It is replies like this one, that make me think AI is better. That person clearly rode the short bus to the FBA educational seminar for NSFE CSR.
Possibly, although I strongly doubt it on the GIGO principle alone.
Project Rainier-generated AI slop is what produces much of the chuckleheadedness recorded in this thread, such as may be seen in Ken’s 052526 post here, recommending the impossible action of filing a SAFE-T Claim for an Order ID that’s already got an A-to-z Claim filed against it (bolded emphasis by Ken, italicized bolded emphasis mine):
I’m constrained to concede that some of s/he/it’s advice in this post is quite good, but I’m also forced to recognize reality:
If the very-1st thing off of the pen is blatantly incorrect - to the point that even those with but a cursory grasp of the facts of how things work can plainly recognize the absolute egregiousness of the error - there’s precious-little chance that the writer hasn’t alienated much of the audience at a single stroke.
TBF it reads like an AI chatbot, which Amazon’s is constantly giving incorrect information. It reads the instruction manual and mushes things together, not realizing you cannot file a SAFE-T after n A to Z. I have never seen mod do the type out with bold and bullets like that, only their chatbot.
Nail, meet hammer.
Such mish-mashing of accurate & inaccurate, and/or old & new info, sadly occurs frequently - such as in Aria conflation of a policy that’s been out of date for ages in ‘Amazon-time’ (the 7-Day Return Evaluation Period) w/ current reality in her 052026 post here (emphasis mine):
Xander’s at it again, using AI to generate replies, and passing along links to a help page which is apparently inaccessible:
Xander’s embedded link (displayed in the quoted NSFE post above as “Server Busy” by the Discourse Platform that SAS uses), which is in ‘G-prefixed’ form, is this (link ‘broken’ for display in Discourse):
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/GYRKRACE5EPGF5RA
That SHC (“Seller Help Content”) page appears to be returning one of the two-known 404 errors seen for deprecated/inaccessible w/o permission SHC pages, “There was an error displaying this topic.”
Since @ least 100318, when it was heralded in a now-inaccessible News Headline, there has existed a SHC page titled “Customer product reviews policies;” in the Help Hub Revision format launched earlier in the present century, and in its ‘simplified’ (non-‘G-prefixed’) form, it can be found here:
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/YRKB5RU3FS5TURN
I cannot speak to whether or not Xander’s Cyrano-generated (link, Post # 263) URL is to a resource not yet deployed (the aforementioned active page hasn’t been updated, other than the addition of the Project Amelia/Seller Assistant functionality, since I last archived it on 12224), or if it’s a page that’s been deprecated, or it’s another example of an internal resource being improperly exposed, or if it’s something else entirely.
I can, however speak to my dismay every time I see this type of shoddy performance over in The Land Of Nod…
A case in point, from Xander again, in reply to a 4-month-olddiscussion whose OP wondering why they should be held responsible for Customer-Damaged FBA Returns (emphases mine):
The first of Xander’s embedded links is a ‘G-prefixed’ URL to the SHC’s “FBA inventory reimbursement policy” @ https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/200213130, which specifically indicates this in the ‘Eligibility’ section (again, emphasis mine):
Strike One.
The second embedded link, also ‘G-prefixed,’ is to the SHC’s “Manage seller-fulfilled returns” @ https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/200708210 - which of course has no applicability to an FBA/AFN Customer Return.
Strike Two.
Sadly, it is not just training them on how to use correct links and general knowledge about the REAL Amaozn polices, but the general lack of real world knowledge is prevalent.
How do the MODS make comments on shipping costs and offer ‘solutions’ when they are totally out of touch with reality?
From @sky_amazon “Since the post office charged $6 but customers were only charged $4, have you tried reaching out to the post office directly with your tracking numbers to request an audit?”
and my ‘kind of’ in your face response with no answer from Amazon at all so far –
"SADLY, this is the type of comment that happens when someone who has never shipped anything ever gives advice on shipping costs.
With the latest round of price increases with the PO it is OVER $5 to ship even five miles. It is OVER $6 if it goes 1000 miles. And THAT is for a 4 OUNCE package WITH my discount from Stamps/Endicia/Dazzle!
Wait until the middle of July when the recently announced (proposed) increases happen and all the low weight items will be charged as 15.9 ounces and costs will go UP AGAIN by nearly $2 for each package unless it is only going a few miles!
Sellers here have no idea what is about to happen to them and AMAZON is obviously oblivious to reality."
Amazon needs to REQUIRE any MODS to have at least TRIED to sell on the site before they mouth off about costs.
Wow. just wow – I completely missed that thread
Wasting my time on the NSFE keeps me from going back to drinking so I see/read most of the posts.
Though, some (most) days, the collective stupidity tests my will power.
Today’s another one; among the highlights so far is this ill-informed effort by TaylorR_Amazon, in direct reply to a 3P Seller who mentions being on the Individual Selling Plan rather than the Professional:
TaylorR seems unaware of the very-1st prerequisite to engage w/ Amazon Advertising - enrollment in the Professional Selling Plan - as is specified, among other places, by the ‘Account requirements’ section of the AdvHC’s (“Advertising Help Content”) “Sponsored Products eligibility requirements” page @ https: //advertising.amazon.com/help/GMJYF5GN8RNYB6HD :
Conflating how things work ain’t nuthin’ new amongst the members of the FMT-CMT, as we all know, but a particularly-galling example of that can be found in Topher’s 052926 ‘Tutorial’ @ 🔑 Brand store replaced by another brand: Recovery steps (emphasis mine):
There are currently two-known ‘reporting’ functionalities available directly on any given PDP in the Amazon Global Catalog:
-
The embedded “Product detail page was changed to represent a different product” link, which invokes a workflow entirely different from what Topher describes.
-
The “Report” ‘button’ which appears next to the “Helpful” button for whatever Product Reviews are displayed directly on-page, which also doesn’t invoke the workflow Topher describes.
What Topher is describing was the workflow, from 2019 until early autumn of 2025, of the Report Abuse (link) Dashboard - it even had a specifically-tailored Submission Form @ https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/abuse-submission/form/detail-page-different-product - but last fall’s launch of the execrable Project Amelia/Seller Assistant/Cyrano-driven triage workflow for the Help Hub put paid to that, & the URL now simply redirects to the new process’ starting point.
Nero fiddles; Rome burns.
Not the first time I’ve seen Ken make the same type of conflation with one of his AI-formulated responses, such as the 060726 one here - which like Topher’s quoted above, also ignores that the described Help Hub workflow he’s recommending became n/l/a when the Amabots finally took over gatekeeping entirely last fall (emphasis mine):
In point of fact, the path Ken describes has been inoperative for a number of years now passed, so it would be interesting to learn what material was sourced in making the post.
Kai has joined the infamous M.A.P. Club:
Kai’s 2nd link, supposedly to the SHC’s “Laser Products,” is another ‘dev’ link inaccessible to non-Amazonians:
https://www.sellercentral.amazon.dev/help/hub/reference/GXMGGPL6LC4CVXHT
Using our friend Marbles’ “deconstruction” method for that URL yields this, in ‘simplified’ non-‘G-prefixed’ form, ‘broken’ for Discourse display:
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/XMGGPL6LC4CVXHT
Generally speaking, as the many posts upthread about this noisome habit of repeating the same mistake over and over again attest, such deconstruction works in order to reach the page the mod is trying to link, but not this time; Kai managed a double-bogey on this round.
Out here on the Seller-side of things, that URL directs to the SHC’s “Safety, compliance, and product restrictions” - which is now entirely mute on the subject of lasers (it once did have a link to the proper page, but that’s long-gone like the others that were once there when it was titled “Recalls & Product Safety” - not to the intended target page, “Laser Products,” which is here:
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/201689020
Another day, another dollar over in the Shrieking Harridan’s abode…
Billy’s apparently also not gotten the memo, and recommended a deprecated workflow for the Help Hub in this 060826 post (emphasis mine):
Things appear to be getting worse, not better…
I neglected to post the URL to Kai’s NSFE post of 060726 (Glass house and all):
Mea culpa…
In another example of the FMT-CMT posting inaccessible links, Christine did that for a Seller University Module in this 060826 post:
Christine’s link to the “Report Abuse in the Amazon Store” Module is here, and it redirects to a 404 page (‘broken’ for display in Discourse):
That module did once exist - prior to 2024’s Seller University Structural Revision Initiative, when Modules were logically arranged by subject in Courses, and SU’s entire content was readily browsable w/o the current AI gatekeeping, it was Module # 36 (of 56) in the “Account Health and compliance” Course - and Amazon was so proud of it that it actually heralded its deployment in a 072622 News Headline titled “Seller University: How to report abuse in the Amazon store.”
That headline is n/l/a as a result of another 2024 change, the Amazon News Structural Revision Initiative, but the 072622 News Headline-accompanying NSFE discussion “Seller University: How to report abuse in the Amazon store” is still available @ Seller University: How to report abuse in the Amazon store :
https://sellercentral.amazon.com/seller-forums/discussions/t/1c77347646b95cc5879e8bbd575412fc
The Amazon News/News_Amazon link back then was this, and it, too, now yields a 404 error:
In both cases, we can see that the RID (“Resource ID”) for the “Report Abuse in the Amazon Store” module was “a52a9432-add0-48f2-99fb-953e3fe50171”; using that, we should normally be able to plug it into one of the current naming conventions Amazon is using for Seller University Moules to find the sought-for resource.
I’m currently aware of two separate conventions in use (there could well be more that I’m not yet aware of); ‘broken’ for display in Discourse, these are their “Raw” forms:
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/su/learn/s?learningModuleId={ADD RID}
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/learn/learning-module/{ADD RID}
These 2 formats seem, generally, to be interchangeable - for instance, substituting a known RID, like that of the “Drive repeat purchases with Subscribe & Save” Module (which is “315ebb81-9097-42d3-9873-086e1c754360”) into either ‘Raw’ URL allows navigation to that video by either path:
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/su/learn/s?learningModuleId=315ebb81-9097-42d3-9873-086e1c754360
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/learn/learning-module/315ebb81-9097-42d3-9873-086e1c754360
We can see that both are viable URLs, leading to the same resource (n.b. the difference in the web elements used to provision those pages); the same is true of other SU modules, such as “Report a violation” (whose RID is “e0bd7a7b-b7d4-47d1-a097-e307ab524797”):
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/su/learn/s?learningModuleId=e0bd7a7b-b7d4-47d1-a097-e307ab524797
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/learn/learning-module/e0bd7a7b-b7d4-47d1-a097-e307ab524797
The same is not true for the “Report Abuse in the Amazon Store” Module; substituting in its RID (“a52a9432-add0-48f2-99fb-953e3fe50171”) yields these URLs, which also produce 404 errors like the other two:
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/su/learn/s?learningModuleId=a52a9432-add0-48f2-99fb-953e3fe50171
https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/learn/learning-module/a52a9432-add0-48f2-99fb-953e3fe50171
Finding all 4 of these approaches unnavigable was enough to lead me to conclude that it was most likely that the module had been deprecated since the last time I’d viewed it, but I tried another method of finding it by using the ever-execrable Seller University search engine, with the actual title of the wayward module “Report Abuse in the Amazon Store” as the search term; that returns 10 modules that the AI gatekeeping mechanism thinks are applicable - it’s wrong, because none of them are.
Refining that term to simply “Report Abuse” yields only two modules as a result (notably, neither of them appear in the earlier search results) and the first one is the aforementioned “Report a violation” module - which is why I included it in the second example of working pages, above, and which itself is badly in need of updating, as it references the now-superseded workflow installed after the AHT Initiative for the Report Abuse (link) Dashboard, when it looked like this (if an SoA Account had access to all 9 choices; not all did):
As we all likely know by now (link, SAS), that workflow was suppressed in Q3 of 2025 w/ the advent of yet another Amabot gatekeeper, this one taking the triage reins for case creation and Help Hub content.
The insidious forces of ignorance and inertia would seem to be combining to stir up a poisonous brew…
Sadly, not just on Amazon…
At this point rather than train the mods, I think a better use of resources would be to feed this thread into the AI they are using.
If that would help, I could support it - but only if it actually lessened the incidence rate of such lackluster efforts as Kai’s 060826 post here, yet another conflation of the functionalities of the Report Abuse Dashboard with those of the ‘Report’ button provided for Product Reviews:
In another example of the FMT-CMT failing to read for comprehension (admittedly, impossible for AI to achieve), Kai’s responding to a poster who stated plainly, in his/her very-1st sentence, that they already had created their own discussion on 060226, but hadn’t received a reply.
The issue is the AI scans everything for answers and doesn’t limit itself to current content. It is clear these are all AI responses from the formatting and deconstruction of links. I would bet if someone typed the same question into the seller AI ‘helper’ it would give the same answer.
They would need to limit the AI database to current and relevant information. Even then, it seems confused on what the actual question is. It is basically predictive text pretending to have a conversation.
I know. I don’t think feeding this thread into the AI model would do anything useful. I was simply expressing that making the mods read it would definitely be useless.
I totally get it, but I also thought the same thing at first. Maybe they should pay us to train their AI 