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 (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!