.0 search function just days before the holiday shopping season. This has sent the sellers boards into a turmoil. I'm wondering why this should not be reflected in the article. And why is the article locked? Wuapinmon (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Provide a reliable source indicating this is a problem, and it might go in. The various eBay chat boards aren't usable. The article's "semi-protected" -- only registered users can edit it -- because the article has been subject to frequent vandalism by unregistered users. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Is vandalism when someone adds something to the article that eBay and its employees would rather not see in an article about their company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.23.57 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

eBay is now only allowing paypal for credit card payments

eBay is now only allowing paypal for credit card payments. See this screenshot from http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5581/00tf9.jpg . So I think this should be uploaded to Wikipedia and put in this article. Please discuss.

By the way there is already talk of it here and here. William Ortiz (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let's see: We noticed that you chose to offer credit card as a payment option. To confirm that you can support this process, please fax a copy of your most recent merchant processing statement to (phone number)...While we confirm your merchant credit card account, you can continue listing items on eBay with PayPal as the payment method. In what way does that say eBay is only allowing paypal? Seems to me (with no other information besides what William has pointed to) that they're requiring verification of credit card processing ability, and suggesting sellers use PayPal while the confirmation is taking place. At any rate, even if we wanted to include this information, we couldn't use those forums as sources; it would be the same as saying "random anonymous people assert that blah blah blah". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention any antitrust lawsuits. Here's a PDF of one from summer 2007. http://www.suspendedebayseller.com/docs/507-cv-03803-PVT_complaint.pdf William Ortiz (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Got a reliable source? Anyone can sue anyone for anything in this country, and any lawyer can file a complaint. Was it accepted by some court? Was the class certified by the court? What's the status of it? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Customer Support sources

In reviewing the citations for this section I am concerned that A) they do not support the claims in the section and B) they do not even refer to eBay. The three currently listed are:

1) http://slightlyrandom.com/?p=20 2) http://www.instantservice.com/news/20041230.html 3) http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/03/business/service.php

Citation 1 actually discussed how good eBays support is, 2 briefly mentions eBay in a bigger article about customer support on the internet in general and number 3 doesn't even mention eBay at all. I am not the most active or knowledgeable Wikipedian, so I would ask for advice on this. Do these sources support the section? Should we ask for more sources? What is the best way to improve this section? Thanks. (Moved from higher up the page) Kaid (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm surprised this has sat here for so long. Citation 1 isn't acceptable regardless of content; it's just Somebody's Blog. Citation 2 should cite the New York Times article directly, rather than whatever Instantservice.com is; at any rate, it doesn't support the section; neither does the IHT article. The term "rudeness" comment is completely unsourced. A proper customer support section could be written, and one would start by throwing away the existing one completely. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This thing from the new york times may not be notable, so I'm putting it in talk

This thing from the new york times may not be notable, so I'm putting it in talk

• http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/the-depth-of-ebays-problems-1-disappointed-buyers/
• http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/the-depth-of-ebays-problems-2-angry-sellers/

These are two good articles. William Ortiz (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• WP:EL pretty much rules out blogs as external sources except those written by a recognized authority; is Saul Hansell such an authority? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Technology behind eBay

I am surprised this has not been brought up before, but I for one would be very interested in the technology that runs eBay. It must be massive. Any takers? Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Only simple PHP scripts and some HTML and CSS is enough to replicate eBay. The scripts just run on eBay's huge server. 71.236.95.5 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nah. It's a lot more complicated than that. eBay (and prior to that, AuctionWeb) was originally in Perl, but by 1997 ( or so), the site was so heavily visited that it gained a reputation as the world's slowest website. It was rewritten completely, in C++, right before I arrived there. It was a huge fight to build scalability into the system, and at the time I left (in 2002) the fight was still going on. Probably still is, though exponential growth doesn't seem to be occurring anymore. It's not all C++ anymore, by any means. Here is an excellent presentation of the eBay architecture. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

GA status

I checked the GA guidelines yesterday and it does appear that having an inadequate lead is enough to fail an article. Not meaning to be a 'bad guy', but it will have to be fixed within a week or so or the GA status will have to go. It looks like a nice article otherwise, and it shouldn't be too much work. Richard001 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

News source

This might be useful in a fraud section but I don't know quite where to put it so I'm just listing it here to be of use to anyone in the future. http://tech.msn.com/howto/articlepcw.aspx?cp-documentid=6053210 William Ortiz (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Auctioneer's License

Should this be included?

The state of Pennsylvania has shut down the eBay business of Mary Jo Pletz, who started the endeavor so she could earn money at home while caring for her 6-month-old daughter, who had developed a brain tumor.

Pletz launched her business in 2004, when she realized she couldn't work full time because of Julia's medical tests and doctors visits. Her business, D&J Virtual Consignment, had 11,000 feedback comments on eBay and 14 were negative, Pletz said, giving her a 99.9 percent satisfaction rating. A few days after Christmas 2006, the state investigator drove up. She recalls his warning that the state was "drawing a line in the sand." Her crime? Selling goods on the Internet without an "auctioneer's license."

She cooperated with the government and shut down her successful business. However, not content with merely running her out of business, state officials are also prosecuting her, with a potential penalty of $1,000 per violation.

After shutting down her auction business, Pletz went back to work as a dental hygienist. Because of the complaint, Pletz worries the state also could revoke her dental hygienist's license, which she earned by attending community college for seven years at night.

The source is the Philidelphia Inquirer, [5] --75.181.81.73 (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hm. It's an interesting article, certainly, but I don't really see where it fits in. Scratching head...is it encyclopedia material, as opposed to newspaper material? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I was thinking controversy. This is the first time I've heard of someone getting in trouble with the law and hasn't violated any eBay rules. You can only get one feedback per sale, and not everyone leaves feedback, so she is looking at a minimum of a elven million dollar fine. I believe it is encyclopedic because it does not just effect eBay, but anyone that sells online. What if all eBay sellers had to get auctioneer's licenses? --75.181.81.73 (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In what way is it a controversy? Pennsylvania has a law which is sporadically enforced, and their legislature is considering changing it, and one eBay seller is getting messed up. Do you have any good sources describing this as a controversy or as a problem anywhere but Pennsylvania? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is should eBay sellers need an auctioneer's license? Are you saying it's not notable because it only effects people living in Pennsylvania? --MahaPanta (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with the whole auctioneer's license is that the auctioneer would need one. EBay would be considered the auctioneer. Users are only presenting items for auction. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the controversy. EBay was the auctioneer, and she was only presenting items for auction, yet she is still facing a fine of over $11,000,000 for not having an auctioneer's license. --75.181.81.73 (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So what's the controversy? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the usage of the term. PA has a law which they're selectively enforcing (saying it's "complaint-driven"), and the PA legislature is making moves to modify the law so the whole issue goes away. Anyway, find some reliable sources that describe it as a "controversy" and you might have a point; you might want to do a search for "ebay auction licensing" -- maybe someone has written a article we can use as a source about the several states that are doing or want to do the same thing: require secondary eBay sellers (that is, people who sell goods for other people) to be licensed as auctioneers. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You can sell (Human parts and remains)

Sorry to tell you even though ebay does not allow you to sell human remains, they do. There are dozen of human bones on ebay for sale, and sometimes whole skeletons. As long as you place them in the medical section the auction shall not be removed.--Margrave1206 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Trade enabled in 2007 by eBay's Market place

What was the total volume of $USD exchanged over the eBay market place on an annual bases? Let's get a chart of the total every year since inception in 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.21.76 (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

EBay Boycott of 2008

This AfD is likely relevant for watchers of this article: EBay Boycott of 2008. -ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Services?

I am confused with this sentence

an online auction and shopping website in which people and businesses buy and sell goods and services worldwide.

As far as I know people do not sell or buy services on eBay. Or at least I have never seen such a thing done! Has anyone else seen services on eBay, I sure they are not sold on ebay but would like to check before doing anything! Inputdata (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually services are bought and sold - http://services.ebay.com/_W0QQfromZR12 Kaid (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ebay provides good service to get and sell any product from or to the concern person. I think this is fantastic service from ebay.

Locked for editing...?

Why is this article locked for editing? (Or is it open for editing only for current and former eBay employees?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.23.57 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-protected to prevent vandalism from editors who are not, or very newly registered. Since you have chosen to remain anonymous, well, you cannot edit it. Now if you're willing to properly register yourself, then you can edit after 4 days. It's not an eBay conspiracy if that's what you're suggesting. However, if your goal is to criticize eBay's new policies, it may get reverted if you go to far from NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Mattnad (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

proper place to state eBay forcing all people in the UK to offer PayPal

So, from http://www2.ebay.com/aw/uk/200803211515302, eBay uses its auction site to force PayPal, which is an illegal monopoly action. Jpgordon removed it from the controversy & criticism section [6] saying "In what way is that either a controversy or a criticism?". Now I find Jpgordon knows this article well so I am assuming there's a better place to put this in the article. Any ideas??? William Ortiz (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, that first link in your post is broken, last I checked paypal was not mandatory for UK sellers though I agree that they certainly give preference to it. Plugwash (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, you put it in two places, and I just removed one of them. That should suffice. And I do ask again, in what way was the policy change either a controversy or a criticism? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the .html. It was http://www2.ebay.com/aw/uk/200803211515302.html Well it's a controversy because ebay is using their monopoloy to force everyonee to accept paypal, which they, own. They already have been forcing most people to use it. A lot of people are panicking in the USA because they fear this is going to happen there soon, too. Paypal itself is full of controversy, just googling "paypal" brings up lots of critical sites about it. William Ortiz (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

They aren't forcing anything. You choose to use their site, and you need to play by their rules. Just like McDonalds only offering you Coke products. They aren't a public service where you necessarily have some natural right to select your own payment provider. Sure, that would be ideal, but it is completely within their discretion to limit the options. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Further, it appears they are only requiring you offer PayPal as an option; they are not restricting the use of other payment providers. You need to provide reliable citations noting that this is somehow monopolistic in order to make your claims as such. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Find some reliable sources backing your claims -- not noise on chat boards and the like -- and such issues can be included. You already know this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I only included the link from ebay stating the announcement. William Ortiz (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

eBay Australia to force Paypal as sole payment method.

I'm kinda suprised this hasn't been mentioned here yet. [7]

21st May, 2008: "All items listed for sale on eBay.com.au must offer PayPal as one of the payment methods. "

17th June, 2008:" All items appearing on eBay.com.au must be paid for using either:
• PayPal
• Visa/Mastercard (with transactions processed by PayPal)
• Pay on pick up (i.e. paid for when picking up the item)
No other payment methods will be accepted."

Naturally, this has created a bit of a stir. If eBay is proposing similar restrictions on it's UK website (and there are rumours that the Paypal only requirement will eventually be a global one), perhaps there should be some mention in the article (in the "controversies" section, or a sub-section of it's own?) Johnmc (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, we need to find some news articles on this so we can include it. eBay and PayPal also do false advertising falsely claiming PayPal as safe and safer than other payment methods when it is just to cover up how unsafe paypal is. There's a million websites on how paypal is unsafe, but they're not good as sources here. There's two news reports from TV but I only see them on youtube youtube dot com/watch?v=0DlLK7aS8PE youtube dot com/watch?v=KAlM0E-zrhM and can't find reference on the news org's main websites -- and the rest of youtube are all home videos either blogs or recordings of people calling paypal's "customer service". William Ortiz (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah? I would have thought eBay's own announcement would suffice. Here's a link to a Courier_Mail article on the subject, [8], and one by The_Australian, [9]. Would the comments on The Australian article (99% negative) constitute proof of existence of a "controversy"?--Johnmc (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Those look good. Just make sure not to use blogs. australianit.news.com.au has comments and looks like a blog but as far as I can tell it's not a blog and just regular news but lets people comment (obviously the comments can't be counted to the article). I'm glad this kind of thing made the news. William Ortiz (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To add, this announcement was shortly after Australian News tonight ran a report on how paypal was unsafe for buyers and sellers. There's a youtube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=KAlM0E-zrhM but I think someone didn't like that as the refernce. If anyone can find the actual news company mentioning that on their website, it would be very good. William Ortiz (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• your wish.... :-) The Australian_Competition_and_Consumer_Commission is examining - no doubt after ebay user complaints - whether or not ebay Australia is violating trade practices laws as a result of the proposed changes. [10]. I think you have enough to add this to the controversies part of the article, so long as it is NPOV. (ie, even though this is controversial, there are no proven charges of wrongdoing against ebay at this point.) --Johnmc (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This stuff should go in the article. William Ortiz (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another news report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDqpNsIg9vA William Ortiz (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the latest addition to this section, as they were clearly leading and not neutral. It started with critical opinions stated as if they were established fact, and went on to report that, amazingly, competing auction services were critical of eBay and wanted their customers. Hardly noteworthy stuff. Illuminatum has done a good job documenting this, but there's a danger of a POV creeping in and the section as a whole could do with trimming and summarising as things develop. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole EBay#Australia needs to be cleaned up and rewritten. It's more of a POV then something you would read in an Encyclopedia and also linkfs from forums including eBay shouldn't be used and eBay itself shouldn't be used as a source as it's not a third-party. Bidgee (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sniper bidding?

Should Sniper auction programs be mentioned on here? Are these litterally last second bidding computer programs legal on eBay? 67.160.154.48 (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's notable and you find sources that are notable. William Ortiz (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think the proper term is "sniping" - not the same as "sniper". Mattnad (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They're entirely legal as well as within eBay's rules. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it is still a criticism reflected upon Ebay for their bidding practices. It may be legal, and it may be within rules, but so was the attempted destruction of the Eiffel Tower, which was nonetheless met with criticism. --Frak (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So? Me, I think the eBay site is stupid looking. That's also a criticism upon eBay. Where should I put that? -jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism has to be notable and verifiable with cites. Do you have any cites from reputable sources? Wikipedia isn't interested in personal opinions. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Vladuz Stories

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071009-hacker-exploits-forgotten-ebay-administrative-system.html

http://www.suspendedfromebay.com/?p=86

http://www.pheebay.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=43193&highlight=vladuz

http://www.ebaymotorssucks.com/vladuz-is-back-again.htm

75.7.240.28 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hacking, legal threats, revenge, posting pink, posting user info... All in one handy dandy news article. :D

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/25/ebay.hacking

75.7.240.28 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mystery Auctions

Since mystery auctions will no longer be allowed in June should this be removed from the article or would it be better to leave it in but note in the article that these are no longer allowed? Kaid (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unusual Sale Items

Several years ago, then-Yankee (or Mariner, I forget exactly when) pitcher Jeff Nelson had bone chips removed from his elbow. The bone chips wound up on eBay, not by him, but apparently with his blessing as the item description included a picture of the seller and Nelson together in what looked like a doctor's office. The auction was canceled by eBay on the grounds that human body parts could not be sold. I don't have a citation for this, though. Jimpoz (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to walmart

In the Origins and early history section, the article makes a comparison, saying that ebay.com had 3 times as many 'hits' as walmart.com. I don't know if this is an entirely accurate comparison, as at least here in Australia, walmart is not really known very well, so we're comparing a (mostly) American website (walmart) with a website that has many more international versions (eBay). --Stozball (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it might be worth pointing out that walmart doses operate in the UK but under the name of ASDA. Which it does say in ASDA's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputdata (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seekingalpha.com spam

Regarding the recent removal of spam, see also User talk:192.114.4.36#Seekingalpha.com spam and likely sockpuppetry. Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Capital letters

I thought sentences in English started with capital letters. It doesn't matter what Ebay decides to call themselves (eBay or ebaY), any sentence that starts with their company name should start with a capital E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.254.230 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

International

The article states, "eBay has already expanded to over two dozen countries including China and India. The only places where expansion failed were Taiwan and Japan," This seems to me to be a strictly point-of-view type of claim. It would also seem to be mistaken, as eBay's expansion into China for example(or failure thereof) is well-chronicled. I think there needs to be a citation supporting "the only places where expansion has failed were ...", or else changing the sentence to "the only places where eBay withdrew completely without buying a minority stake in a competitor were .."

Overall, if the article is to list all of the international web pages, there needs to be some kind of illustration about the relative sizes, or else the reader will be left with the false impression that each listed venture is significant relative to the whole. GMV listed, revenue, even page views per area, any of these would be an improvement. Failing that, may I suggest that the list be pruned or else removed entirely. Wphamilton (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Profits and Transactions

I made a few minor changes in the services section. However, I propose to eliminate this part entirely:

The company's current business strategy includes increasing revenue by increasing international trade within the eBay system. eBay has already expanded to over two dozen countries including China and India. The only places where expansion failed were Taiwan and Japan, where Yahoo! had a head start, and New Zealand where TradeMe, owned by the Fairfax media group is the dominant online auction website.

since the portion relating to expansion is POV and not strictly accurate, and since without citation it really remains to be seen tha increasing international trade is a good description of their business strategy or even one of the higher priorities. Wphamilton (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Seems sensible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The 5.25% fee quoted for Ebay.uk is incorrect. I have revised to 10%, which is the current % Ebay take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.81.235 (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with fraudulence

Since eBay makes its money on commissions from listings and sales, it may not be in eBay's interest to take action against large sellers.[citation needed]
This is not the case as it will detract from ebay's market experience and having Fox news blow out a story about some guy who got ripped when he went to buy a TV on ebay is not in Ebay's interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandawelch (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's just unsourced speculation, anyway. Removed; thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ebay DOES tend to ignore a lot of ciminal activity on their site. If you people actually checked, using such places as toolhaus.org and looked at the negs of powersellers in particular, you'd see there's a lot of fraud going on. Yet complaints by buyers to ebay fall on deaf ears. 75.8.38.39 (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=collectionstop&Dirn=Received+by&ref=home

http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=tsyedn&Dirn=Received+by

http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=sunnking&Dirn=Received+by

http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=cyclebidd

http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=wntc&Dirn=Received+by (This seller is known to provide false tracking #'s)

http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=99walker&Dirn=Received+by

http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=firebuy.com&Dirn=Received+by

http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=360wireless&Dirn=Received+by

http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=ph13_mart&Dirn=Received+by

75.8.38.39 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As a former employee of eBay who worked in Fraud and Customer Identity theft, I can verify there is a huge amount of fraud going on with eBay. Several of my recent co-workers have tried selling/buying semi high end electronics and have gotten bombarded with stolen/fraudulent accounts. EBay tries to stem the tide with half-hearted measures but the fraud is still rampant. They do little against fraud because they don't want to become liable for it. It's not so much a matter of getting more insertion fees but spending large amounts of money to police their site. Do a search for HDTVs or Sony Vaios on eBay and take a close look at the seller's feedback and what they used to sell if anything.

j_lechem@msn.com (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that eBay avoids issues of fraud whenever possible, but when forced to face the issue, they take the stance that "we're just a venue" and it's up to others to prove fraud. "We are a marketplace. We are not a retailer," said Hani Durzy, eBay spokesman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6030048/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/technology/27ebay.html

Suggested wording to replace cited sentence: Because eBay is "just a venue," the company denies that it is complicit when sellers offer fake or fraudulent items for sale. (with link to NYTimes article)

Whbjr (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

IBM Sells on eBay?

Entry says that IBM sells new product on eBay. Is it true? Supporting evidence? I'd like to check them out. 167.239.217.16 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Propose splitting "Controversy and criticisms" section into separate "Criticism of eBay" article

The "Controversy and criticisms" section is getting quite large. I suggest splitting it into a separate Criticism of eBay article, similar to Criticism of Google or Criticism of Yahoo!. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i 100 percent agree with this, because hell, if Walmart can get its own section of their own BS. then why can't Ebay? They are just as bad. lol--Dr. Pizza (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on counterfeiting?

For my wiki-editing debut, I cleaned up a few style points. I don't feel up to this bit, though, and seek opinion. The last sentence under Items & Services is:

eBay is also an easy place for unscrupulous sellers to market counterfeit merchandise, which can be difficult for novice buyers to distinguish without careful study of the auction description.

While that strikes me as glaringly obvious, it also comes across as opinion, or at least unsupported fact. Perhaps it needs rewrite, or a citation? Alias1219 (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Are airguns banned too?

I believe they are but airgun parts and other stuff such as pellets are not. Maybe it should be included in the section about prohibited items? 87.59.78.27 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

homestar

the people that made homestar runner tried to sell a half eaten breakfast burrito. the bid maxed out, and they took it down 75.58.17.181 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ebay china?

www.ebay.cn? Is this an authentic new ebay china and if so shouldnt it be on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.196.58 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the relation?

How does the article benefit from the statement, "...Omidyar's own tongue-in-cheek tribute to the Ebola virus"? I do not see this as essential and enriching to the article. I am not familiar with the reference, nor is there anything after the sentence to really link it to eBay in terms of enriching the reader's knowledge of eBay. Basically, this appears to be a "tidbit" of information. --Zer0Nin3r (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I changed the prologue back, since the text there is badly written and is unjustly damaging to ebay. Weeddude (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As a former eBay power seller, I think the "criticism" section is woefully under represented.

Ebay has made so many changes that have made it more difficult to sell on it's site, that one doesn't know where to begin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.17.127 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta

It seems now that the old website style has been completely removed and you cannot "opt out" anymore. 79.66.39.117 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, eBay had been ruined. Why try and fix things that weren't broke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.174.227 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unusual sale items

This section is long & rambling and could really do with organisation, e.g. under subheadings for different types of item. Ben Finn (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at things in a positive side. eBay continues to develop to better cater to their members. They have new policies and regulations that if we are optimistic we will find it benigicial for everybody. Of course we can't please everybody, that is a given fact, but let us remember that the only thing constant is change. There is always room for improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.14.194.33 (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

eBay is not localized in Denmark

The image shows it is, but it isn't.89.249.0.170 (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

half.com

Should there be a mention of half.com in this article? Ebay did acquire this company some time in the late 1990's, and it is still active at half.com and in much the same state as it always has been. Midtempo-abg (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the fact that eBay uses ActiveX be mentioned?

I've heard that eBay requires you to use Internet Explorer because of ActiveX controls when you put up an auction (or at least upload pictures). I looked it up, and it's true. Should this be mentioned in the article? Should it be in the Criticism of eBay article?--Dullstar (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because it's wrong - I use eBay perfectly happily with Firefox. Lstanley1979 (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeh thats correct.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.77.241 (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone from eBay blanked section on Dutch Auctions?

At least, that's what seems to have happened. According to the IP Addresses Talk page, the ip used is owned by eBay. As I said in my revert, I don't see how the whole section needs to be blanked, since Dutch Auctions were a part of eBay for so long, maybe just updated a bit.

If you are the editor in question, Hello! You may not have realized that your IP identified you as coming from eBay. You may wish to read WP:COI NipokNek (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Slogans

The slogan group in the infobox doesn't look right. Here are two I've come up with...

Two large infoboxes

eBay Inc.

250px|eBay corporate logo Come to think of it, eBay. What ever it is, you can get it on eBay. Shop victoriously! From collectibles to cars, buy and sell all kinds of items on eBay Buy it, sell it, love it
220px The eBay homepage.
Type of business	Public (Nasdaq: EBAY)
Type of site	Online auction
Available in	Multilingual
Founded	September 3, 1995
Headquarters	San Jose, California , United States
Area served	Worldwide
Founder(s)	Pierre Omidyar
Key people	Pierre Omidyar, Chairman John Donahoe, CEO Lorrie Norrington, President of eBay Marketplaces
Industry	Auctions
Products	Online auction hosting, Electronic commerce, Shopping mall PayPal, Skype, Gumtree, Kijiji,
Revenue	$ 8.541 billion (2008)
Operating income	$ 2.075 billion (2008)
Net income	$ 1.779 billion (2008)
Total assets	- $ 15.592 billion (2008)
Total equity	- $ 11.083 billion (2008)
Employees	15,500 (Q1 2008)
URL	www.ebay.com List of domain names
Registration	Required to buy and sell

eBay Inc.

250px|eBay corporate logo Come to think of it, eBay. What ever it is, you can get it on eBay. Shop victoriously! From collectibles to cars, buy and sell all kinds of items on eBay Buy it, sell it, love it
220px The eBay homepage.
Type of business	Public (Nasdaq: EBAY)
Type of site	Online auction
Available in	Multilingual
Founded	September 3, 1995
Headquarters	San Jose, California , United States
Area served	Worldwide
Founder(s)	Pierre Omidyar
Key people	Pierre Omidyar, Chairman John Donahoe, CEO Lorrie Norrington, President of eBay Marketplaces
Industry	Auctions
Products	Online auction hosting, Electronic commerce, Shopping mall PayPal, Skype, Gumtree, Kijiji,
Revenue	$ 8.541 billion (2008)
Operating income	$ 2.075 billion (2008)
Net income	$ 1.779 billion (2008)
Total assets	- $ 15.592 billion (2008)
Total equity	- $ 11.083 billion (2008)
Employees	15,500 (Q1 2008)
URL	www.ebay.com List of domain names
Registration	Required to buy and sell

Any other ideas? ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 04:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No other ideas from me, but both of these (in my opinion) look better than what's currently up. My vote goes to the one on the left as it clearly identifies each slogan separately and takes up less space. Lost on Belmont (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Environmental record" section should be deleted.

The "Environmental record" section should be deleted. Lots of businesses are trying to do eco-friendly things these days, and there is no assertion of notability (i.e. world's biggest, world's first etc) in what eBay has done, so there is no reason for it to be in the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW the sentence of criticism - which reads more like an editorial comment - should also be deleted. It is a rating by an apparently non-notable organisation, whose web page says at the top "2008 Climate Counts - Company Scores now available!". In other words, it's not a very active site. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

eBay Egypt ( eBay.eg ?)

The website cannot be reached. Furthermore I cannot find any information about ebay.eg. Someone tried to add (now defuncted) as for eBay China comment but that was reverted.138.246.37.177 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

international affiliates list - totally wrong

There are too many sites listed here that are unrelated-to-ebay redirects or just unreachable... I don't know how they got here in the first place, but this list needs a big clean-up. Alinor (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So fix it. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove the entire list; it's more suited for eBay's corporate website than an encyclopedia page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. It just seems pointless. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the list removal discussed here what has caused the "localized websites" link to stop working? The phrase appears as an html hyperlink but doesn't go anywhere.--SpacemanSpiff27 (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Might; where exactly is the phrase? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Fixed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous Wording

There's a problem with the ambiguous wording of these two sentences:

The frequently repeated story that eBay was founded to help Omidyar's fiancée trade Pez candy dispensers was fabricated by a public relations manager in 1997 to interest the media. This was revealed in Adam Cohen's 2002 book, The Perfect Store,[5] and confirmed by eBay.

Does this mean the often-repeated story was "confirmed," or confirmed to have been fabricated? rowley (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed to have been fabricated. Maybe rephrase it? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, go ahead Whocanyoutrust (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Something inspired Omidyar to create Ebay. Maybe it was a girlfriend with pez dispensers. Really, is it a relevant point? I dont think its a relevant point to debate. marc s. dania fl. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anyone debating anything other than the wording. That's called "editing". Feel free to participate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Unusual Sale Item section

IP editor recently added a paragraph to the Unusual Sale Item section, which I removed. The IP editor disputes my actions and says that as a cited addition it should remain. I would be grateful for other's input. I removed it for the following reasons;

• The item was not sold on eBay, merely listed for a short while before being delisted by eBay for violating its terms of use policies. This sort of thing happens all the time, making it scarcely unusual or notable.
• The item was therefore not actually sold on eBay.
• The cite provided is a local newspaper, which does not verify half of what was added. This, in my opinion, makes it non-notable trivia that is largely unverifiable.

Aside from this one addition, there are a number of related problems with section. The entire section suffers from a fundamental POV weakness in that there is no clear, objective and neutral definition of what counts as 'Unusual'. More than a few of the articles mentioned are also short lived publicity stunts or jokes. There should be a clearer division between eBay as a place selling items with a very unusual or limited market, and eBay as a place to stage a publicity stunt and/or joke. So if these are truly notable, would they not be better in a different section? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the addition is not notable and is only supported by 2 sources (according to google), both of which are local news websites. I don't think that is enough to warrant coverage by a number of individual sources. You're spot on in the point that the whole section is in need of a rewrite and there needs to be a clear definition of what is unusual. There are a number of items that are being sold on eBay that are unusual, but do not warrant coverage. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole section should be deleted as listcruft which has nothing to do with the essence of eBay. Any truly notable and defining sales can be included in the prose. Sandman888 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll leave it a while and if no-one comes along with a good reason why it should be kept, I'll move any of the most notable (as determined by the quality of their cites) into the rest of the article someplace. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 06:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

the last section under unusual items is an obvious act of vandalism; would someone please fix this?Shaminabuddy (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Seaphoto^Talk 17:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

prohibited items

Is there a reason that the prohibited items are listed in the article? It seems out of place? It mention rather odd things for a website article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.177.20 (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Profit / Loss

This may be related to what someone was talking about vandalism, but it appears as if someone swapped the profit/loss widget in the reporting column. I am pretty sure that I am reading the source correctly, in that they gained $1.8B in 2010, not lost it.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ebay/1136100493x0x435896/9bd99676-b782-4784-87de-2899abe14a6d/eBay_Q42010EarningsRelease_Draft011911_FINAL.pdf

I am going to go ahead and change it, but please let me know if I am reading this wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrostatic1 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Further reading section

I'm a bit concerned by the apparent random selection in the section. There are now on the order of 2000 books with "eBay" in the title; what's so special and important about these? In what way is, say, eBay for Dummies more worthy of inclusion than any of the other "how to" books? Is this list really necessary at all? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question. It looks like the only reason this section is here is simply because it's always been here. The roots of it lie in the third edit on the article in 2002, at a point where the article wasn't very good at all. But there is no obvious reason why any of these books merit a mention over any others, particularly the "how to" ones. If any of them contain anything really uniquely notable they can be used as cites. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Dean Johnson

I have removed Michael Dean Johnson as a founder of eBay. I am not able to find any information on who this person is other than random websites claiming that he is an eBay founder. There is no information on how he was involved, just that he was. Also, none of the websites were any that I would call credible if writing a research paper. Finally, every credible source I can find only mentions Pierre Omidyar. Kaid (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

any mention of bidding strategies?

I was surprised to see no mention in this article of the practice of bid sniping. Should there be? —Steve Summit (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Request Semi-Protection

This page is about a website and also a great company.So, I request a semi-protection for this article. Rsamahamed 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsamahamed (talk • contribs)

WP:RFPP is where you request page protection. But there are a lot of eyeballs on this article; has there been specific vandalism that's prompted this request? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No mention of MercadoLibre.com

It seems like MercadoLibre.com should be mentioned here. eBay is already mentioned in the ML.com article. http://investor.ebay.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=60309 brianfreud 23:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianfreud (talk • contribs)

Feedback

There's hardly anything written about the feedback system even though it's a significant part of the eBay paradigm. There's a mention of changes, or how things differ from the "overall feedback" but nothing that describes what the "overall feedback" system is.

The whole notion of the feedback system was an essential distinguishing feature of eBay, since a person selling stroller in Peoria to a buyer in Oshkosh needed to know whether to send out the stroller first, or whether the buyer should send a check first. That was especially true before PayPal.

There's also no mention of the shift from the feedback based model to the prepaid/PayPal based model. Although PayPal is not an absolute requirement, there was a back door change to the overall policies when sellers were asked to specify when they are going to ship with respect to when (meaning how long after) they receive payment. Thus its purpose changed to one of a merchant rating system. Hagrinas (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Books

I've removed the "Further Reading" section on the article. I was unclear what the books listed have to merit having a plug for them on the article. Particularly when many of them appeared to be guides on how to run businesses on eBay, rather than being about eBay itself. If anyone has reasons why these books should be here, happy to hear them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Feedback Ratings

The feedback ratings are no longer anonymous. I have an eBay account and I can see who has left me feedback. --InformationContributor11 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You are more than a bit confused, one could always see who left Feedback. And is not the same as The Rating System which is based on a 5 point scale concerning How Accurate was Description, How Fast was Item Shipped, How Reasonable were Shipping and Handling Fees, etc. is anonymous.2602:306:CF5B:6C80:7DFF:2257:B79E:7C63 (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Still Doc Ock

Ebay as a Swiss Registered Company

Just wondering whether Ebay should be described as a American Company registered in Switzerland as per the footer of official emails from Ebay i.e. eBay International AG Helvetiastrasse 15/17 - P.O. Box 133, 3000 Bern 6, Switzerland ? 203.22.239.98 (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that's eBay International AG, a subsidiary of eBay, Inc. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

eBay's failure in China

The article states that the only places where expansion failed were Taiwan, Japan and New Zealand. However Taobao clearly outperformed eBay, despite eBay having a headstart after it acquired EachNet in 2002-03.

The Taobao article states:

"As a result, Taobao became the undisputed market leader in mainland China within two years. Its market share surged from 8% to 59% between 2003 and 2005, while eBay China's plunged from 79% to 36%.[7] Finally, eBay shut down its own site in China in 2006."

eBay's failure in China has become a classic case study in the field of International Business. It should be recognised here.

Here is a Forbes article covering eBay's failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.29.251 (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

edit to ebay's page about the removal of the Zimmerman painting

I've copied the following from my talk page to this talk page, so that additional editors can also view and comment the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused about your removal of my additional section to ebay's controversy page about their removal of the Zimmerman piece. Can you please suggest an edit so that I can post it as I think it is highly relevant and contains all required references. I have pasted it below. Thanks

In December 2013, on the same day that George Zimmerman’s painting raked in over $100,000 on eBay, artist Micheal D’Antuono was told by the same online auction company that his artistic interpretation of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin confrontation titled “A Tale Of Two Hoodies” violated eBay’s Hateful or Discriminatory policy and was removed from the website.

In an email D’Antuono provided to Raw Story, eBay told the artist that “[i]tems promoting or glorifying hatred, violence, or racial or religious intolerance aren’t allowed. Items that promote organizations with these views are also prohibited.” And they explained that “[t]he painting you listed appears to contain images or icons associated with the KKK which are not allowed to be listed on our site as they represent an organization that glorifies hate and violence.”

As at the time of writing, the painting “A Tale Of Two Hoodies” had been relisted on artFido, with D'Antuono promising to donate 50% of the proceeds of the sale to the Trayvon Martin Foundation.

(Hamaze01 (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC))

As written, the above comes across as an advert for the artist and painting that's now listed in an active auction elsewhere. It's important to keep the focus on eBay, without the secondary material. Also, the original version appears to contain copy/paste copyright violations from the refs.

Looking over the refs, there is potential grounds for calling it a controversy (although those refs appear borderline on meeting WP:RS). However, the material can be re-written to a single sentence while still retaining the relevant criticisms, and avoiding the advert and NPOV concerns, as well as avoiding the copyvio issues. A trimmed version can simply state:

In December 2013, on the same day that a painting by George Zimmerman sold for over $100,000 on eBay, an artistic interpretation of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin confrontation titled “A Tale Of Two Hoodies” was removed from their site, with eBay claiming it violated their Hateful or Discriminatory policy.

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the passage simply because the article is not a WP:SOAPBOX for what someone considers "something bad about Ebay". Its a private (meaning non-government) for-profit website and entitled to police its listing and allow or disallow whatever it chooses. It has a history of shying away from controversial topics, so its not a surprise they removed an item like this. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Scalhotrod. This was already accepted by editor Barek so I am confused why you deleted it. I am also confused as this is/was a major controversy, irrespective of whatever ebay allows or doesn't allow. eBay allowed Zimmerman to list his painting, but disallowed another artist listing their painting in response. This is extremely noteworthy and was referenced extensively. Can we have a third wiki editor review this as an impartial adjudicator? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamaze01 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Open Source Alternative

anyone know of, or what open source model may break Ebay's monopoly ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.3.213 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly on what? Even if eBay has a "monopoly", it's not because of their architecture; it's because of their real strong point, marketing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

searching for things on ebay

why is there no info on ebay search tools, or do we just use google to search for things on ebay these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.0.231 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Criticism of eBay with Ebay to create a more NPOV article. if the article becomes to long we can use topics and content to make subarticles. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140724085344/http://investor.ebayinc.com:80/faq.cfm to http://investor.ebayinc.com/faq.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120619040218/http://knowwpcarey.com/article.cfm?cid=25&aid=1171 to http://knowwpcarey.com/article.cfm?cid=25&aid=1171
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140221205130/http://www.toyworldmag.co.uk/news/2013/07/ebay-asks-retailers-to-back-choice-in-ecommerce-campaign to http://www.toyworldmag.co.uk/news/2013/07/ebay-asks-retailers-to-back-choice-in-ecommerce-campaign
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111030061907/http://www.ebaygivingworks.com:80/about-donationamount.html to http://www.ebaygivingworks.com/about-donationamount.html#deductions
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.ebay.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=289314

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Logo styles--current only vs. both vs. none--mentioned in lead as in other articles

I've again reverted this addition from the lead, since the contributing editor has declined to do it, or discuss. My problems with this addition twofold;

• time relative expressions are to be avoided. Using the expression "currently" means nothing to the reader because they have no idea when it was written. It also may be read as speculation that there may be future change, again at some unspecified point in time. Essentially the lead loses nothing by removing this word entirely.
• It is not clear why an old stylisation is of such significance that it needs to be mentioned in the lead sentence. Is it of any real importance? Does it radically affect the reader's understanding of what ebay is presently? I don't think so.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Again, I invite the IP editor concerned to discuss this rather than insisting on reverting without any attempt to reach a consensus. --Escape Orbit ^--(Talk) 20:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• These both seem like great points. The logo change doesn't seem so significant as to need to be in the lead. As far as I know this styling is not a major part of the brand. Is there a good reason to include it? Prodego ^talk 05:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• I agree it seems inappropriate for the lead. Since none of the revert-happy IPs have offered up any discussion here may I suggest semi-protecting the page as well? Qzd (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Qzd: I fully protected the page pending the outcome of this dispute, any more edit-warring after that can probably be handled with blocks. I think we need more than 15 minutes to allow them time to post here, however. Prodego ^talk 05:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Escape Orbit. The old stylisation of the logo is unimportant, and I fail to see the importance in adding it to the lead sentence.2602:304:CDC0:D470:350D:DF14:1321:6BCB (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP-only user whose address is currently 174.23.172.2 (talk) says the following:

• Fine. I'm here. Why is it so "inappropriate" (according to you guys)? It explains that there's the difference between text-only "eBay" and the actual logo that's more like "ebay," but also the distinction between that same lame text-only "eBay" and how it used to be styled, which was "ebaY" until late 2012. I've seen other articles that refer to the stylization in the lead, but I can't remember which ones. Why should it be so... "Hahhh, terrible, HAHH!" just to have that here too? Is it really THAT "terrible" to have those few additional words there? What is the BIG FREAKIN' DEAL?

• How about Kesha? That mentions a former style in the lead too. If that's okay to have there, then why supposedly "not" (according to you) here?

FYI you can sign your comments automatically by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comment. I'm out for now, but I look forward to the responses from the other users when I return. Thanks everyone for coming and discussing here, should make things much easier. Prodego ^talk 11:08 pm, Today (UTC−8)

174.23.172.2 (talk) says:

I already KNOW how to sign. That is HOW I did that up there already (except that I just typed "~~~" instead of "~~~~" so that the cluttery date junk wouldn't come into my opening there)!

Kesha's name was written differently in text, but "ebaY" only refers to a logo stylization. That seems beyond the scope of the WP:LEADSENTENCE. AFAIK the company has always been "eBay" or "eBay Inc" in writing. Qzd (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference? Ebay's name was always "eBay," which is written differently in text than its logo shows too! Kesha's "logo" was "Ke$ha." What's so "terrible" about having the distinctions for ebay? Is your lead really that "sacred"? What about the band "fun."? Why don't we go and remove all the stylization notes from the leads of all of those that have them, especially if they're just former?

And what about X Clan? And why don't THESE two articles need absolute time references either? Should I go look for some more? There are several more examples I can certainly use if these "aren't good enough" for you for some ridiculous reason!

Again, those are stylizations to the name in writing, not only the logo design. WP:REALTIME and WP:LEADSENTENCE are established guidelines, so it's not very productive to argue against them by cherry-picking other articles. The question is: is it appropriate for this article? Qzd (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you even know that for sure? Where's your source? And even if so, then what? Minor difference. "Big deal." What's so "hellaciously wrong" with showing the differentiations between them here at the lead of this article too, if it doesn't really add more length than those other mentions do? Why must it be so damned "sacred" to you? 174.23.172.2 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it's unimportant clutter. The lead sentence is all about hitting the reader with the key facts about the article subject. An obsolete stylisation of their logo is not one of them. I've inviting you a number of times to explain why it is so significant, but you seem determined to pick arguments instead. Reverting repeatedly, accusing others of sockpuppeting and vandalism, SHOUTING and demanding "why not!" is not how you establish consensus. As for other articles; just because they may (or may not) fail to follow the manual of style is no reason for this article to do likewise. So please, calm down, and give us a reason why it should. A number of people have already explained "why not", now you tell us why. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. eBay has always been known as eBay, Ebay, or EBay, regardless of the exact logo style. Unlike Ke$ha, the differences between them are simply capitalization, so there is no chance of confusion. eBay has not prominently featured a specifically capitalization, it is not essential to their brand. Therefore, I don't think it belongs in the lead, though I do think we should have an image of the old logo somewhere in the article (though perhaps not call out the specifically capitalization explicitly).

Also, since I have become involved here, I will not unprotect the page, I'll leave that to another admin when they believe consensus has developed. Prodego ^talk 06:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no problem with this being discussed within the article. It simply is not anything like important enough to feature so prominently in the lead. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I actually *DID* give an explanation, but you chose to ignore it. And I said that *you* were being a vandal just like you said that I was being one. Just because you don't like my reasoning doesn't mean I was being a vandal. Yes, it is actually specific to their brand. Would they change their logo for nothing? Why is it any "worse" for ebay's stylization, former or not, to be mentioned in the lead than for any other article where stylization is mentioned in the lead for any other reason? 75.162.217.153 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point I think the consensus is clearly against adding this material to the lead. Wikipedia works on consensus, and we've had several editors weigh in. Prodego ^talk 02:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP refuses to work collaboratively in the community. I don't know anymore. It's up to the admins to deal with this combative behavior. SlightSmile 04:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If, by "refuses to work collaboratively," this combative user really means "refuses to be shut completely out" because he insists on reverting past the middle ground of having only the current stylization mentioned in the lead, which is actually what he and at least two others of you had already been reverting to, instead of just reverting to that again, then yeah, I refuse, of course!

But if, on the other hand, this combative user actually means what he says, then that's a bold-faced lie! I am here talking this out, am I not? I am proposing compromises that don't completely go in one direction or the other, am I not? This is collaboration! So if, amongst all the earlier reversions, you guys were happy to only revert to the way that it was before with the current stylization still mentioned in the lead but not the former one, then why are you so adamant to dig deeper now and eliminate both? What's making you now feel like you MUST go farther than the 2 points that you, including escape orbit, were already happy with before? --Still mobile for now, 2600:100E:B123:2252:1AE6:9744:E0EF:420 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC).

Here is what I see.

• 1 Mark Arsten unprotects the page
• 2 Slightsmile selects what they believe is a logical consensus version, based on this discussion.
• 3 you restore the material that was explicitly decided against above.
• 4 I revert to Slightsmile's version.
• 5 you make some very related, undiscussed changes to the page. Personally, I agree with these, but it is poorly advised to make a change to what is known to be a contentious section without discussion. Especially in light of all the issues we discussed above.
• 6 Slightsmile reverts you. This is the one revert of the bold, revert, discuss cycle.
• 7 you revert Slightsmile. At this point you are edit-warring, and as a long-term editor you should know this. This is the last time I am going to warn you about this. From now on, if you revert any reversion of your edits I will block you.
• 8 at this point Slightsmile reverts you. This is probably not a good idea, as it could possibly be seen as edit-warring. In light of the previous changes you've made it is understandable that he considered it reverting to a consensus version.
• 9 You continue edit-warring, and Slightsmile wisely discontinues.

"Refuses to work collaboratively" is quite an apt discription of your conduct. Please, propose changes, provide input on the talk page, and follow WP:BRD. But you need to stop edit-warring over unilateral changes, regardless of if you consider them to be compromises.

This my last warning. If an editor reverts you, do not revert them. Start a discussion on the talk page, and make no reverts, full or partial, until you come to a consensus. In light of the previous history here, I will interpret any violation of WP:1RR as edit-warring, and will block for it..

As for the content of your change (5) – I agree with it, I think it is best to avoid the word "current," and calling out the common name of eBay, Inc. seems reasonable. Any other editors have opinions on it?

Prodego ^talk 07:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Back as 75.162.217.153 (talk) now, I add the following:

"Refuses to work collaboratively" is actually what you guys are doing, because to you it must be all about what YOU guys want and nothing of what I want, and instead I should just be treated as second-class merely because I'm IP-only. LOL, "start a discussion on the talk page"? So what do you call ^^^ THIS ^^^ then?

Um, I'm talking about reversions that came before that, prodigo. The reversions that came before that are what escape orbit and his little buddy-buddies were already happy with going back to (where "[stylized as 'ebay']" remained) after I added mention of the former style to that part of the lead. So if they were happy with that, then why are you and your buddy-pals stooping to this new low of taking those both out? Is it just a ploy to get me to be happy with just having the article read the same old way as it did with the current style mentioned in the lead but not the new one (in other words, creating some new, worse but fake "bad news" so that the previous lesser, but real, bad news will just seem more acceptable to the receiver)?

And why even ask whether or not this "current" from the infobox should stay or not, since your little preffy-friend escape orbit already took that out as part of being consistent with his little complaint that I had added "currently" to the first mention of style? If you'd like to take him more seriously because he has a user name and he's... well... him, then why did that ever get removed in the first place, and then why was it reverted when you guys knew that I was taking it back out after that?

I get why the wiki community might favor editions from a "high-and-mighty admin," but why does it seem like most of it also bows down to non-admin named editors over IPers too, huh?

And why is it that you consider my reversions as "edit-warring" but you guys' are somehow "not" even though you're just putting the stuff back too? Have you forgotten that one of the rules regarding edit-warring includes "even if you believe you are right"? Well you guys think you are "right" and you keep reverting too. How are you guys supposedly "not" edit-warring too, huh?

You still haven't supplied any reason why it is so important that this be in the lead. And yet you continue to cast allegations. For someone who gets so offended at being addressed as a new users, you don't appear to understand much about how Wikipedia is compiled. If you can't accept consensus and take alteration of your edits as personal insults, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said that changing my edits was akin to an insult, escape, but just by your saying that you deserve to feel that way about your own.

What you guys are calling "consensus" is actually not, unless you think "let us 3 or 4 guys leave one guy out" rightfully amounts to "consensus." But if you do, then you are actually the fool. I did not consent.

I already did answer your question, but you've chosen to be too ignorant to pay attention to it. Yet you have still not yet managed to answer mine about why, even though you were satisfied before with reverting to "(stylized as 'ebay')" without the former, you aren't even satisfied with that now and want to even use your half-smile buddy to remove even that now.

And why is it that you guys think you have to act like "just because you think something is unimportant then it actively must NOT be used? Since when did passive content require active prohibition?

And you haven't even answered why, even though you were the one who took off "current" from the infobox when you took "currently" from the style mention, one of you went and put "current" back ON the infobox for no good reason, or why when I took it back off, you had one of your little cohort buddies stick that back on even after you already wanted it off! It's like you guys can't make up your mind with that! What the hell is up with you guys? 2600:100E:B12A:E8CD:C519:4540:A829:37CD (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Because "us guys" are not, despite your repeated accusations, working as some kind of team, just to annoy you. We are individual editors working to improve Wikipedia and create and follow consensus. We may not agree precisely on everything, but we work together. Again, if you don't get this then editing Wikipedia is not for you.

The justification you've given for your addition hasn't swayed anyone. Sorry. The fact you've focussed on "it should go in because I want it in, and everyone else is colluding to stop it" hasn't helped. The combative tone you've taken from the start really hasn't helped you. Many of your comments are in breach of 'assume good faith' guideline and civility policy. You need to calm down.

In reply to your question; if something is unimportant it shouldn't be in the lead because it gets in the way of the things that are important. The reader does not want to have to wade through trivia to obtain the key facts. This is particularly important in the lead because many presentations of the article (such as in web search results or mobile applications) initially only show the first sentence of the article. We shouldn't waste that abbreviated display with detail that is, frankly, of very little interest to most people. Yes, what counts as of interest can be a matter of opinion and taste, but in this case most in this discussion agree that this is not.

Unfortunately you are now way over the line in regards to your edit warring. You have already been warned in regards to this, so please do not revert this article again. Please take this as friendly advice. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

escape orbit (yeah, I did that on purpose), It looks like I am going to have to be uncivil to you because you are not getting my point otherwise. Simply put, you are a moron. Yes, you were being uncivil to me by assuming that I said "because I want it in." I never said that. That's how morons think, and hence this description for you. There's a BIG difference between that stupid thing you just falsely put on my keyboard and this quote: "It explains that there's the difference between text-only 'eBay' and the actual logo that's more like 'ebay', but also the distinction between that same lame text-only 'eBay' and how it used to be styled, which was ' 'ebaY' until late 2012."

Your tone has been at least as combative as you think mine has, so you are the one who needs to calm down. Wikipedia editing actually isn't for you.

You obviously don't know quite how 3RR works. If someone reverts more than 3 times in the same day's worth of time, then they have broken 3RR. Not until then.

You guys may not be on the same exact team, but you claim "consensus" despite that I'm not part of that as one of the editors in the dispute. You still have not answered my question of why you guys in that supposed "consensus" have gone deeper than you were already satisfied with before. Perhaps I should ask the one who is doing it most recently, fakesmile. In fact, even he or she is edit-warring now. Just because s/he's part of your consensus doesn't mean s/he's not edit-warring. So there's that issue too.

You, escape orbit, have falsely assumed bad faith onto me. Remember the times you falsely called me a "vandal"? What do you call that assumption, huh?

And even though semi-smile girl has finally now REremoved "current" from the infobox like you did before, orbit, you still have never answered me on why it got back there in the first place. What about that?

Define "lead" in this context. How far does it go? Is it just the first paragraph?

Okay, @Slightsmile: when you first started your reversion junk here, even you would only revert to the point of where escape orbit left the "(stylized as 'ebay')" in place without the old version. Go back up and look at his bullets here and then look at your reversions. All of you who were doing those early reversions in your little group that you called "consensus" were originally only reverting to the point of leaving the mention of the current style in the lead, according to the earlier discussion here. Originally you guys were only saying that mentioning the former style in the lead was "too much" for you, so you didn't erase them both. Why are you guys erasing them both now, even though the original concern was only against the old one?

75.162.211.81 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 48 hours for the personal attacks and battleground behavior in the comment above. Keep in mind that this applies not only to edits from this single IP address. I've left the full notice on User talk:75.162.211.81. Prodego ^talk 01:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion on 2014 security breach edit to correct inaccuracies

Hello.

My name is Jennifer Lowe, and I work at eBay as a Web Content Specialist.

I’m hoping to be of some value in addressing information in the eBay Wikipedia page that may be either outdated or inaccurate.

For example, the paragraph about our 2014 security breach appears to confuse two separate events. In February 2014, the Syrian Electronic Army replaced the homepages for a very limited number of people visiting certain eBay and PayPal pages in the UK, France and India. The issue was quickly detected and resolved, and no customer accounts were affected. Source:

The Syrian Electronic Army attack is separate from the security breach that required a password reset. As currently depicted in the Wikipedia entry, the two events appear to have been merged.

As noted in the existing sources for this paragraph, the security breach in May 2014 was a result of hackers compromising a small number of employee log-in credentials. The hackers did not gain access to financial information and users were forced to reset their passwords as a precautionary measure. Source: and

Based on this, how does this community feel about something like the following?: “In early February 2014, the Syrian Electronic Army replaced the eBay and PayPal homepages for a limited number of people in the UK, France and India. The issue was quickly detected and resolved, and no customer accounts were affected. In a separate event, on May 21, 2014, the company revealed that the consumer database of usernames, passwords, phone numbers, and physical addresses had been breached by hackers who compromised a small number of employee log-in credentials. eBay users were advised to change their passwords; in order to expedite this a "change password" feature was added to profiles of users who had not yet done so. The eBay stock value fell in response to the disclosure.”

Thanks for your consideration. I look forward to joining the conversation. Jennifer Lowe

JenniferKL (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2016

I would like to add a line about eBay selling it's craigslist stake and the reference http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-19/ebay-sells-back-28-4-stake-in-craigslist-ending-litigation.

Natecarrier (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Varun ☎ 12:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

Could somebody add "(as AuctionWeb)" next to the Start date and age template, so that it says "{Start date and age|1995|9|3} (as AuctionWeb)" to show its original founding name?

71.163.81.242 (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016

Some of the subsidiaries are missing (see http://www.ebayclassifiedsgroup.com for the classifieds related ones), e.g. Close5 (http://www.ebayclassifiedsgroup.com/brands-close5.html) which is gaining millions of App Store downloads. A recruiter reached out to me about it and I could not find a mention of it on wikipedia.

66.211.104.160 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. VarunFEB2003 13:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702074414/http://www.techtimes.com:80/articles/64212/20150629/ebay-and-paypal-formally-splits-on-july-20.htm to http://www.techtimes.com/articles/64212/20150629/ebay-and-paypal-formally-splits-on-july-20.htm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150529153720/http://www.trustedshops.co.uk:80/news/online-retailers-prepare-to-fight-the-sales-ban/ to http://www.trustedshops.co.uk/news/online-retailers-prepare-to-fight-the-sales-ban/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121228223514/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rothamsted.ac.uk%2FPressReleases.php%3FPRID%3D48 to http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/corporate/PressReleases/PressReleases.php?PRID=48

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, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Why No Mention of e-Bay.com

eBay was originally one of many companies with the a x-bay.com address. We had an account with e-bay.com we were told the new address and all e-bay.net accounts will be ebay.com and that you could keep your old account name or change it. We changed ours as the name we had chosen was not something we expected to keep for decades to come and was not quite PG Rated. I am seriously wondering why this is not mentioned in the article as surely it was not a subject that was taken lightly, the -bay.com was a place of commerce, porn, and other very popular websites. 2602:306:CF5B:6C80:7DFF:2257:B79E:7C63 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Still Doc Ock

Point us to some reliable sources discussing the phenomenon you describe, and perhaps it can be included in the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The University of the Philippines quoted the url as "e-bay.com" in 2000. Batternut (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Move suggestion

I request this page to be moved to ‌eBay due to technical restriction on requesting in move request. The eBay is started with a Zero-width non-joiner. --2001:569:78B0:1300:6DF9:9D94:63A5:C79D (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150831141931/http://www.ecommercebytes.com/cab/cab/abn/y15/m08/i28/s02 to http://www.ecommercebytes.com/cab/cab/abn/y15/m08/i28/s02

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) 12:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510061258/http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101607/content/01125108.guest.html to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101607/content/01125108.guest.html

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) 02:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Logo style indicator: why not here as well?

Hey, Theroadislong, thanks for inviting me to discuss this thing about styling with you. This article, as well as many others with company logos, have had styling indicators on them for months or/and years, and people had been happy with it that way just up until December last year. Sure, it's not necessary, but the again, many things in articles aren't necessary but they help the reader relate. Now if so many other articles have styling indicators that aren't considered to be too cluttery, why should this article not take that same format? 180.149.231.229 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your addition "eBay Inc. styled as ebay" is pointless and not needed. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

+1 - "stylised as" is used for things that have completely different styles ..... The style for ebay is simply decapitalising one letter ..... so in that respect it seems utterly pointless, I get the logic in it but for article purposes it just seems pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help finding more resources about eBay/Beanie Babies connection in early days

Hi Wikipedians - I drafted a paragraph relating the the impact Beanie Babies had on eBay capturing so much market share in the early days - there are a wealth of references on this topic - if anyone can help me find more and expand on this, I think it would be awesome. The story is very fascinating and is a testament to how one product can have such an impact on innovation ... thanks!

Ronniebrown2 (talk · contribs) 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)