Private listings are getting listing sort/order priority, even at 'lowest price' (excl. sponsored)

[strangestash]

I recently noticed across a lot of my business listings, private listings are getting listing sort/order priority, even in situations like sorting/filtering by 'lowest price' and them not actually having the lower price. This obviously excludes sponsored listings.

For example; Why is the purple listing below ordered 3rd below more expensive items when ordered by price?

Link:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=+Niv-Mizzet%2C+Visionary&_sacat=183454&_from=R40&_trksid=p233...

[*kittylou*]

Yes, I’ve been following up on weekly chats but getting no-where. This was the last response when I asked…

Me: has it not been looked at since reported or do they not think there is an issue? 

Thanks 

Hi  @*kittylou* 

We sent the examples over to the tech team when you reported them. They advised that the number reported at the top of the SRP is an estimate, so it can be sometimes wrong. The estimate is based on what you see at the beginning of the result set and if you change this order (change the sort type) it has a radical impact on the estimate.

This is as designed and not a tech issue. We have asked that this be reviewed as a possible future update.

Thanks,

Dave

[strangestash]

So it's "as designed" for sorting by "lowest price + P&P" to not actually sort things by lowest price

🙃

As a business seller, it's infuriating to not see this getting acknowledged. It's (i) misleading and (ii) a real insult to business sellers that private sellers are being incorrectly bumped up results pushing us out of correct accurate positions!

Thanks for following this up @*kittylou* 

[ile136yz]

---

@strangestash wrote:

I recently noticed across a lot of my business listings, private listings are getting listing sort/order priority, even in situations like sorting/filtering by 'lowest price' and them not actually having the lower price. This obviously excludes sponsored listings.

For example; Why is the purple listing below ordered 3rd below more expensive items when ordered by price?

Link:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=+Niv-Mizzet%2C+Visionary&_sacat=183454&_from=R40&_trksid=p233...

---

I think the Searches of Item's Titles also take a place in how many have led to sales.

The first item priced at £15.79 - the title says Non-Foil Full Art,

the 2nd item is dearer but says Foil  - (so different)

and the 3rd item the picture looks the same, but the Title is completely different (so certain words in the title not being searched for by Buyers).

So, the first item must get more searches/sales.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@ile136yz wrote:

---

---

I think the Searches of Item's Titles also take a place in how many have led to sales.

The first item priced at £15.79 - the title says Non-Foil Full Art,

the 2nd item is dearer but says Foil  - (so different)

and the 3rd item the picture looks the same, but the Title is completely different (so certain words in the title not being searched for by Buyers).

So, the first item must get more searches/sales.

---

None of which should make any difference in a search result sorted by price.

It's pretty clear the BPF is not being taken into consideration when search results are sorted by price; i.e. they are sorted by the selling price specified by the seller and not by the price the buyer is shown and will pay.

[jlovie]

It's really annoying when I'm going through old listings of common items & repricing to try and shift stuff.

Despite actually being cheapest or thereabouts, mine can end up on the 2nd page of results.

[strangestash]

Thanks for the reply. The search was for 'Niv-Mizzet, Visionary' not any of those other keywords, it isn't relevant. Non-relevant keywords don't impact search results (except maybe when eBay is suggesting Sponsored Listings, which these are not). Additionally, in situations where the exact title is used as the search, or shared keywords are used, the same thing happens. It's not to do with keywords.

As discussed elsewhere in the thread it's to do with eBays' search incorrectly not factoring-in the 'Buyer Protection Fee' - you can mess around with the cost and see the break points in price to confirm this. It's an oversight on eBays side calculating 'total price', it's only looking at the raw 'price without BPF', but displaying the 'total price' - and thus, super misleading and incorrect.