Oz Round Table
The Oz Round Table boards => The Round Table => Topic started by: Philip.Cohen on September 13, 2009, 09:03:56 AM
-
Shill Bidding on eBay: Case Study #2
Shining some light on the more sophisticated and therefore harder to detect shill bidding activity by some “professional” sellers on eBay auctions
Oh no, not another case study on shill bidding on eBay auctions? Yes, sorry, another one. This time a spreadsheet analysis of multiple auctions from some "professional" sellers from the US and Australia. Needless to say the analysis demonstrates, once again, that, contrary to eBay's claims, shill bidding by many “professional” sellers is rampant on eBay auctions. The full comment and spreadsheet download links at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=24296
-
Hi Philip..nice to see you back...feel free to post the case studies here...nobody's gonna get all up in arms about it.....I'll have a look a bit later today so I can give it a bit of time and consideration.....I do however, think that you've uncovered another HUGE fraud issue on Ebay... there doesn't seem to be anything they won't turn a blind eye to actually.
I've gotten to the stage where I don't bid and if I do, once outbid, that's it...I don't bid again.....always keeping your warnings in the back of my mind re: shill bidding.
I wonder though.....how did the RE industry end up being regulated for shill bidding?....was it considered fraud?...and if so, isn't this the exact same thing? i.e. unverified bidders and sellers bumping up the price?
-
*makes note to read link today*
-
For the benefit of "RiffRaff" I have included in the spreadsheet some auctions from the seller "vms_phones"; this is the seller whose several auctions (also included) RiffRaff previously could find no indication of shill bidding on; he did not look very far; they are indeed, as others suspected, rampant shill bidders.
You will have no trouble understanding eBay once you come to terms with the fact that it is a criminal organisation that obtains much of its revenue from knowingly aiding and abetting unscrupulous sellers to defraud buyers. It's as simple as that ...
-
it is a criminal organisation that obtains much of its revenue from knowingly aiding and abetting unscrupulous sellers to defraud buyers.
Can't disagree there...and in more ways than one.
-
Phillip. not for my benefit but for the benefit of those who are into your conspiracy theories, please provide an item number from the seller, vms phones, where you beleive shill bidding has taken place. You may also wish to back it up with some proof, prior to making these allegations.
Directing people to look at a number of auctions by a seller, does not make that seller guilty......just because you think they are.
-
RiffRaff,
Could I direct you to your reply #25 (25 July 2009) at
http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=665.20
for the details of the two auctions in question (350226109170; 50226109139), and where you stated quite positively that “there is nothing in the bid histories to indicate shill bidding”.
Of course, you are right, there is nothing in those bid histories to indicate shill bidding; those bid history pages were deliberately designed by eBay (along with the masking of bidding IDs) to obscure all but the most naïve of shill bidding. (Oh, dear me, another conspiracy theory.)
Now, as you obviously missed the link in the OP to the “proof” that I have already supplied, can I again refer you to the linked case study at
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=24296
or you can go straight to the spreadsheet analysis (and the Notes on the use thereof) at
http://home.exetel.com.au/philipcohen/eBay/.
Do a search for either one of those two auction numbers or the seller, and you will see that a multi-auction analysis of this seller demonstrates that this seller is indeed an habitual shill, with a “rolling” use of multiple shill IDs. Then, maybe all those multiple bidders were simply after a lot of phones? What say you, Riff Raff?
You appear to have a history of accepting everything that eBay says and does as being “kosher”; I know them to be unscrupulous, disingenuous, indeed criminal. If you are not, in fact, an eBay stooge and therefore not really interested in the reality of eBay’s operation, could I suggest that you take the trouble to inform yourself by reading my linked case study before you make any further claims of me not backing up my assertions with “proof”.
Forget the odd naïve shill that you may or may not notice in the Bid History pages; it’s the “professional” sellers’ shilling, that can only be detected with a multi-auction analysis, that you have to be most fearful of—or, if you trust eBay so much, by all means rely on eBay’s “proactive”, “sophisticated” systems to protect you from being defrauded …
Wake up RiffRaff, eBay is effectively in cahoots with the fraudsters …
-
You see Philip, you lose all credibility when you accuse me of being an eBay stooge.
Just because you have collated hundreds of pages of bid histories, you have uncovered nothing in relation to shill bidding on the part of vms.
Yes Philip, when people want a phone, they bid on auctions. If they don't win with the first, they may try again, and again or they may move on to another seller. Bidding on eBay auctions is how you win a phone Philip. People will continue to bid until they win.
You obviously enjoy doing whatever it is you do.......please carry on.
-
RiffRaff,
Still you do not say whether or not you have read the case study or actually examined the spreadsheet in any detail. I get the feeling that you are really not interested in any negative comment about eBay. I am sorry, but you appear to me to be an eBay appologist. Are you a "professional" seller?
I suppose you will be next telling me that there is not a significant shill bidding problem on eBay, and that what there is, eBay has under control. Is that your contention?
Let's see if, after examining the facts that I have supplied, anyone else is as unconvinced, as you apparently still are, that the seller "vms_phones" (and many of the others listed in the spreadsheet) is an habitual shill bidder?
-
Why wouldn't there be shillbidding. Ebay staff were convicted of registering fake ID's for the purpose of doing it, and it was discovered by some Power Sellers in the US because they were having to pay higher fee's and knew they were not guilty of shill bidding. Pretty sure that was uncovered in 2000.
My belief is that ebay will never get caught doing that again, and have outsourced it to some people, who extract a fee from some power sellers, in some cases, to do it. And who else would you get but one who is adept at registering fake ID's, thousands of them.
By doing this, ebay are in the clear, and no direct evidence can be linked to them or the seller because it's not he/she doing it.
Nice Gig if your an expert at manipulating IP's using registered members names gleaned from all sorts of avenues as simple as buying some cheap goods from them.
Look at it from that perspective Phil, it's been going on for years.
-
Hello Philip,
Thank you for verifying what I already knew concefrning vm_phones.
I was the person who showed Riff the example of shill bidding by that seller, I conducted a multi auction study in that particular coverinf around 50 auctions for the same model phone.
When I presented the result I got the same response from Riff so dont feel singled out ;D
-
Poddy that would be a little like showing the defedant in a murder trial, all the evidence you had on him.
Not that it would make much difference, those shilling ID's are like the latest CD to hit airplay, they are placed on high rotation, especially when detetcted.
-
You are right of couse, it's not obvious from simply viewing the spreadsheet, but as I have been adding auctions to the spreadsheet it becomes noticable that some IDs then appear on a second, sometimes then a third auction and then they can disappear for a period; of, course they could all be genuine bidders; only eBay can know for sure—and they ain't tellin'; and, if indeed, eBay is changing these aliases every quarter, then there is no way of users keeping track over time ...
Has anyone else been able to ascertain whether or not eBay is continuing to change the masked aliases periodically? In other words, has your alias changed? Mine did change at least once; maybe it was a once-only event? Who knows—probably not even eBay.
-
Phil, the problem is everytime someone makes a noise about this, the goal posts move, and ebay are the ones who move it. On any internet based business, it's a simple matter of a few keystrokes to eliminate the evidence.
The noise I have been making for years have seen me targeted, and banned from auction sites and forums for almost four years, and the same people who have been involved in this, also have a presence on any forum where ebay is discussed, including this one, and their own.
The same people under multiple ID's, across many forums, always present, always watching, and gathering information on others. When one ID gets discovered, it disappears, but another one pops up. Supposedly highly educated people, and a couple of them are, being Trolls, for why...?
Then you have the Pinks, and I have written to many with my summation, and asked simple questions, like checking all the posts and ID's on threads, not just the ones members get banned for, and while it's plain as the nose on anyones face, where the baiting starts, nothing happens.
The speed with which some posts disappear tells myself and others, that those involved in the baiting, work for ebay, because they have the delete button at their disposal. I have a long list of posts that disappear when certain subjects or people are mentioned.
I have been told by Police they do not have the resources to investigate my suspicions, and despite their admission, after reading my reports, that they also believe there is truth in many of my accusations. The problem is these people know the internet inside out, and know they can never be caught, unless they do something really stupid. While to many of us, trolling is stupid, it's a necessary part of their game, so they can eliminate anyone who suspects what is going on, and keep their finger on the pulse of whats happening across all forums. I also believe the same thing is happening on OZtion, and the proof is even more convincing because they do not hide bidders, and is easily detected, however, it's admin have a standard reply they can see no evidence, and even go as far as deleting negative feedback for sellers who are under great suspicion. It is also a fact that OZtion appears to have a much higher rate of NPB's than ebay, and I reckon this is a mixture of shill bidding, and retaliation against members who love to fight and bait each other on the forums. And yes, I know, conspiracy theories, but when you look for reason behind supposedly sane peoples actions, it's not drawing a very long bow at all, in fact the probability is quite high in my book. Simple, an independent group of people paid to do what ebay and OZtion cannot afford to be caught doing.
-
Bob RE: your statement.
"""The noise I have been making for years have seen me targeted, and banned from auction sites and forums for almost four years, and the same people who have been involved in this, also have a presence on any forum where ebay is discussed, including this one, and their own."""
= care to elaborate on who the mole or moles are here? what example can you share with us? Have you informed Admin?
= Or do you think I'm baiting you also?...Bob get a grip, no one on this forum's got it in for you, just because some one here has a difference of opinion doesn't mean your getting baited, FFS I wouldn't be here if that was the case, I left all that crap over there as did everyone that's here now, our Admin and Mod's are on the ball and will not stand for it here, put up the examples of you being baited on this site or let it die, I feel you would be a good Allie if another rebellion started but until you realize we are not the enemy you are a liability to yourself and your credibility. WE are not your enemy.
-
Shill-bidding isn't a criminal activity. If, for example, Reginald fforthright-Biddington is selling something on eBay, has lots of watchers but no bids, and creates a second ID in order to bid on his own item to encourage other watchers to bid - and is caught out by eBay when someone watching finds the bidding suspicious - eBay will NOT report this to the police and ask for criminal charges to be laid.
If eBay did ask for that, it would be laughable. The issue isn't CRIMINALITY.
The issue is that it's an eBay policy designed to make auctions a level playing field. The market is supposed to set the price, not the seller pretending to be the market. In some countries, in some jurisdictions, for some types of auction, shill-bidding is also an issue that has legal repercussions, but as far as I'm aware, that is not the case with shill-bidding on eBay.
But eBay are not dealing fairly and in line with the TPA if they allow some accounts to get away with shill-bidding and sanction other accounts. It's no excuse to say that the easily detectable shill-bidding of my example above is unambiguously shill-bidding if the IP is the same, etc. A two-year-old could establish that. But eBay have been saying they have "sophisticated" ways of detecting shill-bidding; and if that's so, eBay members have the right to expect that shill-bidding noticeable to the naked eye will also be noticeable to eBay's "sophisticated" methods. Not only that, but eBay members have the right to expect that persistent and professional shill-bidding by larger accounts will have MORE severe penalties imposed upon them than the small amateur guy selling a one-off item and trying to get a fairer price for it.
-
From eBay's own site (http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/seller-shill-bidding.html):
Shill bidding is bidding that artificially increases an item’s price or desirability. It’s also bidding by the people the seller knows—including family members, roommates, or employee—who could have certain information about the item that other members aren’t aware of. To make sure no one gets an unfair advantage, we don’t allow shill bidding on eBay.
If people close to you want to buy your item, they can use a format that doesn’t involve bidding, such as Buy It Now.
If you have employees, make sure they’re aware of this policy and what the consequences are for violating it.
Review our Shill Bidding tutorial to learn more about this policy.
If you sell an item using a fixed price format, keep in mind that fixed price purchases can't be used to increase a member's Feedback ratings or search standing. If you violate this policy, you may be suspended from using our site. For more details on our guidelines, see our Feedback manipulation policy and our search and browse manipulation policy.
Make sure your listing follows our guidelines. If it doesn't, it may be removed, and your buying and selling privileges could be restricted.
If you think someone's breaking the rules, report it to us. Be sure to provide the member's user ID and the item number.
-
= Or do you think I'm baiting you also?...Bob get a grip, no one on this forum's got it in for you,
Put it back in your pants Yib, please quote WHERE, I said anything about someone here having it in for me.
Baiting comes in many forms, including misquoting people on purpose.
And yes, Admin are informed who they are. And it wouldn't matter to me if people had it in for me, that's their problem, not mine, so long as it's a level playing field, and members are not favoured over others that's fine, but forum rules here are about Censorship, and no different to ebay.
When you trap a Troll, the pinks come to their rescue and lock the thread and direct questions don't get answered, so Yib, I cannot answer you as far as naming people because " It's against forum Rules ". I can't talk about who they are, sanctions I may have received, the contents of a deleted thread, or anything else that may incriminate, or lead others to a conclusion to who these people may be.
I gave links to people here who never bothered to use them to find the truth, so one cannot do much for those with closed minds, and it's just that simple.
And you know what Yib, the same protection given to those Trolls on ebay, are given to them here because it's set up on the same forum guidelines.
This the problem with Trolls and crims, there are laws to protect them, but not Mr & Mrs Citizen who just want to buy and sell and use the forums, it is so easily open to abuse and manipulation, Ebay knows it, it works well for them, and they will never change it unless they can make more money out of it.
I think I would contest the thinking that shill bidding is not illegal, and I am sure there is a Federal Law, under the Communications Act that covers it, along with stalking laws.
I will have to reference it, but it's something about using a conveyance or carriage service, and how it cannot be used, and registering fake ID's to shill bid with is a deception for gain or profit, and the act states that. My son has a bachelor of policing degree, and touched on these laws when he saw the idiots doing what they were doing on an offshore website. Think I will take his word for it.
-
Hey, people this thread is supposed to be about shill bidding …
From time to time responses to my "rants" give me food for further comment, eg:
The Bid History Details pages, provided supposedly as a counterbalance to the masking of bidders’ IDs, contains a “30-Day Summary”. Why is this summary only 30 days and not 90 days, or infinite? I would submit that eBay’s “nod, nod, wink, wink”, attitude to shill bidding requires that “professional” shill bidders be able to “refresh” their shill IDs by rotating them over as short a period as possible. If the summary was over 90 days the shills would need 60 shill IDs instead of 20, if the summary was infinite, heaven forbid! And that is were an ongoing spreadsheet analysis comes in handy.
Oh, countessa,
Do we really have to go over and over the ethical status of shill bidding?
In every civilized country any form of undisclosed vendor (shill) bidding at an auction (whether successful or not) is fraud, and that is a criminal activity. How could any thinking person think that such activity could be other than fraudulent and criminal?
eBay don’t report anything to police because they are effectively complicit in the shill bidding activity—and the police have got more important crime to contend with; and eBay should be detecting and controlling such activity themselves, but don’t, and won’t because it is not in their financial interests to do so.
eBay has no “sophisticated” system for the detection of shill bidding. All their statements thereon (and on most other things) are all pure BS. Indeed the great majority of eBay statements and actions regarding the security of consumers are nominal only and serve only to make it appear that they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.
Read my linked rant.
-
Bob once again you have misunderstood....sigh..... and leave my pant's out of it...if your so observant how come you don't see I wear a skirt?....
I wrote ; = care to elaborate on who the mole or moles are here? what example can you share with us? Have you informed Admin? ....Notice I said Here? I'm not concerned with the ebay forums only this forum.
On many threads through out this site you do have little digs about being suppressed, I'm not going to go through hundreds of posts, just to find your cynical remarks about the Admin and how your posts go poof,
whilst others don't, you may not see it but it does stand out, if you can't see it then so be it.
-
:applause:
-
Philip, we're agreed on the ethics of shill-bidding. I believe it is unacceptable behaviour. I particularly find it unacceptable as a practice for large sellers. I have some small sympathy for smaller sellers who listed items at 99 cents and were alarmed to find that they might have to actually sell the item at that price - and who shill-bid to try to get a realistic price on that item. My sympathy doesn't mean I approve.
Like many buyers, I have seen suspicious behaviour with IDs that commonly bought from one person - and one person only. Whenever I suspect shill-bidding in an auction, I immediately back away.
I make the comment merely, for the benefit of anyone who wants to approach this question from the point of view of criminality, that expecting criminal charges to be laid by eBay against shill-bidders (even those proven to be shill-bidders rather than merely suspected) is expecting the impossible.
-
Thanks Phil...I was thinking exactly the same thing i.e. staying on topic....
bobby, you have managed to accuse at least half a dozen members of various things, when most of us didn't have a clue who you were until you joined this forum and started making these allegations.....I agree with Yib....get over it already......nobody here is trolling you...that kind of conduct isn't encouraged here.....but you seem to be imposing your belligerence all over the place...chill out !!! Enuf Said !!
Now...back to Shill Bidding...Yes Countess, Phil is right, Shill bidding is considered 'rorting' at the very least, and it's connotations in terms of fraud would probably be found in the reason why traditional auction and RE Auction industries were regulated to stop shill bidding.
At one point in Australia, not that long ago, this practice was completely outlawed in the Real Estate Industry, where it was rife. They regulated that by making all potential bidders register to bid with their real ID details, and I think that is exactly the same with traditional auctions.
I.e. in traditional auctions you have to give them your credit card details, license etc,....but I'm no expert on this subject.....would have to research the reasons why regulation in auction settings were put in place originally. In RE Auctions you have to give them your name, license etc, I imagine but I'm not entirely sure of all this...just speculating. I might do a quick search and see if I can find out if and what regulation surrounds other auction settings.
I think the answer might be however, in the reasons why these other types of auction industries were regulated for shill bidding, or if they did it voluntarily or what?. The question then is....Why are Ebay Auctions any different when it comes to registering and properly identifying both buyers and sellers??
-
= Or do you think I'm baiting you also?...Bob get a grip, no one on this forum's got it in for you, just because some one here has a difference of opinion doesn't mean your getting baited, FFS I wouldn't be here if that was the case, I left all that crap over there as did everyone that's here now, our Admin and Mod's are on the ball and will not stand for it here, put up the examples of you being baited on this site or let it die, I feel you would be a good Allie if another rebellion started but until you realize we are not the enemy you are a liability to yourself and your credibility. WE are not your enemy.
I didn't misunderstand this at all.
But I am against any policy that allows Trolls to be protected, by censorship, because the same policy is open to be abused by poeple playing favourites, and I am not going to raise the subject and get banned for it again. I am not going to ruffle feathers because I get attacked because someone reads a post and assumes I mean something totally different to the words in the post.
I posted the comment from OZtion the other day where a member said " So what you really saying is ".
That is at least polite, and gives the poster to reply by saying, " No, that's not what I said at all "
You telling me to " Get a Grip " invites a reply to put it back in your pants, as it's is generally a sign of someone puffing their chest out, when totally uncalled for.
-
= Or do you think I'm baiting you also?...Bob get a grip, no one on this forum's got it in for you, just because some one here has a difference of opinion doesn't mean your getting baited, FFS I wouldn't be here if that was the case, I left all that crap over there as did everyone that's here now, our Admin and Mod's are on the ball and will not stand for it here, put up the examples of you being baited on this site or let it die, I feel you would be a good Allie if another rebellion started but until you realize we are not the enemy you are a liability to yourself and your credibility. WE are not your enemy.
I didn't misunderstand this at all.
But I am against any policy that allows Trolls to be protected, by censorship, because the same policy is open to be abused by poeple playing favourites, and I am not going to raise the subject and get banned for it again. I am not going to ruffle feathers because I get attacked because someone reads a post and assumes I mean something totally different to the words in the post.
I posted the comment from OZtion the other day where a member said " So what you really saying is ".
That is at least polite, and gives the poster to reply by saying, " No, that's not what I said at all "
You telling me to " Get a Grip " invites a reply to put it back in your pants, as it's is generally a sign of someone puffing their chest out, when totally uncalled for.
As another poster said not so long ago..."what ever"...you believe what you want Bob... my life's to short for this.
-
Thanks Phil...I was thinking exactly the same thing i.e. staying on topic....
bobby, you have managed to accuse at least half a dozen members of various things, when most of us didn't have a clue who you were until you joined this forum and started making these allegations.....I agree with Yib....get over it already......nobody here is trolling you...that kind of conduct isn't encouraged here.....but you seem to be imposing your belligerence all over the place...chill out !!! Enuf Said !!
bobby, you have managed to accuse at least half a dozen members of various things,
Care to quote who they are....?
You baited me the other day, and I stated your comments would stand and mine would be deleted if I answered how I wanted to.
Guess what, your remained, and even though I didn't answer you in the fashion I would of like, they were edited.
This will be deleted as well, because you have commented on my reply to Yib, and that reply was because he got something totally stuffed up.
Smart stuff. Now name the 6 or more.
-
Ummmm...if I may quote:
"whatever"
now can we please get back to discussing how crap ebay are?
I find that infinitely more entertaining.
BOZO
-
It will depend on legislation pertaining to online auctions, and that's where it gets murky.
Ideally, it would be good to see the legislation being very clear about this, so that eBay will inform its members that shill bidding leads eBay to see that members are charged with a criminal offence. But if that were to happen, the demand for police investigation into allegations of shill-bidding when eBay does nothing (or says there is no shill-bidding according to its "sophisticated" technology) would be high, and it would open a can of worms.
Do I believe eBay is nodding and turning a blind eye to real and large-scale shill-bidding? Yes.
Do I believe they can detect the shill-bidding in question? Potentially, yes. You see, I don't believe that eBay have sophisticated algorithms in place to detect serious or professional shill-bidding. I believe the naked eye can see examples of shill-bidding - or at least see highly suspicious behaviour that gives a high probability of shill-bidding - and that it would certainly be POSSIBLE to have such algorithms in place to check ALL BIDDING ACTIVITY ON eBAY (or even bidding activity on shill-bidding-prone items). But I don't believe any such algorithm IS in place.
I truly do not.
We know without question that the majority, if not all, shill-bidding is the result of eBay members reporting instances to eBay. If no one bothered reporting the most blatant shill-bidding, would it be picked up at all by eBay?
The jury is still out, but it seems that they are shaking their heads...
-
:)
-
:hijack: :marvin: :thanks:
-
Nuf said as tello put's it...
-
Scuse me, er, looking for an emoticon with a playing field that is way out of level. Oh and some people running around with diapers, to cover some rear ends, just post them I'll drop by and pick them up.
As stated, SHILL BIDDING IS ILLEGAL. FULL BLOODY STOP.
-
Nuf said as tello put's it...
Leave me out of this.
-
Nuf said as tello put's it...
Leave me out of this.
No way dude..guilty by association....remember? you threw that at me last week.... SLAM !
-
Scuse me, er, looking for an emoticon with a playing field that is way out of level. Oh and some people running around with diapers, to cover some rear ends, just post them I'll drop by and pick them up.
As stated, SHILL BIDDING IS ILLEGAL. FULL BLOODY STOP.
I prefer my butt nekky and diaper free
;D
BOZO
-
....if your so observant how come you don't see I wear a skirt?....
I thot that's a Kilt.
-
....if your so observant how come you don't see I wear a skirt?....
I thot that's a Kilt.
Tomata ~/~ Tomatoe...same ...
-
The only time it's not a kilt is when the dude wearing it stands on his head, then it's disgusting.
Now back on topic.
How much influence do you think it would take, to make Google to stop putting the cache url on it's searches.
Would ebay have enough pull to do that.................?
Because Google was one of my best research tools into trolls and using what they said all over the web to hang them with facts, in their own words.
Members of my forum had access to the proof because I first posted their words, then the URL to the cache so people couldn't say the posts were doctored.
Indeed, the cache showed edited posts from forums and who edited them and when, and I still have them, however, it appears now when trying to research threads on shill bidding, Google does not show a cache at all.
It also has come to my attention over the last few months that caches are disappearing to ceratin sites I used to watch, and this is what I mean about Police never being able to catch these things on the internet, because:
A, they cannot barge into a company like ebay without strong starting evidence, a warrent would never be granted for seizure of computers, they would fear being sued.
B, they do not have enough staff and resouces to be able to allow a place like ebay to trade while they did an investigation if it remained trading, and they know, any evidence that there is, is certainly not in ebays office.
Now, after a year of exposing Trolls, the caches are drying up on those sites.
Nah, probably just another conspiracy theory heh. But there was one cache I found from a site who were really ticked off about it happening ( NOT HERE, BACK OFF ), AND THE SITE WAS VERY MUCH ALIGNED TO EBAY, AND NOW BOTH SEEM TO BE OFF LIMITS TO CACHES.
-
This is starting to look more and more like the "sand pit" that the children were playing in over at eBay.
Now hear this, eBay has nothing but the most unsophisticated of data matching system for checking out reports of shill bidding, for instance, if you report a person who you know for a fact is bidding up items that he has had someone else list (one of my my experiences), no matter how many times the item/s are "sold" to that shilling person, and relisted probably as "buyer did not pay", eBay will not find any connection between the shill and the listing person, because there is no matching data. In other words there is no "sophistication" in eBay's system, it does not look at patterns of bidding, etc, that would better expose the possiblity/probability of shill bidding.
And why don't they do more? Because it is not in their financial interest to do so. As I have said in my linked rant, if they actually did something effective it may well decimate the "professional" sellers from whom they receive most of their revenue. It's as simple as that. It's about time governmental consumer affairs regulators gave them a good shake ...
-
Exactly, their verification system is so poor, and their technology so poor, they ban members from the same family, because they use the same IP Address.
That's why they rely on others getting details of those they can. I can imagine some day a resort will take them to court because a tourist will do the wrong thing and get their IP banned, or a business where there are hundreds of employees using the one IP, technology....?
Pfffft, an IP checker Like " Whats my IP ", and pay a subscription for. The one thing about my communications with Shane was just about how stupid they really are.
Nobody will touch them though, NSW is flat broke, and the Hospitals are going to crap as people die in the waiting rooms. Who is going to cough up millions for a complete investigation.
I feel really sorry for all the genuine people, who believe in what they are doing , for nothing, while a select few get paid and sit back directing traffic towards the target to shill bid.
-
Phil,
On very many occasionsin the past I have spent many hours on line with 'live help' and have sent countless emails to so called 'Trust & Safety' with only a small return for my efforts.
My concerns were fake items (iPod), scam sellers and large sellers shilling.
On all occasions I provided proof positive and still there was very little done which led me to conclude that eBay turn a blind eye to it and in fact encourage the activities.
Ebay if you get to read this, be aware that more and more people and authorities are being made aware of your activities.
-
Philip, I think most of us agree that eBay doesn't have some wonderfully sophisticated method in place to spot shill-bidding.
In fact, eBay cannot spot shill-bidding that is obvious with a bit of cross-referencing and data matching done by... (shock horror) REAL LIVE HUMANS.
If we see a lessening of buyers willing to bid on online auctions, that may well be a factor - that buyers are becoming fed up with seeing patterns of behaviour that strongly suggest shill-bidding.
-
At one point in Australia, not that long ago, this practice was completely outlawed in the Real Estate Industry, where it was rife. They regulated that by making all potential bidders register to bid with their real ID details, and I think that is exactly the same with traditional auctions
In most states real estate auctions are allowed to have "vendor bids"... the number of these bids allowed varies from state to state.
This is shill bidding by another name, but is legal...
In fact, I would like to see Bobbie back up his statement that "shill bidding is illegal", with some references to acts of parliament, or state fair trading laws.. Coz I'm a bit hazy on this aspect
:wine:
-
No worries Barny, although the law is there, it will never get used, but I am so used to skeptics, that it seems I am the only person who seems to be always asked to prove a statement, while others, get asked to prove something and silence reigns.
Speaking of reign, we could use some RAIN, it's 30 something here, and on the coast, must be hot in land.
I'll go and see if I can find the email from my young bloke, I won't leave you hanging.
-
OK this is an abreviated form of the Act.
I cannot put all of the detail here, obviously as he is a serving officer, but what he tells me is that offences are open to the interpretation, that any victim of shill bidding would consider paying a higher price than had the shill not occured, then they would find the act of shill bidding offensive.
It is also covered under another act under this Collection of Law regarding using a conveyance for deceptive behaviour, which shilling is.
This law can also be used to prosecute Trolls, and those who manipulate others into trolling, as has been my case, for several years.
The fact that I have so many emails sent to me by people who received them from those involved, which clearly lie, and are used to extoll the virtue of another site, and gives the URL to that site, could be proved in a court of law.
The problem though, as I have stated ad nauseum, the Police will not act, despite a direct report to a Police Superintendent, who viewed the material and promised action.
Now my next post will be deleated, as it should, but I hope it stays here long enough to show you what happens to anyone who crosses this gang of ferals.
They have turned down offers of a face to face at my place, and they certainly have my address, but they send numerous emails like the one I will post at exaclty 5.45pm here, in 10 minutes. Mods please leave it long enough for people to read, just so they understand why I retaliate to BS, because idiots actually do this because they believe the lies of these ferals.
474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person uses a carriage service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or
the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable
persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances,
menacing, harassing or offensive.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), that subsection applies to
menacing, harassing or causing offence to:
(a) an employee of the NRS provider; or
(b) an emergency call person; or
(c) an employee of an emergency service organisation; or
(d) an APS employee in the Attorney-General’s Department
acting as a National Security Hotline call taker.
-
its 5.53pm
-
Didn't last long did it.
-
I saw it , was only here for a brief moment.
-
I have got about another 100 or so of those, but I won't risk showing them and getting suspended, if anyone asks Liisa, you can tell them.
It's not so much what they say, but it's knowing the spineless gutter trash won't come and face me, and got involved through the lies of others, just to shut me up and get me off the net, and from telling the truth about them.
That's why I am so vehemently opposed to the type of moderation that leaves a persons, ill founded comments standing, and the truth deleted.
It gives a totally different perspective on the thread and those commenting on it.
It's just garbage, and surprises me that of all places where victims of RT trolls gather, the same things happen.
Does nobody learn anything....?
-
Please, let's get one thing clear, a vendor bid that is disclosed as such at the moment it is made is not a "shill" bid: there is no intention to deceive; the seller is simply stating that he will not sell for less. There has to be the intention to deceive for any such action to be fraudulent. Vendor bidding, if it is not disclosed as such at the moment the bid is made, has such intention and therefore is criminal fraud.
I will again make the distinction between on-line auctions and attended auctions:
In the case of attended auctions, regardless of the law, there is still no way of stopping the vendor from having another person (or the auctioneer, if he is unscrupulous) making/taking shill bids. Even if the auctioneer is scrupulous, there is no way of connecting the vendor to anyone else registered to bid (in the case of a shill, up to the reserve price). People who attend auctions should know that they have to be very careful.
On the other hand, every detail of the on-line auction is digitally recorded (there can be no bids taken from insects climbing up the wall) and if a truly sophisticated algorithm was applied to that bidding data a scale of probability of shill bidding could be published and bidders given the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to bid on any given auction so evaluated. This is never likely to happen voluntarily at eBay as it is not in their financial interests to do so. The only thing that will make eBay, or any other online auction do the right thing, is government intervention and probably independent auditing of any process at that.
They used to have government inspectors in the meat works to make sure things were being done properly; why not at eBay to force them to stop aiding and abetting unscrupulous sellers to defraud buyers?
-
Exactly, I have long stated, it's even in the book, that the Internet is like Dodge City before Marshall Dillon came to town.
It is so open to every form of fraud that can be undetectable, especially when the Venue and The Seller have a vested interest in Shilling.
I have also stated far and wide that the only way to address the problems is for the Government to Legislate that every person who uses the internet must be licensed before they can purchase a service, and that the IP is recorded on the card.
If a secondary ISP is required then that can be coded onto the card as well.
Proxy servers who do not record IP's should be put out of business, but you would need worldwide co-operation for that, and I don't think Nigeria would be in on that ;D
There would be a way of blocking overseas IP addresses if each country ha it own area code for numbers alloted, but that would need massive infrastructure, and that's what makes it difficult to Police, and why most, all bar extreme cases of stalking and fraud, go unpunished.
-
Isn't it amazing how people get so pi$$ed of over shill bidding, but some shill bid in order to expose suspected crooks, and bid them out of business.
Some people think that's OK, and that they are the good guys, but how on Gods earth, can you have it both ways, because when they become expert at it, they are going to do it for themselves, most end up doing it.
-
Hi Phil...as promised, I'm doing a bit of nosing around in the relevant legislations relative to auctions generally...and there is regulatory legislation but it looks like it goes state to state.....so bloody typical....Anyway...the following link deals with Auctions in WA, and includes recommendations for internet auction regulation on shill bidding and various other conduct......
In WA, it's called the Auction Sales Act 1973...and basically, they've done an update of that legislation in recent years at this link....http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:5rIRI3VH_6UJ:www.commerce.wa.gov.au/ConsumerProtection/PDF/Reports/Auction_Sales.pdf+Shill+bidding+in+the+%22real+estate%22+industry&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a
Each State has it's own Auction Sales Act, so I'll go looking for the links to those too........I find if you want to argue something, you should start with what's already been done on the subject and if there are rules, and the breaching thereof, then that forms the baseline for official complaint...
In this instance, there appears to be a sound knowledge base of shill bidding and previous regulation of the auction industry, as I suspected.....anyway....the trick is to get these legislations to walk the way they talk......This paper deals with the following:
The auction process is an important method of conducting transactions in our market economy. In Western Australia auctions and auctioneers now play a significant role in balancing supply and demand within the economy to ascertain market price. Efficient regulation of the auction industry therefore impacts on the performance of the entire economy.
This industry is currently regulated by the Auction Sales Act 1973. Considering the WA industry was first regulated in 1839, and that the legislation has been through a number of previous significant amendments, it is important any proposed changes are fully considered.
In recent years there has been an on-going review of the auction sales industry and the proposed changes have been developed through considerable consultation with key stakeholders, including industry participants and associations, government agencies and the general public.
I am pleased to release the final report on the review of the Auction Sales Act 1973 and invite your comment. The proposed changes aim to increase consumer confidence in the auction system and protect buyers and sellers against unfair and anti-competitive conduct at auctions. The Government’s position on issues such as vendor and dummy bidding, disclosure by auctioneers, record keeping, trust accounts, internet auctions, and the licensing of auctioneers is clarified in this final report.
The State Government is committed to ensuring current regulation is brought into line with modern market practices and that it is as consistent as possible with other Australian states and territories. We believe the changes outlined in this report will streamline the administration of this important area of legislation and will result in improved practices and protection for buyers and sellers
1) Vendor bidding and dummy bidding
It is recommended that the Act be amended to prohibit dummy bidding
completely, and to prohibit vendor bidding except where the right to make
vendor bids is expressly stated in the conditions of the auction and each
and every vendor bid is disclosed as a vendor bid when it is made.
In order to facilitate enforcement it is recommended that all bidders be
required to be registered, and that auctioneers must only take bids from
registered bidders, with bidders to be identified by a number or paddle.
It is also recommended that significant penalties be imposed for breach of
the prohibition on vendor bidding and that a purchaser should be entitled to
claim compensation for loss or damage caused by any person breaching
the provisions.
This includes Internet Auctions:
10) Internet auctions
It is recommended that general provisions concerning the conduct of
auctions also apply to internet auctions conducted in Western Australia if
appropriate. It is recognised that jurisdictional issues could have an impact in relation to enforcement. It is therefore recommended that this issue be considered on a national basis
I haven't tracked whether the recommendations were adopted, but I'll do that next....I'd say there is a relevant Act for each State, and the trick would be in detailing each State's laws regarding Shill bidding and noting the similarities to each State Govt Minister responsible for that portfolio...more than likely it will be Fair Trading in each state.
-
They used to have government inspectors in the meat works to make sure things were being done properly; why not at eBay to force them to stop aiding and abetting unscrupulous sellers to defraud buyers?
Yes, if only eBay would co-operate... I can't see them agreeing. It is almost certain that they don't want to stop certain sellers in this practice.
There's a case that eBay should not be policing itself with regard to shill-bidding; it should be simply the responsibility of eBay to collect the data and turn it over to the appropriate authorities.
The appropriate authorities would not be moved by considerations of not wanting to offend certain sellers.
They would be moved solely by considerations of the law.
Now, do we have clear legislation addressing the issue of shill-bidding with online auctions? We should quote it here so that it's visible and clear. EDIT: Cross-posting! Cupie, you beat me to it... So the task is now to see what happened with regard to those recommendations.
-
Read above....it's different from state to state....and no doubt each state will have addressed online auctions as part of the Federal Treasury's E-Commerce Guidelines or under the Auction Sales Act in each state. It appears to be administered by F/trading or C/affairs but they don't seem to know how to articulate things very well when it comes to consumer complaints. So the trick is to spell it out for them.
The E-Commerce Guideline forms the basis of Best Practice in internet commerce.....What we need to do is bring together the legislation from each state on the subject of shill bidding in Auctions generally, and then extrapolate that to the internet in line with E-Commerce Best Practice.
It's not new, but legislation is useless unless consumers know their rights and exercise them.
-
Exactly. I was discussing this with my father this morning, in reference to another piece of legislation. I said that legislation is like the bars of a gaol cell, but bars aren't going to stop someone who's not been reported and found guilty and put behind the bars.
-
exactamundo !!!
This article is very very interesting, given that Deacons represented Ebay in their Exclusive Dealing attempt....it was even more interesting...not sure it's helpful, but it is relevant to the debate of accountability.
Note some of the references they make?.
Internet auctions, consumer protection and the Trade Practices Act
Contact: Mathew Webster and Andrew Sorenson of Deacons
Internet auctions have in recent years demonstrated themselves to be a popular forum for fraudulent activities. Sellers and Internet auction operators, including overseas based sellers and operators, need to be aware of their potential liability under the provisions of Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“TPA”) and/or equivalent State and Territory Fair Trading legislation (for example, the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)), where they sell or are involved in the sale of products to Australian consumers. Irrespective of the contractual arrangements between the parties, the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the TPA and/or equivalent Fair Trading legislation may well apply, provided a sufficient jurisdictional nexus is established in relation to the relevant conduct. This article considers the application of provisions of the TPA which may be relevant to Internet auctions, and some related commercial issues.
Internet auctions, like traditional auctions, offer a medium for consumers to buy and sell products using a bidding process. Some auction websites may also have a classifieds/trading section where consumers can purchase new or second hand products at specified prices.
For the purposes of this article, we will focus on two principal types of Internet auction activity, namely: business to consumer (“B2C”) or consumer to consumer (“C2C”) auctions. Significant auction activity also takes place at the business to business (“B2B”) level, in particular through the medium of B2B e-marketplaces.
However the focus of this article is on particular problems presented by B2C and C2C Internet auction transactions. In the case of a B2C auction the operator of the auction has control over the goods that are being auctioned. In the case of a C2C auction, the auction website acts more as a trading centre or venue where (depending upon the manner in which the auction is structured) the operator of the auction website is not a party to the actual sale and purchase of the auctioned goods. In this type of auction scenario the buyers pay the vendors directly for the goods.
One of the key benefits to sellers of an auction in cyberspace is the potential for attracting large numbers of buyers. This means that an offering is more likely to be picked up by an interested buyer, and can lead to greater competition amongst buyers for scarce goods and ultimately higher sale prices.
Of course these potential benefits to sellers may be offset by the fact that the pool of products available to consumers is also larger, with the result that consumers may be very particular about deciding to purchase a particular product, as they are likely to be able to source the same or alternative products at competitive prices elsewhere on the Internet. This aggregation of large numbers of buyers and sellers, and the low search and comparison costs characteristic of the Internet, mean that such transactions are inherently closer in nature to a hypothetical state of perfect competition than real world equivalents.
Unfortunately Internet auctions not only provide opportunities for consumers and businesses, but because of their anonymity they are also a vehicle that can be and often are taken advantage of by corporations and individuals with fraudulent intentions. According to research conducted in the United States of America, the most common complaints by consumers that have purchased goods in Internet auctions is that the seller failed to deliver the relevant goods as promised. In other cases the seller may fail to deliver the goods within a reasonable period of time or deliver goods that are materially different or less valuable than those that had been advertised.
Activities of a fraudulent nature may also occur during the auction itself. For example, a seller using a different name may lodge artificial bids in order to drive up the price. Also, a buyer may lodge an extremely low bid followed by an accomplice's extremely high bid. The buyer’s accomplice may then withdraw his bid and so that the item is sold to the buyer with the artificially low bid.
Section 58 of the TPA – failure to supply as ordered
Section 58 of the TPA (and its equivalents under State and Territory Fair Trading legislation) prohibit accepting payment where there is an intention not to supply goods or services, or to supply goods or services materially different from the goods or services for which payment (or other consideration) is accepted. The section also prohibits accepting payment where there are reasonable grounds of which the person is aware or ought to be aware, for believing that the person will not be able to supply the goods or services within the period specified by the person, or if no period is specified then in a reasonable period of time.
Operators of Internet auctions in Australia where the operator is in control of the goods to be purchased, and individuals selling goods via trading centres on the web who accept payment and:
* do not deliver the relevant goods; or
* fail to deliver the goods within a reasonable period of time; or
* deliver goods that are materially different from the goods or services for which payment was accepted may potentially be caught under section 58 of the TPA.
In the case of individuals conducting private sales, a further question arises as to whether the conduct is “in trade or commerce” for the purposes of section 58. This issue is discussed further below.
Sections 52 and 53 of the TPA - misleading and deceptive conduct
Sellers who sell their products via Internet auctions and the operators of websites where Internet auctions take place need to be careful that the auction is not conducted in a manner that could constitute misleading and deceptive conduct under section 52 of the TPA (and/or its equivalents under State and Territory Fair Trading legislation). The types of seller and buyer bidding behaviour during an auction described earlier in this article may well constitute misleading or deceptive conduct by the seller or buyer (subject to determining whether such activities took place “in trade or commerce”, discussed further below).
Misleading and deceptive conduct will extend to the layout of the site itself. In this regard factors such as the size, type and colour of the font, the prominence and location of hyperlinks, visibility and location of key terms and conditions, whether any distracting graphics or technology are used as well as other relevant circumstances, may be relevant to whether the Internet based conduct is misleading or deceptive.
Most Internet auction sites are careful to describe themselves as merely a forum or venue for sellers and buyers to conduct auctions, and disclaim, in one form or another, responsibility for delivery by sellers or payment by buyers in relation to goods traded via their online auction platform. Nevertheless, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, scope may exist for a claim to be made against an Internet auction site for breach of section 52 in circumstances where a buyer or seller was defrauded.
Such a claim would depend, essentially, on whether the claimant could establish that they were led to believe that the auction site, through terms and conditions or through representations on the website, misled them as to the characteristics and security of the auction process. This could arguably occur through the mere failure of an auction site to adequately alert buyers or sellers to the fact that the site had no responsibility for, or control over, the transaction.
This issue was considered in the case of Evagora v eBay Australia & New Zealand Pty Limited [2001] VCAT 49, although, being a Tribunal decision, its precedent value is limited. In that case, Evagora successfully bid for a computer in an eBay hosted auction, which was paid for but never arrived. The seller of the computer was based overseas. Evagora claimed for his loss against eBay, arguing that he did not read eBay’s user agreement, and that eBay represented that the auction site was safe, which overrode the terms of the user agreement. eBay was held liable by the Tribunal for the loss suffered by Evagora.
Internet auction operators who also sell goods needs to also be careful not to breach the provisions of section 53 of the TPA. Section 53 prohibits a number of false or misleading representations including:
# falsely representing that goods are of a certain standard, quality and value;
# representing that goods have a certain sponsorship or approval which they do not have;
# making a false or misleading representation in relation to the price of goods; and
# making a false or misleading representation concerning the place of origin of goods.
Accordingly the facts about the products being sold need to be very clear and accurate. Section 53 may also apply to sellers of goods via auction sites, provided the seller’s activities are judged to be “in trade or commerce” (see further below).
It is important that the terms and conditions on which a consumer participates in Internet auctions website are clear, accurate, and accessible to avoid potential claims under sections 52 and 53. It is also important not to reduce or nullify the effectiveness of any terms and conditions by contrary or inconsistent representations or impressions given to users via the actual content of the website.
These considerations are of particular importance having regard to the fact that the website terms and conditions are necessarily of the “Click Wrap” variety. That is, the user has no ability to vary the terms and conditions, and at best, simply clicks an “I Agree” button to indicate their agreement. Where terms and conditions are not positioned in such a way as to ensure that the user reads and agrees to them before using the website, their effectiveness is likely to be reduced.
In similar fashion, sellers of products on Internet auctions should make sure that their terms of trade are accurate, accessible and clear. Matters such as whether bids will be accepted from other countries; the form of payment required; who is responsible for payment of delivery and handling costs; and return and refund policies, should specified in the terms of trade.
“In trade or commerce”
It is important to note that sections 52, 53 and 58 of the TPA depend for their application upon the relevant conduct being “in trade or commerce”. This will be of particular importance in relation to sellers conducting private sales via online auction platforms. Case law exists to the effect that private “person to person” sales are not “in trade or commerce” for the purposes of section 52. It follows that, where a seller is conducting a private sale via an auction site, that seller may not be subject to the requirements of sections 52, 53 or 58. This will depend however upon the characterisation of a seller’s activities. A “one off” sale may well escape regulation under those provisions. However a seller who derives income from regular selling activities may nevertheless be found to be acting “in trade or commerce” for the purposes of sections 52, 53 and 58.
Jurisdiction
Space does not permit a detailed consideration of this issue in this article. It should be noted however that disputes over Internet transactions often involve jurisdictional issues, due to the fact that the parties, the website, and the server hosting the website may all be in different jurisdictions. This is often likely to be the case in relation to Internet auctions, where the buyer, seller, the auction website and website operator may all be located in different countries.
In the context of the TPA, it must be determined whether that Act and the particular provisions being invoked have application to the activities in question. If those questions are answered in the affirmative, issues of the enforceability of any judgment overseas must also be taken into consideration by the Courts.
Generally speaking, where a claim is made under the law of a particular country, the jurisdiction of the courts of that country to hear the claim is usually confined to matters with a requisite territorial connection to that country, which can include matters involving a person or persons having a defined connection to the territory.
The question of whether the courts of that country are the appropriate forum for the matter must also be determined. In this respect in Australia, a case will generally be heard locally unless Australia is clearly an inappropriate forum.
Section 5 of the TPA expressly provides that the TPA can operate extraterritorially. It extends the application of (inter alia) Part V of the TPA to conduct engaged outside Australia by, amongst other things, an Australian citizen, a person ordinarily resident in Australia, an Australian corporation and a company which conducts business within Australia.
In Bray v F Hoffman- La Roche , Merkel J noted that there is no requirement for a foreign entity to have a place of business in the jurisdiction for it to be carrying on business in the jurisdiction for the purposes of section 5 of the TPA. That case did not involve the Internet, but it may prove to have application in finding jurisdiction over companies conducting business via the Internet from outside Australia.
It is also noteworthy that section 6 of the TPA operates to extend the application of the TPA in reliance on (inter alia) the trade and commerce constitutional head of power (section 6(2)), and the postal, telegraphic and telephonic constitutional head of power (section 6(3)). Thus the TPA may apply to Internet activities by virtue of the fact that the activities involve trade and commerce between Australia and places outside Australia, or that telecommunications facilities are utilised to send and receive information via the Internet.
There is very little Australian case law in relation to establishing jurisdiction over activities conducted from overseas via the Internet. The High Court case of Dow Jones Inc v Gutnick , a defamation case, provides some guidance in this respect. In that case the server hosting the web based material was in the United States, but subscribers in Victoria had downloaded the material. As the case involved a claim of defamation, the location of the publication of the material was a key issue. In summary, it was found that publication occurred in the place where the material was downloaded, and accordingly the Court had jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding that the Dow Jones Case is more directly relevant to the law of defamation, the decision indicates that the Courts are likely to apply the domestic law of Australia to the Internet generally, and that overseas based material available to Australians on the Internet may be caught by Australian law. The recent case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chen demonstrates that Australian Courts are willing to find that jurisdiction can be established under the TPA over overseas based Internet activity.
That case involved the operation of a bogus Sydney Opera House website. The ACCC alleged that several consumers tried to buy tickets through the site, and were either overcharged or did not receive tickets. Claims of breach of sections 52 and 53 of the TPA were made. The operator, the website and the server hosting the website were all based overseas. The Court found jurisdiction was established by virtue of the trade and commerce power and the postal, telegraphic and telephonic power pursuant to section 6 of the TPA, and injunctions were granted restraining the operation of the website.
Andrew Sorensen and Mathew Webster are co-authors of the book “Trade Practices and the Internet” published by Thomson Lawbook Co (2003). The above issues are discussed in the book, which deals with the application of the provisions of Parts IV and V of the Trade Practices Act to the Internet]
January, 2004
http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/11134.htm
-
As a matter of interest I too investigated the law with regard to “fraud” on auctions and I here post a copy of the findings of my research that were originally included in my submission thereon to the ACCC on 17 February 2009; the ACCC were not at all impressed.
(Unfortunately the formatting of the text is disrupted by an apparent conflict between the “list” command and every other formatting code. Any formatting code will switch off the “list” code.)
The whole submission at: http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23585&highlight=&sid=f343b6ee38f0bb0e2d7b91efcf21e405
APPENDICES
THE AUSTRALIAN TRADE PRACTICES ACT
As far as the law in Australia is concerned, not being a lawyer, I can only quote the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) “SCAMwatch” website (my bolding):
“The ACCC administers the
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The purpose of the Trade Practices Act is to enhance the welfare of Australians by promoting competition and fair trading and providing for consumer protection. The Trade Practices Act applies to corporations as well as sole traders and partnerships whose activities cross state boundaries or take place within a territory. Part V of the Trade Practices Act (the consumer protection provisions) also applies to sole traders and partnerships whose activities are conducted by telephone or post, or use radio or television. …
“Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act is designed to stop corporations engaging in conduct which is misleading or deceptive, or which is likely to mislead or deceive. Generally, sellers are required to tell the truth or refrain from giving an untruthful impression. This provision is the one most likely to apply to scams in general. However there are some more specific sections of the Trade Practices Act which could apply. …
“Section 53 of the Act prohibits making false or misleading representations. This includes claims about the age, quality, sponsorship, approval, price or benefits of the good or service. …”
[/list]I particularly like the proscription of “conduct which is misleading or deceptive, or which is likely to mislead or deceive”. Yet, surprisingly, the ACCC advised me in 2008 that this blatant facilitating of the fraud of “shill bidding” was not an area in which they could be of any help: apparently the TPA only prohibits the making of a “false or misleading representation” but not the facilitating of the making thereof! The NSW Office of Fair Trading took the easy way out and simply parroted eBay’s nonsensical claim that “eBay is only a notice board provider and can place whatever conditions that they like on the use of their notice board”.
THE LAW ON SALE OF GOODS BY AUCTION AND ON FRAUD
The underlying U.K. and NSW Sale of Goods Acts with respect to “auction sales” are effectively identical:
Sale of Goods Act 1979 (U.K.)
Section 57: Auction sales
(1) Where goods are put up for sale by auction in lots, each lot is prima facie deemed to be the subject of a separate contract of sale.
(2) A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer, or in other customary manner; and until the announcement is made any bidder may retract his bid.
(3) A sale by auction may be notified to be subject to a reserve or upset price, and a right to bid may also be reserved expressly by or on behalf of the seller.
(4) Where a sale by auction is not notified to be subject to a right to bid by or on behalf of the seller, it is not lawful for the seller to bid himself or to employ any person to bid at the sale, or for the auctioneer knowingly to take any bid from the seller or any such person.
(5) A sale contravening subsection (4) above may be treated as fraudulent by the buyer.
(6) Where, in respect of a sale by auction, a right to bid is expressly reserved (but not otherwise) the seller or any one person on his behalf may bid at the auction.
Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)
Section 60: Auction sales
(1) where goods are put up for sale by auction in lots, each lot is prima facie deemed to be the subject of a separate contract of sale,
(2) a sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner: until such announcement is made any bidder may retract his or her bid,
(3) where a sale by auction is not notified in the conditions of sale to be subject to a right to bid on behalf of the seller, it shall not be lawful for the seller to bid or to employ any person to bid at the sale, or for the auctioneer knowingly to take any bid from the seller or any such person: any sale contravening this rule may be treated as fraudulent by the buyer,
(4) a sale by auction may be notified in the conditions of sale to be subject to a reserved price, and a right to bid may also be reserved expressly by or on behalf of the seller,
(5) where a right to bid is expressly reserved, but not otherwise, the seller, or any one person on the seller’s behalf, may bid at the auction.
[/list]It is incomprehensible to me that, in the circumstances where a vendor may lawfully bid on his own goods, both these Sale of Goods Acts are silent on whether or not such vendor bids should be disclosed as such at the time they are made, and so it has apparently been standard practice in the “live” auction industry in Australia and the U.K. to “milk” buyers by the practice of undisclosed vendor bidding, at least up to any “reserve” price. Surely, if such vendor bidding is not disclosed as such then the provisions of the local “Fraud” Acts should apply. And, surely eBay’s deliberate facilitating of any such undisclosed vendor bidding activity, notwithstanding the unlikelihood that it may be an unintended consequence of some other policy, should be required to cease.
In apparent contrast to the NSW Sale of Goods Act, in the case of auctions for residential property and rural land (Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002; Regulation 2003) it is made clear that the vendor is limited to one bid only and such bid must be declared as a ‘vendor bid’ at the moment it is made:
“Only one bid may be made on behalf of the seller by the auctioneer. The seller’s bid by the auctioneer cannot be used unless notice of the right to bid is notified in the conditions of sale, which must be clearly displayed and be available for inspection before the auction commences.
When the seller’s bid is made by the auctioneer, the auctioneer must state that it is a ‘vendor bid’.”
http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Property_agents_and_managers/Rules_of_conduct/Real_estate_agents/Auction_laws.html (under “Auctioneers”)
“It is an offence against the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 for a person to do any of the following:
?(a) make a bid as the seller,
?(b) make a bid on behalf of the seller (unless the person is the auctioneer),
?(c) procure another person to make a bid on behalf of the seller.
Any bid made with the dominant purpose of benefiting the seller constitutes a bid made on behalf of the seller.
A bid may be found to be a bid made on behalf of the seller even though the seller did not:
?(a) request the bid, or
?(b) have any knowledge of the bid.”
http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Property_agents_and_managers/Rules_of_conduct/Real_estate_agents/Auction_conditions.html (under “Other auction notices, Penalty for dummy bidding”)
[/list]There are, of course, the various Australian state Acts that cover “fraud” which, as state Acts, would appear to be somewhat redundant in this age of the internet and electronic commerce, eg:
CRIMES ACT 1900 (NSW)
Section 178BB Obtaining money etc by false or misleading statements
(1) Whosoever, with intent to obtain for himself or herself or another person any money or valuable thing or any financial advantage of any kind whatsoever, makes or publishes, or concurs in making or publishing, any statement (whether or not in writing) which he or she knows to be false or misleading in a material particular or which is false or misleading in a material particular and is made with reckless disregard as to whether it is true or is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable to imprisonment for 5 years.
[/list]Regardless, it is interesting to note that in the U.K. the law appears to have moved to a definite recognition that undisclosed vendor bidding is a “false representation” and therefore a fraud on the buyer. The new U.K. Fraud Act 2006 is expressed in general terms and clause 2(5) is obviously aimed at today’s electronic commerce. Of course, getting unscrupulous auctioneers / vendors to observe the law is another matter: it will always be “buyer be very aware” at any attended live auction.
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
??(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
??(b) intends, by making the representation—
????(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
????(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
??(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
??(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
??(a) the person making the representation, or
??(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
[/list]The following interpretation of this “Fraud by false representation” section of the Fraud Act by the U.K. OFT (who probably had a hand in its drafting) prescribes the making of a “shill” bid, ie, an undisclosed vendor bid to be a “false representation” and therefore a criminal fraud (and therefore surely eBay’s deliberate facilitating of such activity also should be unlawful). And I quote page 146 of the U.K. OFT publication Internet shopping: An OFT market study, at:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft921.pdf):
“10.56. As discussed at para 10.28, shill bidding was the main form of deceptive practice suspected in our online survey (13.6 per cent). This is where a seller makes strategic bids, for example from an additional anonymous account or by an associate. Undisclosed shill bidding is illegal[309] and most auction sites expressly prohibit it.
…
“309 The Fraud Act 2006, which came into force in January 2007, makes it an offence for a person to commit fraud by false representation where the representation is made dishonestly and with the intention of making a gain for himself or another. Under section 57(4) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, it is not lawful for a seller to bid himself or to employ any person to bid on his behalf at a sale by auction unless the auction is notified to be subject to such a right. A sale contravening this section may be treated as fraudulent by the buyer.”
A PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY OF THE NEW FRAUD OFFENCES IN THE U.K. FRAUD ACT 2006
(Source: http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=2458&parent_id=2439)
The UK Fraud Act 2006 came into force 15 January 2007. It has radically changed the law of criminal fraud.
The old law
Before the Fraud Act came into force, the statutory fraud offences were based on deception. They included:
•?Obtaining property by deception.
•?Obtaining a money transfer by deception.
•?Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
•?Obtaining services by deception.
Each offence would only apply in specific circumstances.
In addition there was (and remains) a non statutory offence of conspiracy to defraud which is defined very widely. There is no need to intend deception or financial loss but there must be more than one participant in the fraud.
Defects in the old law
The deception offences had become a bit of a mess. It was often confusing to work out which offence applied, and they frequently overlapped.
The excessive intricacy of the deception offences contributed to the length and complexity of trials. Moreover, the whole area was riddled with technical loopholes. For example, the court held that a machine (for example an ATM) cannot be “deceived” because it does not think.
The new law
The Fraud Act swept all of the old statutory deception offences away. Instead a new offence of fraud has been defined as follows:
•?The defendant must have been dishonest, and have intended to make a gain or to cause a loss to another.
•?In addition, the defendant must carry out one of these acts:
??Making a false or misleading representation.
??…
The new offence of fraud is intended to be wide and also flexible, particularly as technology changes.
There is no reliance on the concept of “deception”. It does not matter whether the false information actually deceives anyone, it is the misleading intention which counts.
The offence of conspiracy to defraud has not been abolished, but the government’s objective is that reliance on it by prosecutors should be very much less.
The impact of the change
What will be the impact on business of the new act? This will probably not be very profound outside the criminal law enforcement field, but several areas should be highlighted:
•?The Fraud Act could be used to criminalise conduct which may previously only have amounted to a breach of contract or other civil law or moral obligation. Examples may include:
??…
??”Shill bidding” on online auction sites. This is where sellers bid up the price of their own items using a second identity.
??…
•?The Fraud Act significantly limits the right of defendant to claim privilege against self-incrimination (the right to refuse to disclose documents or give evidence if doing so would expose him to the risk of a criminal prosecution) where he is being charged with a fraud offence.
?…
My further comment thereon
The Australian national consumer legislation, the Trade Practices Act (TPA), appears to suffer from the same deficiencies as the old UK law based on “deception”: too many “specific” circumstances, and “riddled with technical loopholes”. One can only hope that the ACCC will instigate changes to the TPA, similar to that in the UK Fraud Act, to cover these same modern technological circumstances; in particular, to bring to heel such unscrupulous organizations as eBay who are now, by the masking of bidder IDs, facilitating the perpetration of fraud by false representation on consumers.
A comment on Section 47(7) of the Australian Trade Practices Act (TPA)
Expressed in simplified narrative terms that I can comprehend:
“A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses … to supply goods or services to a person … for the reason that the person … has not acquired, or has not agreed to acquire, goods or services of a particular kind or description directly or indirectly from another person
not being a body corporate related to the corporation.”
[/list]What is the point of the word “not” in the above clause; should it not read:
“A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses … to supply goods or services to a person … for the reason that the person … has not acquired, or has not agreed to acquire, goods or services of a particular kind or description directly or indirectly from
the corporation or another person whether or not being a body corporate related to the corporation.”
[/list]That would appear to put a stop to eBay mandating that users offer PayPal.
A comment on the Section 53 of the TPA: False or misleading representations
I don’t think that there is any doubt that an undisclosed vendor bid (a “shill” bid) is a “false representation” and the below underlined additional wording would appear to make eBay’s facilitating of such activity by “absolute anonymity of bidding” (effectively the ‘aiding and abetting’ of shill bidding) unlawful.
“A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, in connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connexion with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services
make a false representation where the representation is made dishonestly and with the intention of making a gain for the corporation or another or aid and abet or otherwise facilitate the obscuring of the making of such a false representation including (but not limited to):
(a) falsely represent that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use; …”
[/list]
-
I saw it , was only here for a brief moment.
Huh?
What I miss?
For crying out loud people....ya gotta remember Im slow!!!
BOZO
-
I saw it , was only here for a brief moment.
Huh?
What I miss?
For crying out loud people....ya gotta remember Im slow!!!
BOZO
Carm orf it Bozo.... I'm the thick one around here..
:wine:
-
I saw it , was only here for a brief moment.
Huh?
What I miss?
For crying out loud people....ya gotta remember Im slow!!!
BOZO
Carm orf it Bozo.... I'm the thick one around here..
:wine:
Barny. The question here is: is your brick thicker than my two short planks....and if both of them fell in the forest and no one was around to hear would they still be picked up by a passing spider monkey and hurled at the Donahoe Dude?
I mean Im just saying...
BOZO
-
Says who Barny? - Jethro Tull?...lol
Phil...It's interesting, because in NSW, instead of the Auction Sales Act, which WA relies upon (and which is quite specific to the auction industry), we have NSW Sale of Goods Acts, which is completely ambiguous when it comes to auctions.
I'm going to print down your submission and give it some thought....just because we reside in NSW, doesn't mean to say the argument has to be based on NSW legislation or the lack thereof. I think there's a case for auction sales specifically to be focused upon (as WA has done via a specific act). You know it's amazing....whenever you do a review of NSW's consumer protection laws against other states, NSW is ALWAYS drowning in ambiguity and mostly lacking.
Victoria for instance has had unfair consumer contract laws since 2003, and yet even today, NSW is yet to implement the same consumer protection standards, although they must do so under Fed. E-Commerce Guidelines along with every other State who hasn't bothered to implement them.
As I've said, I'll take a look at other states and see if they specifically look at Auction Sales. The argument can then be focused nationally, given that Ebay is a National Platform within our borders. We can also highlight how the NSW legislation is sadly lacking.
Take a look at the WA Auction Sales Act.....I think it's a good baseline for comparison in this argument, and as I said, Ebay is National
Also....did ACCC reply to your submission?
-
Bozo, mate,
I've got a franchise on the planks too.
(http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc129/barny1944/TwoPlanks.jpg)
-
And Phil's gonna hit ya's over the head with em if you don't stop hijacking this thread....lmao...*wink*
-
Fair comment Cupie...
I apologise Phil.
:wine:
-
Barny, Bozo,
Let me enlighten you :) what you missed was an all too explicit email received by a poster and should not have been posted here in any thread.
We all know that crap exists but I dont think we want to see it displayed in the spotlight.
-
Well that dont ease my curiosity none now does it
BOZO
-
One aspect to auctions of particular items on eBay is when those items all sell for approximately the same price. Now, we could assume the market is driving the price. But for it to happen when the seller has pages and pages of items listed, some of which have no bid and some of which have varying bid amounts, and then look at the seller's completed listings by having a substantial number of those items on your watch list - and notice that all of them have the same "winning" bid of the same amount - it is perhaps a little coincidental. In days gone by, one could see the identities of those winning bidders, and one could see that some of them had been unsuccessful bidders on others of those items, as well as "winners" on other identical items by the seller. One could see the pattern of bidding (no bidding on any similar items by another seller, even if the other seller (with good feedback) had the same item listed for around the same price); one could see the lack of feedback to the "buyer" although the buyer might leave positive feedback within hours of the auction ending.
It's a little harder now, but the same patterns of behaviour can be seen.
That isn't definitive proof of shill-bidding, but it's certainly strong evidence and would be enough to warrant an investigation into the possibility of a shill-bidding ring.
No such investigation has to my knowledge been launched. The evidence is there strongly enough to make genuine bidders aware of what is happening, but it's not enough for eBay's so-called sophisticated tools to pick it up. Oh, eBay, eBay... you're welcome to hire a few of us to be the shill-bidding detectors. We can add real edge to your sophisticated methods! We can even add sophisticated methods to your sophisticated methods! And - just by the way - we will actually find shill-bidders.
Oops.
I think that's the snag.
We'd find shill-bidders.
It is just possible that shill-bidding is not something eBay WANT to know about...
-
It seems to me that the TPA has sufficient teeth to force eBay to stop aiding and abetting unscrupulous sellers to defraud buyers; we just have to convince the ACCC that eBay is in fact knowingly doing nothing proactive to stop this defrauding of consumers; that all eBay's talk about "sophisticated" systems to detect and stop shill bidding is all BS, and get the ACCC to act on what I see as eBay's obvious breaking of our TPA law. And it's not just Australian law; these sorts or laws against such fraud and deceptive trading practices exist in all civilised countries.
-
Isn't it great when conspiracy theorists find each other :roflmao:
-
The view is great from the balcony!
-
"Back" in the land of Oz Riff?
-
I think what Riff is trying to tell us is that everything at eBay is "kosher", that everything eBay says is "fair dinkum", that eBay actually does have a proactive and very sophisticated system for the detection of shill bidding and so there is actually no real problem with shill bidding on eBay, that the eBay auction system really is perfectly secure and buyers can early-on lodge maximum value proxy bids with no fear that an unscrupulous seller can ascertain what they have bid, ...
At the least he may be a naive eBay apologist; I would not be surprised if he was an eBay employee.
-
Isn't it great when conspiracy theorists find each other
And isn't it great, when unconscionable conduct is uncovered by those who engage intellect instead of sarcasm ?.
Riff, if you don't agree with the debate, then at least have the character and intellect to present a reasoned alternative argument......just saying that people are conspiracy theorists has no credibility in this debate...and frankly, unless you're prepared to actually do some level of research to back up such condescending comments, then I doubt your point of view can be taken very seriously anyway. Of course, you can always do the same level of reading and contemplation that phil has obviously done, and then reply to this debate with some level of credibility. It's not too late.
At least Phil has taken the time to review each legislation pertaining to NSW laws, and quite frankly I find his analysis, far more convincing than someone who indulges in name calling as a counter argument. JMO.
-
I would have thought that even an eBay employee, when presented with the facts, would have second thoughts about the at least unethical, if not criminal, behaviour of their employer; just goes to show that profit invariably comes before principle in our free enterprise system; if the boss condones such unprincipled/crimunal behaviour, then I guess we can't blame robots on the lower rungs for closing their eyes to it.
-
It should be borne in mind that differences of opinion will play out. Sometimes sincere people can truly have completely different perspectives; I can't tell you how many times the same experiments of bombarding particles with other particles has resulted in a lack of phenomena - and that result has been perceived as meaning completely different things, even by individuals with the same physics background, the same intelligence, etc.
In a case like shill-bidding, where so much of the evidence is a matter of putting scattered bits of information together, there are people who honestly don't consider that the percentage likelihood of connections between those pieces of information leads to a solid conclusion. There are also those who are not good at seeing connections at all, as well as those who see meaningful connections everywhere (even where such connections do not exist). The best kind of intelligence is open to the possibilities of connections, but also able to step back and gauge the possibility of meaning being created by the viewer rather than the data. It's tricky.
I know without question of certain individuals who do shill-bid on their own items, and who have been reported, and who continue to trade on eBay and to use shill-bids to drive up the prices of their items. When I say "without question", I mean without question. It's not assumption or a preponderance of evidence; it's unambiguous knowledge. However, I didn't need that unambiguous knowledge to convince me that the connections in cross-matching data of certain patterns of bidding behaviour correspond to a strong likelihood of shill-bidding - in everyday terms, let's call it certainty.
-
I apologise for the poor formatting of that previous summary of some law on fraud. I have dumped the same summary into another auctionbytes.com thread, correctly formatted, for anyone interested ...
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6502474#6502474
Moderators: Your SMF bulletin board does have a problem with its "list" (indent) formatting command in that any other formatting command will cancel the list command. Maybe SMF should be asked to fix?
-
I know - that list function has enraged me more than once. The next update may see an improvement.
-
"Back" in the land of Oz Riff?
Why would you ask a question if you know the answer? Best double check that IP.
Riff, if you don't agree with the debate, then at least have the character and intellect to present a reasoned alternative argument......
Cue, when I see a reasoned arguement, I'll respond. We ain't there yet.
Let me just say this. I've seen many theories thrown around by many of the posters on this thread. Not just here but elsewhere and in private. It takes courage to admit you were wrong. But, if you're wrong, you're wrong.
Phil, you would like to think I'm an eBay employee........wrong. You label me an eBay apologist because I disagree with your theory about eBays' encouragement of 'shill bidding' and furthermore you claim I think shill bidding does not exist on eBay......wrong.
Bobby, you once claimed that I was one of your trolls using another ID to bait you here........wrong.
How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously. Why would anyone bother to debate with you when the statements and accusations you make are false and ridiculous. Nobody is listening. Say something positive that will make a difference and people will listen.
Like I said before: It's great when conspiracy theorists find each other...............it's laughable.
Prove something.............then make the accusation.
You're doing it backwards.
-
Riff, can you not see just how silly what you have said sounds?
Not only do you not offer an alternative view but you offer no view at all.
Most of all of your responses consist of
'It's great when conspiracy theorists find each other'
........wrong.
Why would anyone bother to debate with you when the statements and accusations you make are false and ridiculous.
something that was shown to be false........wrong.
None of the above have been backed up with even one shred of supporting dialogue.
Are we to take your word as unshakable truth without question? I don't think so.
Riff how can you be so certain that none of the theories that you are dead against are not real?
Do you claim to have some sort of inside information to be so convinced?
But I guess if you did then you would put it forward as a valid argument so that can't be it.
The only motive I can see in your actions is that you want to cause disruption to any thread that involves criticism of eBay or PayPal.
Do you even look or try to digest any of the information contained in the arguments or do you have a closed mind where eBay and Paypal are concerned?
Cast your mind back Riff to a previous time when you leveled groundless accusations, I am sure that you know what I am saying.
I can remind you if you wish
-
(http://i691.photobucket.com/albums/vv277/area_51_bucket/36282-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Whi.jpg)
-
according to Tello you get a better view from the balcony level
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f93/D4NZ10RR/statler_waldorf_080117_mn.jpg)
-
Plenty of room on the couch with me smee...sit down and put ya feet up... It's a repeat but still entertaining ....LOLOL
-
I'm with ya Yibs .... do ya want me to bring anything?
-
Just the coke I've got the pop corn....
-
I cant get coke any more..... Ben has moved to Richmond
-
Without wishing to offend anyone in particular, but just about every comment that I can recall made by RiffRaff leads me to conclude that, unless he has at some time suffered a serious brain injury, he has to be in the employ of eBay, and I iNtend to tReat any of his nOnsensical rEsponses as bEing sImply aNother of the tYpe of dIsingenuous nOnsenses we have cOme to eXpect from eBay and iGnore tHem from now on. ...
Riff, you are undoubtedly one of those people who can accept eBay's absurd statement that "hidden bidders" does not make it any easier for unscrupulous sellers to shill bid.
But seriously, Riff, I have my alarm clock set to wake me up again on 21 October, for the third quarter financial results: I don't want to miss "Noise" Donut spinning his latest excuses for the further reduction in revenue from the eBay marketplaces and the consequential further devastating effect that will have on eBay profits. "Noise" is going to be again looking around for more staff to "pink slip" (or ship to the Philippines) to try to lessen that effect on profits; I hope that you can convince him that your pro-eBay efforts on the forums are worth the money. ...
I predict "Noise" claiming a further increase in users (now that every unscrupulous sellers has at least 10 shill bidding IDs); what a shame none of these many new IDs are ever going to buy anything nor generate any FVFs. ...
Frankly, it would be better for the good order of the forum if Riff's nonsensical, non constructive comments were simply ignored, which is what I intend do do from now on.
-
Frankly, it would be better for the good order of the forum if Riff's nonsensical, non constructive comments were simply ignored, which is what I intend to do from now on.
(http://i691.photobucket.com/albums/vv277/area_51_bucket/36282-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Whi.jpg)
"Bummer"
-
Do I think shill bidding occurs on Ebay YES
Do I think ebay cares NO
Does ebay only care about next quarters profit YES.
Do I know shill Bidders YES.
Has ebay done anything (sometimes a please be better at it lesson given) NO
Could ebay reduce shill biding YES
However their will always be "hard to detect" shill bidders and that I believe is past what ebay can be reasonably expected to do. Consumers must realise ALL auctions are open to shill bids and must know their price BEFORE bidding. And ignore the theatre of the auction.
We are I believe on the cusp of more shill bidding but even hidden deeper. If you look at the metrics of how the new Best Mis"MATCH" ebay default search works, with personal surveys I have done I estimate 95% of buyers are unaware of misMatch's existence or uneducated how to change to their preferred sort order.
eg. Ebay is now trying to favor BINs , so if I put 9 items up for sale over 10 days. I shill buy one on day 2 and shill buy another on day 4 . That bin will shoot to the front page of a best match search. Even if my DSRs and feedback are below average. All sellers know traffic means sales, sales attract sales and my BIN is on the front page with traffic and thus real sales.
I am happy, I get genuine sales after I while I can even stop paying for featured plus listings my self generated sales do that for me. I can even claim my final value fees back on my own "buys" with a mix of unpaid and agree to cancel. AND still keep ALL ! the self made points, to keep the BIN on the front page. There are a few twists in that useage but I do not want to put it on public display.
Similar with watchers and early bids on an auction
-
Interesting observations shyer....I think Ebay like to complicate things to such a degree, that it's a brain melt down just trying to figure out the many twists and turns for consumers.
I had heard that the best match feature is designed to put certain high volume sellers on top....I couldn't believe the many OS listings I kept getting, and those that were least like my search request.... and unless you set your preferences to Australia Only, Ending Soonest, etc etc etc...you are instantly bombarded with Ebay's idea of what you're looking for...it's manipulation at its finest in my view....but then aren't they just a venue?....isnt the buyer seller relationship none of their business?.......yeah right...lol....It's almost like herding cattle isn't it?
I STILL go straight to the old category titles, and instantly press Australia only and Newly listed, but if you don't set the preferences, it reverts back to Best Match every single time......*shakes head*.
Phil...I agree, the quarterly figures should say it all. Has anyone noticed the shop listings being included in searches now? Well, I think that was to bolster the numbers of listings they display in otherwise flagging categories. e.g. I search one category daily as a collector, and I've noticed since the listing numbers were combined with Shop listings, that the overall category numbers are going down daily....i.e. one sub category went from 315 items to 557.....and now it's back down to 389, even with shop listings? mmmhhhh!!!! that's only one particular category and all of it's subcategories.....so I wonder whats happening in other categories..
-
"I can even claim my final value fees back on my own "buys" with a mix of unpaid and agree to cancel. AND still keep ALL!"
I wonder if eBay will ever tell us how much the incidences of such FVF avoidance has been increasing since "hidden bidders" was introduced and shill bidding by professiomal dealers became even more rampant than it previously was.
It's going down the toilet baby; look at just about any category: 0 bids, 0 bids, 0 bids; and many of those items that have more than one bid, are just as likely to be the seller's own bids.
And for this mess, unscrupulous, disingenuous, eBay has no one but themselves to blame.
-
eBay has no one but themselves to blame.
We know that.
It will never happen.
You know that.
-
(http://i691.photobucket.com/albums/vv277/area_51_bucket/kilpaypal.jpg)
-
Philip....please be sure to post Ebay's quarterlies....that will be interesting....I'm predicting a mass exodus of funds from Paypal with this latest debacle...stand by....liquidity about to crash worldwide...lmao.
BTW, if you retain a balance in your Paypal accounts....I wouldn't !!!...get it out of there....before Paypal 'Launder' you.
-
Anyone else find this Oxymoron sadly amusing...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/The-Great-Big-Ebay-Con-Book-|-Stephen-Mycoe-NEW-ING_W0QQitemZ390087888651QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20090830?IMSfp=TL0908301410002r22532 (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/The-Great-Big-Ebay-Con-Book-|-Stephen-Mycoe-NEW-ING_W0QQitemZ390087888651QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20090830?IMSfp=TL0908301410002r22532)
the seller has quite a few negs themselves lol
PS. Cupie Irony is probably more fitting indeed, or perhaps both "Trusted seller, selling non trust" lol
-
Ironic even....lmao
-
On my travels around eBay I recently came across an interesting auction (280395235257) which I suspect is a classic example of a shill placing a ridiculously high bid to ascertain the maximum of the current high bidder and then retracting that bid, and another then upping the bid towards the genuine bidder's maximum. No doubt at least one reader will think that this is all perfectly "kosher" and could not possibly be untoward. What do the rest of you think?
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6502502#6502502
-
This might seem like a silly question but how do you find out what each party has bid? I was bidding on an item recently and got outbid, and so I checked the bidding history page of my opponent, which only really told me that the other bidder had only 2% history out of 241 bids overall...so I figured I wasn't being shilled...but I do check these days before bidding again. I won the item in question at the last minute anyway...I don't do bidding wars...you just end up paying too much.
-
Philip, in this case (looking at the history of the winning bidders) it may well have a simple explanation of art lovers who want to see whether they should persist in trying to bid for a particular painting. Some bidders do this; they will place a ridiculously high bid to see whether there's a very high proxy bid already placed on the painting, and then decide - on that basis - whether it's worth placing a genuine bid on the item. Of course they will retract their outrageously high bid, which is why you'll so frequently see such high bids in even increments such as $40,000 as was the case here - so that they have a genuine-sounding excuse for retracting their bid.
I may be wrong - but that's what this looks like to me. It seems to me that a bidder was interested, placed a high bid, saw that there was already a proxy bid that was higher than the amount he wanted to pay, and retracted his bid.
It MAY be that this 0-feedback account was a shill-bidding ID used by the seller to push up the price, but I think it's impossible to tell in this instance. You might want to keep an eye on the pattern occurring with further auctions by that particular eBay seller, to see whether it happens again - and if it does, it would seem a little more likely that your suspicions were correct.
-
Hi countessa,
I was never concerned about the winning bidder, it was the "history" of the underbidder and the retracting bidder that worried me. And, why then did the underbidder then pointlessly increase his bid knowing that the high bidder's bid was $4700? Of course, we simple peasants can never be sure about anything on eBay but, on the balance of probability, this is, to me, as clear a case of fraud as you could possibly find.
Then, what about my question regarding the high bidder who has had his maximum exposed by such shenanigans; is such a bidder positively notified so that they too have the opportunity to retract their bid? And what about the fact that it was a "mutually agreed" retraction (therefore not noted on the retracting bidder's Bid History Details page, and why not so noted?)?
This eBay auction system is about as "clunky" as any mechanism could possibly be. No wonder "Noise" Donahoe would prefer all listings to be "fixed price"; problem is, by the time he achieves that, eBay will be with the undertaker.
-
Cupie,
All the bids are on the primary Bid History page; if you want to see how the automatic proxy bidding is applied then click on "Show automatic bids" on that page. (Although at the moment eBay's programmers seemed to have stuffed up even that page.)
-
OK, I'll take a look at that on one of the items I'm bidding on and those I've bid on already and see what I see.....I'm off to watch Medium....love that show...but I'll catch ya's all anon.
-
No doubt at least one reader will think that this is all perfectly "kosher" and could not possibly be untoward. What do the rest of you think?
I don't discount the possibility that any auction with more than one bid is shilled. In the example you have provided, there simply is not enough grounds for accusation. Suspicion, possibly......guilt, NO. As I've said before, just because you think it the seller is guilty, you should not be attempting to 'name and shame' anybody based on your suspicion.
This is why I disagree with you Phil. You expect everyone to accept your 'mistrust' as gospel...........you will not always be right.
-
Riff,
First of all, you are not the only eBay user that wears blinkers, so my remark was not directed specifically at you. But as you are clearly habitually unimpressed by circumstantial evidence, no matter how overwhelming, let me explain to you the varying standards of “proof” extant under English common law:
In a civil matter for damages, “proof” is that which a “reasonable person” would find proved “on the balance of probability.” In my humble opinion the matter in question would be so proved by such a reasonable person. Without having to again detail the circumstantial evidence, I have to then ask you if you actually read the linked detail of the matter, and if you did, I have to wonder if you are simply incapable of weighing up such detail? Heaven forbid you are ever called up for jury duty.
In a criminal matter, “proof” is that which a “reasonable person” would find proved “beyond reasonable doubt,” (not “beyond any doubt”). I think that the circumstances of this matter reach even that standard.
Here is another one for you to look at and then claim that there is no evidence of shill bidding. Auction 230377735313, just cancelled by the seller (kd_art) because he could not entice a single genuine buyer to make a bid. Every one of the five bidders on this auction is, beyond any doubt in my mind, a shill, but you, undoubtedly, will have a different opinion. Have a look at the latest spreadsheet to see how often these five IDs have appeared on this seller’s previous auctions, then watch for them appearing again and again on his future auctions).
Life is tough these days, even for the unscrupulous seller.
Actually, your regular remarks about such matters sound very much like the response of the eBay executive to my first case study, when he disingenuously said that my “few” found examples of shill bidding when viewed over the 100 million of eBay listings was insignificant.
-
Hard to disagree with that......but Phil, even with physical evidence of fraud....denial seems to be Ebay's PR creed, even if one denial contradicts another.
Do you recall when they didn't own Paypal, and they used to counter allegations of fraud being rife on their 'venue', with the old spin about it representing only a tiny percentage of transactions?......The Comslaw Study - Going, Going, Gone, was met with this very assertion from Ebay in 2006.
and then......when they wanted to push Paypal only, they made out that it was the only way to protect consumers from Fraud on Ebay??????......which only 2 years before, in reply to a major precedent study, was only a tiny percentage?....woops? caught wagging the dog again?
Indeed, when ACCC notified them to desist or face prosecution....they put out a press release alleging that ACCC's decision had placed Ebay consumers at risk of Fraud?....true story. I have that media release somewhere...will try to find it. They're a laugh a minute...they want to break the law imposing an unwanted largely unsafe payment system, to save consumers from fraud that they refuse to mitigate????
Point being, whether it's direct proof, or circumstantial, Ebay's denial spin wheel is churning constantly in both directions. When you think about it, you have to give credit to whoever put this whole fiasco together....They've managed to do the duck and weave around laws in just about every country they land in...oh except France...hehehehe !!! Didn't they kick Ebay's botty?......I can imagine the judge..."Now go away, or I will fine you a second time-a".....
Clearly the only way to reduce fraud and protect consumers is to properly verify all sellers for a start, via Aust Post 100 Pt ID check. At least that starts the process of accountability.
Then obviously, more sophisticated monitoring has to start happening for more insidious fraud such as shill bidding.....but the whole thing seems to evolve and perpetuate from anonymity in the first place. So in my view, removing anonymity is the best place to start and that means verification.
-
Oh...and as a bonus, that would also put a stop to trolls using anonymous posting ID's to harass and flame anyone they don't agree with... Gutless behaviour after all.
Surely 'Obey' know that allowing members to use g-mail, and other unpaid email addies to join ebay.... is an open invitation for trouble makers and criminals to hit and run under the comfortable cover of anonymity?. Ebay literally empower and enable (or aid and abet) these individuals with unverified access to a Nation Wide Pool of potential victims....like shooting fish in a barrel really.
People should be required to give a paid email addie, so any breach of telecommunications laws and indeed Criminal conduct such as stalking and fraud, can be traced and prosecuted. I know the obsessive types use routers and proxies etc, but the very fact that Ebay allow unpaid email addresses, simply perpetuates all levels of fraud, and yet another illegal activity = stalking/harassment. Wow...Ebay's got it all...lol
I never knew how to open a trolling ID (as I call it) until someone told me a year or so ago how the nasties were doing it...(not that I'd ever engage in that type of thing)...but....the dodgy types just sign up with yahoo or hotmail or gmail and give completely inaccurate details....as long as the postcode matches the suburb, they don't check. So....I could have 10 accounts if I wanted to, all under dodgy ID's, and Ebay would be none the wiser, because they don't want to be.....as Phil has implied.
But...surely the IP would be the same for each account wouldn't it? If so, it could be identified quite easily by Ebay couldn't it ?....but then if they actually closed down all the dodgy accounts, their membership would shrink significantly then wouldn't it?
See, all these disincentives to be honest, it's just too hard for poor old Ebay to reconcile with their claim of being a 'Responsible Corporate Citizen'...now Liisa....that's what I call an Oxymoron....lmao.....
-
Not even all "paid" broadband-serviced email addresses have a "static" IP address (BigPond actually wants an extra fee for a static address, otherwise a new IP address will be assigned every time you log on; dial-up users get the same IP address as their ISP. I would presume that there is probably no way that an "outsider" can trace "free" email addresses from the likes of Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, etc. Then, as you say, eBay isn't interested in such verification anyway; only the FVF, baby; that is all that counts—even more so now that the leaking tub is now so low in the water ...
And the third quarter financial results due out on 22 October (our day) are only 28 days away; don't forget to set your alarm clocks ...
-
With the more sophisticated shill-bidding rings, it's highly professional and very organised. As you've said, Cupie and Phil, opening an eBay account with false information is not difficult, and with the plethora of proxy servers around (constantly changing lists - a million-headed hydra), hiding one's IP if one is dodgy couldn't be simpler.
Professional shill-bidding rings comprise a group of people involved in the business or scam (that is, it could be a legitimate business wanting to set consistent market value for its goods on eBay so a group involved in the business take their own steps to "ensure" it - OR it could be a national or international scam with "buyers" spanning continents, involved in the same sense that a drug mule is involved in the drug supply business). Because of the number of people involved, and the constantly created "reserve" of IDs (some created years ago and not yet used, because this is HIGHLY professional involving considerable ongoing preparation), it's impossible using basic tools (such as matching IPs or seeing very simple and obvious activity) to establish what is going on.
However, patterns DO emerge. A great deal of human behaviour on a large scale can be treated algorithmically to reveal underlying connections. We do this instinctively too in assessing behaviour with the human eye - sometimes (not always) such patterns or the fluctuations therein are the source of what we call "gut feeling" or instinct. We may sense something's wrong because on some level we are detecting a lack of real randomness. Sometimes we are wrong; sometimes we can be suspicious without cause; but let's face it - if a buyer gets a bad feeling with one particular transaction or seller, he may very well decide it's better to back away.
-
Hi countessa,
What, another conspiracy: sophisticated shill bidding rings? What further nonsense will you come up with next?
Well, actually, I agree with you, it won't be obvious from simply viewing my spreadsheet, but as I add new auctions to the list I have been struck by the "rolling" appearance of IDs that are probably shills on auctions by some of the listed sellers; not all, some are habitually using the same handful of IDs over and over; but others are more sophisticated: consistently, an ID will appear two or three times then disappear, and I had wondered if they were possibly subscribing to some sort of "service"
Certainly, I have seen one guy advertising on the internet for "feedback". I guess we will have to do a Google search for "shill bidding service" and see what comes up (whoops, there they are ...);
-
On my travels around eBay I recently came across an interesting auction (280395235257) which I suspect is a classic example of a shill placing a ridiculously high bid to ascertain the maximum of the current high bidder and then retracting that bid, and another then upping the bid towards the genuine bidder's maximum. No doubt at least one reader will think that this is all perfectly "kosher" and could not possibly be untoward. What do the rest of you think?
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6502502#6502502
I have always had an issue with the 'discovery' bid and retraction exercise ... and maintain that, in such a situation, I should be able to retract my bid without penalty. As it stands, the only time where the real high-bid is visible is between the time the discovery bid and retraction - so, unless these are significantly separated in time, there will only be the one benefactor of that information. But it only takes one to compromise bidding.
Besides, doing this simply makes the whole exercise of undisclosed maxima and proxy bidding utterly pointless.
However, it is not the discovery bid and retraction that is, in itself, the problem - it is the subsequent bidding that occurs:
1. In the case of shill bidding, it is obvious how a genuine bidder is pushed and this can hardly be considered ethical. A person may have been willing to pay an amount against other bidders who were seeking the item - but not against a greedy seller who simply wants the money.
2. In the case of genuine buyers, as a seller, I would be absolutely furious at this very real possibility: Artwork with starting price of $100. Keen collector bids $5,000 and holds the winning bid at $100. Second bidder comes in and would pay $1,000 but recognises the potential for someone to be willing to pay more, so they do the 'discovery bid'. Since there's no way they would even try to beat the $5,000 bidder, they retract their bid and just walk away. If no-one else bids, the collector walks away with $100 bargain and the seller is very jaded. Played honestly, the item should have sold for one bid increment over $1,000.
As for Philip's assertions, I can only admit I have not had the time to analyse them, but have noted comments from many others. He certainly holds convictions about the matter and has shared these elsewhere -
http://blog.auctionbytes.com/cgi-bin/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2009/9/1253552452.html (http://blog.auctionbytes.com/cgi-bin/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2009/9/1253552452.html) (some other interesting comments there, too)
I have little doubt that his analyses give clear scenarios that beg investigation - investigation that could deliver the proof which would stand up, rock solid on it's own two feet, in court. However, the only entity which holds the necessary information is eBay - and I don't think they are really interested or motivated to go into it. I'm sure eBay finds waving the 'privacy' flag really useful here.
However, there are many situations in life where we all are affected by circumstantial and statistical 'evidence' (just ask my 20-year-old who's recently put his first car on the road) and the indications from Philip's efforts are - as others have said - cause for real concern.
I should also add, that in any debate, especially where definitive proof is elusive, there is an essential role of devil's advocate that is needed to (a) rein in the lynch mob - but, and more importantly, to (b) provide a foil against which arguments can be run, points validated and tested conclusions emerge. In that matter, Riff has (IMO) been quite useful - even if perceived as being hard-nosed or overplaying the role - otherwise we would all sound like a chanting mob.
I have no love of eBay, Paypal, nor the management of either - but I do admire the fundamentals and the opportunities brought to the world. I would like to see that flourish - an idealistic notion, I know. I have little doubt that such a virginal hope is all but lost - self-serving interests, insider deals, golden parachutes ... and the list goes on ... have buried the light under tons of spin-doctored landfill. (being polite)
Since Philip has been quite notable in his efforts, it could be wondered whether eBay could have taken his voice as one to have significant value if they were to take up his arguments and disprove them - but that isn't likely to happen. To respond to him would give him credibility - a distinct disadvantage and would open the floodgates to public debate with opportunities to respond. This would then force answers to be provided to questions asked which, in turn, gives reference points for further questions... and so it escalates.
No. Much safer to say nothing and ignore anything said. It's the best way to deal with the 'conspiracy theorists' - especially when they get passionate about their cause.
Besides, eBay and Paypal make more money by keeping 'mum' and don't waste it by trying to defend the indefensible - other than by a one-way media release.
While I do not deny that Philip has identified some real issues to which eBay need to respond, there is one danger - and I will express it with this analogy:
Philip, you have painstakingly put together a film clip of scenes taken from things that have been happening on eBay. You have continuity and logic in what is seen - but you do not have the soundtrack. You have written a script that fits all the visible evidence and is congruent with all other known facts and, when applied to the film clip, produces a powerful movie, convincing and condemning.
However, the risk is this: Lets assume eBay would take your film clip and accept what you have assembled - after all, it is all real - they have merely to add their own soundtrack with a few verifiable components to paint a completely different picture.
And all their movie would have to do is create a reasonable doubt for them to be found not guilty. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that that concept favours the defendant - innocent until proven guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence simply has to create reasonable doubt - it's the prosecution that has the job to get beyond it.
Not that I think for a minute that they are innocent...
Philip - I'm just itching for someone to spill a bucket of beans your way!
-
As it stands, the only time where the real high-bid is visible is between the time the discovery bid and retraction ..."
This statement is not quite true as the high-bidder's proxy maximum can still then be calculated from the Bid retraction(s) published at the botttom of the primary Bid History page. You simply deduct one increment from the value of the retracted bid (eg, $4750 - $50 = $4700).
However, you are right, you then should be able to retract your bid too; and you should also get a positive notice of such probably devious activity.
Otherwise I would agree with just about everything you say ...
-
(Apologies on the visibility comment. I have only had this happen to me once and I was so incensed at the time, I could have missed seeing that info.)
-
A postscript to the linked comment of bid retractions at
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6502502#6502502
Oh, dear me, my assumptions were all wrong; here I was thinking that the buyer “s***o (14)” had probably been defrauded but here is the same item relisted (280401734190) at Buy It Now for $10,000. I always thought it logical that you first try to sell BIN for $10,000 and when that is not successful you then try a shilled auction. Any way, who knows what was going on (only eBay knows, and they aren’t telling). Maybe the winner told the seller where to go after seeing his proxy maximum exposed and subsequently “Did not pay”. Then, if the item really is worth anything like $10,000, it would seem to have been a good buy at $3950. Possibly, all the higher-value bidders were shills. Heaven forbid had a genuine bidder actually sniped the item at the last moment for $4750!
-
Perhaps the seller refused to sell to the winning bidder at the winning bid price. Perhaps the buyer entertained similar suspicions about having had his bid pushed up to almost its maximum by shill-bidding. Perhaps the buyer was a shill-bidding dummy used to avoid selling the painting for less than the genuine bids.
-
Again, different soundtracks give different stories.
However, if it is happening more than once or twice with a seller, credibility on some of the more innocent stories suffers badly...
-
As a matter of interest, those listings by "***auctions" are "private" auctions; it's not the buyers who have chosen to hide their details behind "private" feedback; however, I always presume that sellers who elect to use private auctions do so elect so that they can shill bid without any chance of being detected, for such "private" auctions serve no other meaningful purpose, and there is no way you can analyse the under-bidding on such auctions.
Another funny think has happened with such private auctions on the AU site (only?). Private auctions are no longer noted as private auctions on the View Item page. Not until someone places a bid does it become obvious and then only when you look at the Bid History page. This is a programming error as the very same private auction viewed via other than the AU site will be advertised as a private auction. Try it ...
I rarely go near the eBay forums now; however, it is nice to know that the eBay representative and the other (unscrupulous?) professional sellers are thinking of me. What a shame they don't use their selling IDs when they post; I could analyse some of their auctions too. And, in any case, except for a number of sellers who are so obviously, and beyond any doubt, shill bidding, I only present the facts; that I draw certain conclusions from those facts is no worse that simply saying, "on the balance of probability ..."
-
What a shame they don't use their selling IDs when they post; I could analyse some of their auctions too.
Cats like you are the reason they DON'T post with selling ID's.
Ever heard of "Auction Tampering", "Auction Hijacking" or "Auction Bombing" ???
Tsk tsk.........
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r271/rontello/the5dc67896d.jpg)
-
What a shame they don't use their selling IDs when they post; I could analyse some of their auctions too.
Cats like you are the reason they DON'T post with selling ID's.
Ever heard of "Auction Tampering", "Auction Hijacking" or "Auction Bombing" ???
Tsk tsk.........
Tello, how does analysis of a sellers history amount to Auction Tampering, Hijacking or Bombing? It's there for the public to see, and that's the whole point of it....so buyers can actually take a look at their history and decide if they want to roll the dice.....if it's not visible, then what does that say about the seller?...Hiding something?
-
Breach of Security issues.
Buyers are Dangerous.
Competitors are cut-throats.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r271/rontello/Thread%20Stuff/KnitforBrains.jpg)
-
Tello...I doubt if Phil would even think about auction tampering.
The one thing I like about this bloke is that he is really out there to get the crooks and slime off the online sites.
He does have wisdom...but he talks a lot...lol
But he does know what he is talking about...and that is a big plus in my books. ;D
-
Folks let me translate Telloese, almost a forgotten language but a few remain who use it extensivly ;D
In fact Tello agrees wholeheartedly with Phil but is speaking Telloese with tomgue in cheek ;D
-
In fact I studied Netonese while I was in the US as well, now that was a toughie but in the end I managet to Aussieize that person over the years and now they are an asset to all who they come in contact with ;D
-
In fact I studied Netonese while I was in the US as well, now that was a toughie but in the end I managet to Aussieize that person over the years and now they are an asset to all who they come in contact with ;D
Poddy...care to write a manual for the rest of us that don't have a clue?.....LOLOLOL
-
Further discussion about possible examples of shill-bidding should always take into account alternative explanations, but we would be naïve to think it doesn't occur at all. Like other buyers on eBay, I resent feeling that the seller has tried to drive up the price when the genuine current market value at auction (established by GENUINE bids) would have set a lower price. Just because one places a maximum bid on an item does not mean one should not feel aggrieved if one finds out (or strongly suspects) that the maximum has only been reached because the seller pushed it there dishonestly.
-
Countess, I completely agree with each and every point.
( ... and for those lurking who may wonder - I'm nobody's puppet. I have my own opinions on a subject which happen to coincide with someone else's.)
(It happens)
-
Let's keep this topical thread on the front page.....Hey Ho and Up she Rises....
-
Hi Phil...you might like to take a peak at another discussion in the coin forum...re: shill bidding, and offer your opinion....very interesting.
http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=1044.msg46046#new
-
It's amazing how low level organised it is even at reasonably low volumes on high cost items. 3 power tool sellers. Start a $600 item at $1 to get the punters in and the fees down. Each of them bidding on each other's items using a spare account each - and the item 'magically' always get to a minimum price. Too easy.
-
Two shillers walk into a Bar....
-
After just 2 minuter the price of beer triples
-
Phillip, I hope you come over and review the thread on the coins thread. It is quite easy to spot shill bidding on the coins listings now - most items are not being sold or if they are, there are just a few bids. I think that most of us have really put on the brakes when it comes to buying coins on ebay, most of the good sellers have gone elsewhere - thanks for that ebay.
-
Don't forget to watch for the "Ho Ho Ho" Show on the 22nd when "Noise" Donahoe does his little spinning routine. I will be very surprised if there is not a further reduction in Marketplace revenues and a resulting savaging of profits; then there is what some call "creative" accounting to make these little problems less obvious.
Scheduled Q3-2009 Earnings Conference Calls
eBay: October 21, 2009 at 5 pm Eastern (Link)
Amazon.com: October 22, 2009 at 5 pm Eastern (Link)
(These are US dates; ours are a day later.)
-
Hi John
Thanks for your comment on my post on shill bidding on eBay.
Maybe I am remiss in not clearly differentiating between BIN and “private (auction) listings”. I never thought that any differentiation was necessary, and that it is clear that it is only the latter, “private auctions”, that I consider serve no other purpose than as a hide for shill bidding sellers.
I have no criticism of sales by BIN: As you say, BIN, by its very nature, is not open to the abuse of shill bidding: you set your price and you either sell or you don’t sell; there is no opportunity for the unscrupulous vendor to make false representations as to the value/price of the goods.
Regardless of your claimed reasons for using “private listings”, all the information that you claim you seek to protect by your use of private listings, you cannot hide from anyone who really wants that information: your auction numbers can simply be recorded in an auction processing program; full details of same are then available, and can be so accessed, for the same 90 days that the information would otherwise be available via the feedback forum; also, regardless, the previous 14 day’s completed auctions are always available via Feedback > Items for sale > Completed listings.
Private listings were only ever (supposedly) intended by eBay as a hide for buyers, not sellers; although I suspect that they were only ever intended as a tool for shill bidding sellers. Therefore, I can only repeat my belief that vendors who elect to sell by “private (auction) listings” do so, more likely than not, so that they can better hide their shill bidding on their own auctions.
Regards
Philip Cohen
----- Original Message -----
From: [name removed]
To: formset@exemail.com.au
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:38 PM
Subject: eBay Private Listings
Hi Philip.
I take offence that you suggest, nay state, that any seller using a Private listing does so to defraud the Buyer.
I did not read any differentiation between Auction and Buy it Now in your comments.
I use BIN and Private to protect my business. I do NOT want other sellers (competition) scanning my feedback to see WHAT I sell, at HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN.
For this , Private listing is the only way to go.
In a BIN format, every thing is clear and transparent! NO SHILL BIDDING POSSIBLE!
Your comments are otherwise interesting, and I agree pretty much!
Regards,
John. S
-
I’ve just noticed that a particular bidding alias I was watching has changed without any indication by eBay of such a change, such notice which eBay in the past used to give to warn users of such happening; oh well, more deception; the shills can apparently now periodically rename their IDs and we will be none the wiser …
-
SHIILBAY
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r271/rontello/eBay%20nasty%20pix-gifs/4rx4x3.gif)
-
Seller: fresh_from_thestudio
1. http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=250545988214
2. http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=250547656070
Have a look at these two:
#1: all five bidders (bb, bf, cn, la, ms) appear to be shills (ie have previously bid on multiples of this seller’s other auctions).
#2: so far only “hs” looks like it could be a genuine bidder, the other three (bb, m3, ms) appear to be shills.
-
What leads you to think that the bidders appear to be shills? How do you differentiate between someone who tries quite a few times to win a bid on items from a seller based on the fact that they trust the seller to be genuine (and selling rare or collectable artwork), and someone who is actually conspiring with the seller (as a shill-bidder)?
When it comes to artwork, which is highly collectable, it seems to me that it must be almost impossible, if not impossible, to tell.
-
Hi countessa
Go to http://home.exetel.com.au/philipcohen/eBay/ and download the spreadsheet "The pre-formed Excel spreadsheet with examples of recent data therein." and checkout the bidding activity of these bidders and you will see why I come to that conclusion; you will also see why a multiple-auction analysis of such matters can be so much more revealing.
Always interested in your opinion.
-
Hi Countessa and Philip,
Sorry to interrupt.
I mainly buy coins from only a few sellers on ebay. A lot of time, I bid on many coins from these sellers, and sometimes bid few times on a coin that I think is interesting. I don't use sniper. I don't usually win many coins, but of course I paid for those I won. I do this for good reasons other than shill bidding.
Consider my bidding activities, will you say I am one shill bidder?
Thanks.
-
Hi low-enghooi,
As I have said many times before, there is simply no way of being absolutely certain that anyone is a shill bidder—even if they have the same IP address. But we buyers are entitled to as much information as is possible to protect ourselves, and what eBay supplies is not sufficient, indeed it is downright deceptive and I have no doubt deliberately designed to be so deceptive, as is the masking of bidding IDs.
All of the multiple common bidders that appear on sellers’ auctions in my spreadsheet may well be, as you claim to be, simply habitually unlucky bidders. Unfortunately, I cannot also examine the patterns of bidding any more deeply (ie number of bids, timing of bid, etc): that could only be done practicably by sophisticated programming, something that eBay has no understanding of, nor financial interest in doing.
Frankly, if as an experienced eBay buyer, you are saying that you nibble bid with the intention of winning and never snipe, then, without meaning to offend, I would have to question your sanity for, if indeed you are not a shill bidder, then you are leaving yourself open to being shill bid by others; regardless, I would love to hear of your “good reasons” for bidding the way you claim to do.
And, how does anyone know if an auction “winner” actually pays for the item, or the seller simply claims “buyer did not pay” and relists the item? I can point you to many of beckertime’s 99c-start auctions where suspect bidders who have won have indeed never left any feedback—not that that proves anything either as some people won’t bother to leave feedback. But when a pattern emerges …
With respect to beckertime alone I have also been keeping track of feedback. For anyone that is interested in this particular apparent habitual shill bidding seller, I mark all winners with a yellow background in the “WinBidder” column; winners who leave feedback I then mark the whole row with a yellow background. Have a look and if you can notice any pattern there …
-
As I have said many times before, there is simply no way of being absolutely certain that anyone is a shill bidder
Thanks and that is good enough. I just hope the sellers I bought from doesn't become the target of shill bidding analysis and been accused because of my bidding activities.
I would have to question your sanity for
Don't have to. I am pretty OK (in terms of sanity) person and I am real.
if indeed you are not a shill bidder, then you are leaving yourself open to being shill bid by others; regardless, I would love to hear of your “good reasons” for bidding the way you claim to do.
There is this thing we (or just me) call Trust and Honesty. I don't use sniper on good sellers that has gone the extra miles to help me. The best part is, what are we talking about shill bidding here when there is no way people can determine who is the real shill bidder. For that, I will save the "good reasons" for next time.
Thanks.
-
I love Happy Endings!
-
I love Happy Endings!
I agree. And I am happy with the seller, the coin and the price I paid, all without me worry about shill bidding and sniper.
-
Cheers!
I can almost marry one of my sellers!
But I have Roo to think about....
-
Good on you Tello. Cheers!
-
Keep those cards and letters coming!
http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=1552.0 (http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=1552.0)
-
This is a shill-bidding seller that habitually uses private listings.
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=280442156837
Have a look at this Bid History page that is otherwise totally useless except that it shows that the initial bid was been made only three minutes after the item was listed.
Now come on, all you professional eBay sellers, let’s hear your reasoning as to why this initial bid is not, more likely than not, the bid of a shill bidder.
-
Could well be a shill bid yes , one other likely possibility is that the bid was placed by a buyer who has the seller listed as a favourite seller as they get instant advice of a new listing or if they had this item on watch from a previous listing which never sold they also get advice now when it is relisted , but I would say that is less likely than the favourite seller possibility
-
Fast Trigger-Finger.
I'm good that way.
Am I the only one with this skill?
Just sayin'.....
-
I made a bid on a 46" LCD HD TV 7 minutes after it was listed.
Pure chance.
Pity my $50 didn't last as top bid...
-
Yes I once listed an item as auction with a BIN price and it sold that quickly at BIN I wondered what happened , as it didnt show in my items selling section on my eBay page and yet the system had moments before told me that my listing was successful , I was pulling my hair out wondering why I couldnt find listing I never thought of looking in sold list as it was actually only seconds after listing , it got to the stage where I was in the queue waiting for dead help when my mail pinger went off and I checked my emails and it was the item sold message
-
Yes Smee. I had similar experience.
I once wrongly listed a pretty valuable note at face value BIN. I realized I made a silly mistake immediately I hit OK buton to list, but someone has bought it. Faster than light. I have to tell him I made a genuine mistake, but he didn't accept it. I didn't honor the sale and was expecting a negative from him. He was very unhappy but didn't leave me one. But that was too much to lose if I sold to him.
-
i had that happen with ruby lane smee for a US$320 book which was rare (but rare is an abused word on ebay and elsewhere but this really was rare) it was my first evening on RL i had just joined and the next morning (a few hours later) the item had sold, lovely lady had been looking for the book for years ... it does happen, yours was a bit faster though lol minutes/seconds not a few hours ...
-
Yes Smee. I had similar experience.
I once wrongly listed a pretty valuable note at face value BIN. I realized I made a silly mistake immediately I hit OK buton to list, but someone has bought it. Faster than light. I have to tell him I made a genuine mistake, but he didn't accept it. I didn't honor the sale and was expecting a negative from him. He was very unhappy but didn't leave me one. But that was too much to lose if I sold to him.
low if you make a genuine mistake you should not be penalised and i believe you are entitled to pull out of the sale as you did, lucky on the feedback though, the guy must have thought about it and calmed down, he prolly knew it was a mistake for sure and was being opportunistic
-
He was very angry and threatened to bring it up to ebay. I was getting ready for the worst but nothing happen.
I wonder how he found my item in mere seconds after listed, not even a minute.
-
I wonder how he found my item in mere seconds after listed, not even a minute.
Considering the global exposure eBay offers, it is bound to happen occasionally.
It is one aspect of the marketing advantage that eBay offers that I wouldn't argue against.
-
He was very angry and threatened to bring it up to ebay. I was getting ready for the worst but nothing happen.
I wonder how he found my item in mere seconds after listed, not even a minute.
LOW he prolly had a search programmed to alert him if items fitting his description were listed you can do it on ebay but you can also do it through 3rd party programs low like www.auctionsieve.com and have it search globally, its a freebie and worth using if you are looking for a particular coin or item, you enter the basic search criteria, which country which site(s) etc. i have used it for books i am looking for an it found a really rare one recently for me at a great price
-
Venue.
-
you can also do it through 3rd party programs low like www.auctionsieve.com and have it search globally, its a freebie and worth using if you are looking for a particular coin or item, you enter the basic search criteria, which country which site(s) etc. i have used it for books i am looking for an it found a really rare one recently for me at a great price
This is so cool. Just download and now running the first complex search ;D
Many thanks gr8.
-
Now try the Smileys!
-
I can't Tello. Have to hide all the images at work.
-
Ouch!
-
Have a look at this few from another used Rolex watch dealer, “melrosediamonds”:
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=230407641595
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=330383750182
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=330387191646
Have you ever before seen so many common single-digit-feedback bidders nibble bidding such large sums of money on an eBay auction. And have you ever seen so many single-digit-feedback and “newby” bidders win so many high-value auctions?
But the most interesting aspect of this seller’s auctions is that the spreadsheet analysis of a good number of his auctions discloses that a great number of his habitual bidders are common to my old friend, “beckertime”; funny that, is it not? Indeed, I would suspect that there must be some connection between these two sellers.
I have to wonder how many of these sales are for real? Apparently, neither of these shill bidders has yet woken up to the fact that they can make their shill IDs look more legitimate by buying some feedback for them at a penny-a-pop.
The spreadsheets at: http://home.exetel.com.au/philipcohen/eBay/
The game then is to try to spot the legitimate bidders, if any …
-
This again?
-
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=130352713715
81 bids from 23 bidders! Would someone try to explain to me what all this nibble bidding is about—apart from the diluting of their own auction bidding activity statistic? Of course, with eBay’s devious masking of bidding IDs, we have no way of ascertaining what either of these two gross nibblers is up to, but certainly it has nothing to do with any attempt to buy a Rolex watch.
-
yes bizarre Philip, never seen anything like that especially at the price the items at, highly suspect
-
Here’s another funny one:
Rolex Submariner Two Tone 16803 (16613) "R" 1987
Sold: http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Rolex-Submariner-Two-Tone-16803-16613-R-1987_W0QQitemZ220523649090QQcmdZViewItemQQptZWristwatches?hash=item33583bd842
Relisted/Resold: http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Rolex-Submariner-Two-Tone-16803-16613-R-1987_W0QQitemZ220530372748QQcmdZViewItemQQptZWristwatches?hash=item3358a2708c
But, only one common bidder: 3t(806); bid $3667 on the first auction and only $222 on the second; how odd.
-
This buyer has been busy. Any comments?
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBidderProfile&mode=1&item=390143190077&aid=t***b&eu=%2FPAvg8apGkKes%2FYabDrimV%2BcxgbpTCic&view=NONE&ssPageName=PageBidderProfileViewBids_None_ViewLink
30-Day Summary
Total bids: 3897
Items bid on: 2153
Bid activity (%) with this seller: 0%
Bid retractions: 2
Bid retractions (6 months): 17
-
That link isn't working.
Try This:390143190077 (http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBidderProfile&mode=1&item=390143190077&aid=t***b&eu=%2FPAvg8apGkKes%2FYabDrimV%2BcxgbpTCic&view=NONE&ssPageName=PageBidderProfileViewBids_None_ViewLink)
-
I do wish you'd say what you think is wrong with the bidders activity Philip. I see someone who buys to re-sell and obviously successfully.
-
In your dreams Bazza.
Next thing you will be telling me is that there is no real problem with shill bidding on eBay; that eBay has it all under control? What say you Bazza?
-
I say, I see nothing un-toward in the latest example you posted. Please by all means point out exactly what you see. Or is it impossible for someone with that bid history to be honest?
-
Bazza,
Let me see you say that, in your opinion, there is no problem with shill bidding on eBay; that any problem there is, eBay has under control; and I will attempt to then answer your question.
-
As you well know Philip, I've made my views on shill bidding known here.
How about you back up what's so suspect about the bid history you highlighted.
-
And I have made my views on eBay very clear on the auctionbytes forum, starting at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6502877
(if your powers of concentration are sufficient to absorb the matter of it)
Frankly, I don't know why I bother to even respond to your pathetic defending of eBay; your time would be better spent moderating the eBay forums; fortunately you don’t get to delete our critical posts about eBay here, only offer nonsensical responses.
But, you did not answer the question on whether on not you think shill bidding is a problem on eBay and whether or not, if there is any problem, eBay has the matter under control. A simple yes/no to each question is all I ask. Is that too hard for you? When you do that I will offer you a further comment on the other matter.
Without wishing to offend you Bazza, you are either very naive in the ways of eBay (and the stock market), or your are a professional eBay seller happy to take advantage of eBay’s deliberate obscuring of shill bidding, or you are simply an eBay stooge; which is it?
-
This buyer has been busy. Any comments?
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBidderProfile&mode=1&item=390143190077&aid=t***b&eu=%2FPAvg8apGkKes%2FYabDrimV%2BcxgbpTCic&view=NONE&ssPageName=PageBidderProfileViewBids_None_ViewLink
30-Day Summary
Total bids: 3897
Items bid on: 2153
Bid activity (%) with this seller: 0%
Bid retractions: 2
Bid retractions (6 months): 17
You highlighted it, you explain what's wrong with it.
You always resort to insults Philip, when you have nowhere else to go.
-
And you still have not answered my two simple questions, Bazza. Take your eBay-coloured glasses off and have a look at the facts of the real world, and stop trying to push that eBay barrow up hill, you are only going to strain yourself. eBay is still going down hill and no matter how much spin you eBay appologists/stooges put on it the abyss gets closer and closer ...
-
Auction Nr: 390143190077 (ended 21 Jan)
Bid History:
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=390143190077
The bidder placed five bids in $5 increments, within one minute, until he was the then winner at $158, on an item that ultimately sold three days later for $466.
Bid History Details:
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBidderProfile&mode=1&item=390143190077
The latest stats (at about 7am):
Bidder: t***b (10773)
Feedback: 100% Positive
Item description: Ladies 1920's 9Kt Gold Rolex Wrist Watch Superb Dial NR
Bids on this item: 5
30-Day Summary:
Total bids: 4149
Items bid on: 2283
Bid activity (%) with this seller: 0%
Bid retractions: 2
Bid retractions (6 months): 17
4149 bids on 2283 items from at least 28 sellers (who knows just how many sellers, there’s only two sellers that appear more than once in the 30-Day Bid History, does that suggest 2000 odd?). That’s an average 138 bids per day on 76 items. And if you refer to the 30-Day Bid History, those bids are not one-off proxy bids/snipes as you might expect from someone (insane enough to be) trying to buy on eBay to resell on eBay; these are apparently manually placed nibble bids.
And you are going spend all the time required to look for all this very different stuff, manually bid on it, maybe win it, get it, and then relist it for sale on eBay or elsewhere in the hope of making a profit on it? Maybe this guy is building up stock to open a B&M second hand “hock” shop; but then if you are going to do that you have to bid to win not bid to lose. Now, he does have considerable feedback, but that does not mean much these days …
Of course now that bidders IDs are masked it’s almost impossible to check the bona fides of winning bidders and its absolutely impossible to check the bona fides of such underbidders. Gee, Bazza, is the system now working the way you and John intended—a total lack of transparency?
I’m not sure what’s going on. Own-auction-activity stats diluting, maybe?
Buying to resell? Give me a break. …
Maybe you should tell turkey John that all this lack of transparency and this Bid History Details facade only makes our distrust of eBay greater, if that is at all possible. Then, I suppose, John will be grabbing his golden parachute soon, so he really does not care what happens to eBay in the long run, and that is a shame.
In closing, if you don’t mind, Bazza, I would prefer it if we could simply ignore each other in future; I know what sort of unscrupulous organization eBay is, and I see no point in attempting to debate such eBay issues with what I think are representatives of eBay’s “department of spin”.
-
http://feedback.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&ftab=AllFeedback&userid=euroachat2009&iid=-1&de=off&interval=0&items=200
Would anyone—except Bazza, please—like to apply some normal persons’ logic to this feedback situation.
Private auctions, of course. One main buyer with private feedback, of course. Dealing in feedback?
Also, how can anyone have so much feedback and yet have a feedback count of only 79?
-
This particular example is startlingly obvious.
Until you reach the first page of feedback, all of the positives come from one eBay ID. The negatives seem to be a mixture of buyers who realised they'd been scammed, and 0-feedback IDs purchasing in order to show that this "seller" is indeed a fraudster.
We could postulate of course that the 0-feedback IDs are a rival trying to destroy the seller's feedback, but in light of the unambiguous pattern of the positive-giving "buyers", there is no sane conclusion other than that those positives are given by the seller's own alternative IDs. Here are the reasons for concluding that.
1. The positive feedback is given by IDs which are created in two groups on these dates: 24 November 2009 and 27 November 2009. They all have 0% feedback. They are all "private".
2. The wording of the feedback given is repeated among these IDs. A striking example is "arrived in 2 days.does exactly what it says on the tin.many thanks". This phrase is used by the following IDs: rickybenn24, nickysimmons16 and samsmith19steven.
3. The ID samsmith19steven is the only other positive ID bothered with from the feedback on 24 January 2010 onwards. The conclusion is inescapable that the seller became tired of logging in and out as various other IDs.
4. The ONLY positive feedback given is by samsmith19steven or those other 0-feedback IDs created on either 24 November or 27 November.
I don't even need to comment on the silly names created by this individual - you can see johnlennon, katherinejenkins, leonalewis... a tad obvious, hmm?
This is one of the most blatantly transparent shill-bidding exercises I've ever seen, and it's my guess the initial purpose was to build up a false reputation, followed by the purpose of trying to overwhelm the negatives with fake positives.
-
Wow. This would have to be one of the most blatant examples of serial shill bidding I have seen and I'm sure it would also be obvious to all normally prudent people.
It is interesting to note all the listings were private. We can't go back & see how many bidders were bidding on each item.
-
http://feedback.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&ftab=AllFeedback&userid=euroachat2009&iid=-1&de=off&interval=0&items=200
Would anyone—except Bazza, please—like to apply some normal persons’ logic to this feedback situation.
This probably is a bad attempt to counter an Auction bomber. On page 4 a geniune buyer drsrom1 has got upset and with limited english could mean to be threatening seller. Most negatives from then on are 0 feedback ids with a few other ids likely to be friends and realatives. What seller has not realised is all his same buyer " samsmith19steven" his first buyer as well. Need 7 days between auction and feedback time to register otherwise they do not count in feedback.
I agree with countessa a lot of earlier fake ids built feedback, seller got lazy. I suspect the seller is a fraud but the best way to remove seller, is to get multiple paypal disputes found against seller. In my observation no new small seller survives 3 paypal forced refunds within 90 days.
-
Shyer. The seller has no items listed at this moment. His/her feedback percentage 74% (from memory) is very poor probably one of the worst % I've seen for a long time.
-
Shyer. The seller has no items listed at this moment. His/her feedback percentage 74% (from memory) is very poor probably one of the worst % I've seen for a long time.
Yes ubbie, 74% WAS bad, I however see ebay moving quickly to the amazon model, stars. And even less transparency than now, just numbers of sales and DSRs. And woe betide any seller falling below the ebay "AVERAGE" of 4.XX . Thus I predict more hidden shill "perfect" feedback sales. More listing fees for ebay and all professional sellers with a star 'buffer' topped up when nesecary, All details hidden.
Will look good for a while till the buyers start losing faith again. My experince is over 90% of buyers have no idea how to interpret feedback, let alone bothering to read it. Instead blind faith in pay$pal, till they get bitten. That is ebays game plan, pay$pal propoganda EQUALS more pay$pal profits.
-
Countessa,
The most fascinating aspect of these types of situations is that it happens right under eBay’s nose; and eBay with all those “proactive” and “sophisticated” systems that they claim to have for the detecting of such unscrupulous activity. Well, I think we all know, as it can be clearly demonstrated, that those “sophisticated” systems are simply all deceptive PR spin.
The point I would keep making, again and again and again, is that yes, there are many fraudsters and scammers operating on eBay, and although eBay does not actually issue them written invitations to come and practice their craft on eBay, the effect is the same because eBay does not care about some of the matters—as long as they don’t affect them financially; they are happy, in the short term, to profit from such matters as shill bidding; indeed, they appear to be quite deliberately facilitating it via the devious bidder masking; how the Poms cope with the absolute form of masking they have to put up with I do not know.
To eBay, revenue is the only thing that matters. Actually, that’s not quite right either, it’s profits that count; from those these unscrupulous, grubby, little executives concoct their performance bonuses.
-
Strange Philip that you would determine that I be excluded from this discussion. The site has a new administrator? No.
I would agree with you in the case of the latest ebay user you've brought to our attention. There's something very, very wrong with that feedback.
It's not shill-bidding, but there's something amiss. I'd go with the fraudster covering their backside to drown out the negs (badly). Auction bombed is a possibility.
I'll be sure to flag Johnno at the next board meeting. :)
-
Bazza...are you Monman???
:badfinger:
-
Roo, why does it matter who I am. Is Roo your real name? ;)
-
Philip Cohen is my real name. You can even find me in the phone book. I am quite prepared to express my views openly; not from behind an anonymous pseudonym.
-
You are a truly unique individual Philip. I'm of the opinion that no-one really cares who's behind the username. It's the content of your posts that people will judge you on.
*runs to check phone book*
-
And you really think that an anonymous comment carries the same weight as an attributed one; just goes to show how naive you eBay employees really are.
Surely, with the funds eBay as squirreled away outside of the US they could afford to buy some better quality lobbyists. No, maybe not. Is anyone sure that they actually have any money squirreled away overseas? They certainly never seem to have any money to pay any dividends to the stockholders: naive stockholders. Then, the very great majority of stockholders have got absolutely no idea of what is happening with their funds—until there aren't any more of the funds left ...
-
And you really think that an anonymous comment carries the same weight as an attributed one
Yes Philip, I do. Particularly in your case.
As I read through posts on this forum, I'm not seeing too many real names. Do you think you have any more credibility than other members here? Perhaps not.
-
I'm of the opinion that no-one really cares who's behind the username. It's the content of your posts that people will judge you on.
There is some truth in that, but backing up sweeping statements with some verifiable facts is what gives any statement uttered the weight that it needs to qualify for an argument or have any credibility.
bazza I have not seen too many of your sweeping statement backed with facts but I have see a lot of baseless opinions.
Personally I don't give a rats who you are, if you talk sense and can back your words with fact then they will carry some weight and credibility but sweeping statements an opinions carry no more weight than methane.
-
Once again, Bazza, the point goes over your head, or maybe you just deliberately ignore it—like all the other eBay lobbyists. You should take a look at the Seeking Alpha website when an eBay story is running, there are a couple of eBay lobbyists who appear there, one in particular, "eBay+++" (now that does say it all), that reminds me a lot of you.
-
Well Said Pod.....must have been reading my mind.. :applause: :applause: :applause:
Hi Phil.....How are you on Australia day...in fine form I see...lol...cheers.
:ozflag: :corkhat: :loveoz:
-
Happy Australia Day :)
Sweeping statements?
I'm still waiting to hear what it was that Philip found wrong with this bid history:
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBidderProfile&mode=1&item=390143190077
This is about as close as we've come to an answer from Philip: I’m not sure what’s going on.
Still worthy of highlighting? For what purpose?
-
Look Bazz......you seem to be the only one here on Australia day trying to pick a fight mate.....and quite frankly, Phil has provided examples, which you have swept aside with generalised statements...... (as if to frustrate, rather than elucidate) and even when other members take the time to review the 'example' given by phil and agree that it is obvious shill bidding (or something similarly devious).....you immediately go against the grain with no opposing factual argument...figure it out......lol...
I'll give phil a lot of credit for being upfront about his identity, sticking to his convictions and doing the hard yards.....you keep throwing spanners, and he keeps going to the trouble of explaining things, but you don't really want to know do you?....so why are you here ?....to make friends?.....to debate topics factually?....to hound phil in particular?.....to play the role of the 'victim'?......is it as obvious to you as is it to some of us?....just saying...lol...
btw.....
(http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp125/**cupie**/great_australia_day.gif)
-
Bazza,
Even eBay must have finally realised that there was something not in order.
this is the message that you get when you click that link
This listing () has been removed or is no longer available. Please make sure you entered the right item number.
If the listing was removed by eBay, consider it cancelled. Note: Listings that have ended more than 90 days ago will no longer appear on eBay.
-
Oohhh I havent been in here for ages, but so far, have comment that Riff isnt an ebay stooge mate!!!
-
ya reckon?.......not sure what side of the fence that's on but...what the hell...some will have their own interpretation....
:lmao:
-
Yes, Bazza, it’s disappeared already. You see, eBay always removes all evidence of untoward activity immediately after someone else reports it, and they are forced by circumstances to (not, actually) acknowledge that something untoward was going on.
So, you will have to tell us what you thought was NOT going on, that you presumed that we would have thought was going on ...
Oh, Bazza, don’t you ever get tired of trying to defend the indefensible; eBay really is quite unloved these days—and deservedly so; although I suppose employees have to simply accept that and keep slogging on regardless.
Edited
-
Even eBay must have finally realised that there was something not in order.
Yes, Bazza, it’s disappeared already. You see, eBay always removes all evidence of untoward activity immediately after someone else reports it, and they are forced by circumstances to (not, actually) acknowledge that something untoward was going on.
You see, this is exactly how some people get confused when presented with incorrect information. I understand that a lot of people here dislike ebay intensely. But why try to belittle anyone who has something good to say about ebay? It's not that hard to debate without insults. Why become offensive when someone questions your motive? Just because you say it's true, does not mean I am bound to believe you. And so I ask questions.
The listing in question has NOT been removed. Perhaps now Philip, you can tell us what's wrong with it?
390143190077
-
Ah Huh, Bazza has decided to do an audit on a single auction in my “beckertime” spreadsheet.
Bazza, have I anywhere said that there was anything wrong with this auction?
Your problem is that you do not read everything, or you don’t understand some of the words that you have read. Like your view of eBay, you apparently cannot see the forest for the trees. Try reading the “notes to the spreadsheet” and there you will find the qualifications for a seller’s inclusion in the spreadsheet.
Regardless, if you had any grasp of what I have said you would know that the basis of my comments depends on the analysis of multiple auctions for “patterns of bidding”. Patterns of bidding cannot be discerned from a single auction.
Could I suggest then that you sort the spreadsheet “Sellers x Auction” and then have a look at the other auctions by this seller and see if you can see any patterns of bidding emerging in that group of auctions. You can then sort “Bidders x Seller” to note how the regular bidders common to this seller only (suffixed “*”) never win an auction; you can then sort by “Sort Bidders” and wade though the bidders to see where those regular bidders that are also bidding elsewhere (suffixed “**”) are bidding; and then you may care to make a judgment as to whether these bidders are simply watch buyers with more than two arms, genuine collectors of Rolexes, shills of the seller or other own-auction-activity dilutors.
The spreadsheet is simply a list of facts; what you deduce from those facts is up to you.
Please Bazza, don’t nit pick through my criticisms of eBay; whether or not you are an employee of eBay, if you would like to obtain an appreciation of this (in my opinion) amoral, unethical, devious, totally unscrupulous organisation then I suggest you put aside an evening and read all my auctionbytes posts on same. But read them carefully, no skipping over bits.
As a matter of interest Bazza, see if you can spot what’s wrong with these two auctions:
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=320462996710
http://offer.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=330394338449
Ultimately, if you can see no problems with the eBay auction system, in particular with eBay’s most devious masking of bidding IDs, and you believe eBay to be an honest broker between buyers and sellers, then I wonder why you are commenting here at all; I would have thought that you would be much more comfortable in the arms of the “pinks” on that other forum.
Edited
-
Recently I received a compliment from a citizen of the “Land of the Free”. Part of his comments I found well put and worthy of passing on:
“In a rational world, one where premises and evidence lead scientifically to their logical conclusions, a large corporation would swiftly and efficaciously address the loopholes and swindles you have rightly criticised. Our North American world worships at the altar of unrestricted self-interest, a usually benign and often comical characteristic in individuals, but unchecked, it grows to grotesque proportions and policies in corporations. President Theodore Roosevelt apparently recognised this unpleasant aspect of our system and encouraged the first anti-trust and monopolies legislation. Sadly, the baby boomers’ legal landscape is where suitors seek a favorable verdict, justice and equity taking a very back seat, leading to corporations and bad neighbors soliciting their attorneys for what they can do rather than what they ought do; it is unsurprising that eBay keeps silent and obfuscates like it does.”