Bid Retractions and Revealing Maximum Bid

[*CountessA*]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/askjack/2009/dec/17/ebay-shill-bidding

My bidding life on eBay is being made a nightmare by a user who pushes me to my bidding maximum on items by placing a huge bid to reveal my maximum bid, then retracting their bid, and then placing a bid just less than my maximum. I have phoned eBay and tried to report this person, but it still carries on.
David Ashcroft

After I [Jack Schofield] complained on your behalf, eBay suspended the user's account. I pointed out that if bid retraction can only be used in "special circumstances", it's ridiculous to allow a user to make more than 500 retractions in six months. eBay says it will look into this issue. In the meantime, try to avoid dealing with users who have a record of bid retraction.

Sometimes we do need to retract a bid for genuine reasons. But it's always been a problematic issue, with some claiming that people can make a huge number of bid retractions (and get away with it) and others saying there must be an automatic software-based protocol in place to prevent too many bid retractions.

Well, here we have the case of one particular "serial retractor". This individual, according to the above article, made more than 500 retractions over a six-month period. This raised no signals to eBay, and in fact, when one particular person whose maximum bids were being revealed complained to eBay, ebay took no action.

Caveat: from the article it seems that Mr Ashcroft only tried to phone eBay, rather than using the CONTACT US form and selecting the appropriate reason.

Caveat of the caveat: The CONTACT US form is somewhat confusing. I'm looking at the UK CONTACT US form now, and I
   a) had to select the [See more topics] link.
   b) clicked onto "Bidding and Buying" to see whether the appropriate topic was there (it wasn't).
   c) clicked onto "Rules & Reporting Members" to see whether the appropriate topic was there (hmm... "Report a Member" seems the one to choose).
   d) then saw two not very noticeable links appear below the selection box, offering the two choices of How can I report a member who is breaking eBay rules? or A member is harassing me by email
   e) decided to try the How can I report a member who is breaking eBay rules? link.
   f) then saw some more information appear below the selection box, information that didn't seem to relate to the issue at all! If you see a listing you think may be breaking our rules, please let us know. and then We'll also investigate a member's activity if you think they're breaking our rules. Find out more about the behaviour that eBay investigates.
   g) am getting fed up with the tree-branch "try to find the right link and then find another link and then find another link" options. But okay, thinking it through, it's not a listing that I'd be reporting; it's someone else bidding and retracting. So perhaps the "Find out more about the behaviour that eBay investigates" link is the right one. But that looks like INFORMATION, not a way of REPORTING it, doesn't it? Oh, blast. Let's click on it anyway.
   h) see a new page filled with text. Lots of text. Too much text. But scrolling down, I finally see Buying Offences which include: Transaction interference; Offers to buy or sell outside eBay; Invalid bid retraction; Unpaid Items; Unwelcome bidding; Shill bidding
   i) wonder which would be most appropriate. The person doing the bid retracting is almost certainly shill-bidding as well (unless he's a "make other people pay their maximum" hobbyist), and it could be transaction interference as well. Decisions, decisions.
   j) decide upon the "Invalid bid retraction" option, and click that.
   k) see another page appear. Ah, some more information. But this seems finally to be the right page. It talks about revealing another person's maximum bid (not permitted), and there's a link (hallelujah! Is it the Holy Gail of links for this particular option?). I click onto the "report this to us" link.
   l) found it! I have found it! Lo, behold, here it is! The actual reporting page! . Okay, this still seems a little clumsy. You can only enter 10 item numbers at a time. There's nowhere to put the member's ID except in the second field which says "Enter your question/concern". To report all 500-odd examples of this serial bid retractor, I'd need to find, copy and paste all 500 item numbers, which means placing 50 reports. That's a lot of work for a member with a valid complaint.

Wouldn't it be easier if:

  1) eBay just had a simple page wherein all "need to contact eBay" issues were shown, and you simply select the particular reporting problem? and
  2) on the reporting page, all that was needed was the member's ID, since surely eBay must have access to the full list of bid retractions placed by that member?

Why make the poor buyer do all the work?

I'm not surprised most people don't report bid retractions. It's a minotaur's maze trying to negotiate your way around eBay's reporting system. Is it deliberate, or just an example of incompetence?

[*Brum6y*]

I'm not surprised most people don't report bid retractions. It's a minotaur's maze trying to negotiate your way around eBay's reporting system. Is it deliberate, or just an example of incompetence?

The real answer to that question will likely remain a mystery.

* From the IT design aspect it is an absolutely atrocious setup.

* From the IT maintenance/enhancement aspect, it has the feel of patching a patched patch - subsequently adding each afterthought after the previous one.  Messy.

* From operations and support resourcing, it makes sense in a devious and entirely selfish way .... Only those who are determined to make the report will persist until they find the place to do it.  

This last idea will do 2 things:
1. Deliver lower statistics on complaints and reports, allowing eBay to declare that a particular problem is only 'minor'  - and
2. Minimise the resources (and, hence, cost) of handling reports - including communication, investigation and taking action.


The only proof could, in reality, come from a whistleblower, internal communiques or possibly from programming source code.  The last two would most certainly be protected under law and I could expect whistleblowers to be so tied up with confidentiality clauses that to 'spill the beans' could result in dire consequences - especially if this behaviour is deliberate.

From the best part of 3 decades experience in systems development, eBay presents a very mixed standard.  Having responsibility to deliver functional and reliable software solutions - especially to the general public (as distinct from inhouse staff who can be trained) some of it is just plain negligent.

But this is only my opinion.

[gr8-expectations]

exactly and that is almost a "policy" when it come to IT all across the bay site, "bury what we dont want people to find where they cant find it" and plaster in bold what we do want (i.e. paypal), no accident or bad programing imo, deliberate

[gr8-expectations]

most people give up, its human nature and go for the easiest route or the option that is available and easy to find

[*smee*]

* From the IT design aspect it is an absolutely atrocious setup.


From the experiences I have with IT people is they deliberatley make any system as user unfriendly as possible ... rarely if ever do they use or want to use or understand the system for which they are writing the program to suit.... they have a wonderful knowlege in theory but in practise are about as much use as a one legged man in an arse kicking competition.... all they are interested in doing is bragging to their collegues that they have managed to complicate what should be a perfectly simple set up .... and everytime without fail no matter what system they are designing no matter what instructions the client has given them they always wish to make the accounting side of a businesses computor system the priority rather than the operational side ... I have had to point out on numerous occassions to IT people that without a functional operational side of the business we might as well not have an accounting side coz we wont need it without happy customers and happy operational staff ... in general these people are an absolute nuisance to society IMO ...and all they want to do is make themselves irreplaceable ....no doubt their are exceptions to the norm but I am yet to come across one   

[low-enghooi]

All good points.

But allow me to add, IT decisions (design, analysis, development, testing, roll out, maintenance, support, etc) are dictated by business decisions. So blame the business people, and that including the management. Unfortunately people only shoot the IT people when they face any software related problem. Not true. Think who pays the salary and you know who to blame.

From buyers perspective, I suggest the "victim" to retract his/her listing. Alternatively, use the sniper as suggested in the article. Plenty of them.

One thing you may not know, I have plenty of "fake" id, all with different name and countries. All these "fake" id are valid to ebay, and thus I can use it to do anything within ebay. So what is the point of asking ebay to suspend the account?

I did this to find out how ebay works, and no other bad intention. I can confirm the "fake" id I registered years ago still valid.

[low-enghooi]

From the experiences I have with IT people is they deliberatley make any system as user unfriendly as possible ...

Hi Smee,

I don't know if I will agree with you. I am a programmer and honestly, communication with user is one of the toughest aspect in this business. I will not say more other than if you are a programmer, you understand how a programmer think.

I also have worked with other programmer to get some work done, and I probably can appreciate your problem, but not everything is what you think.

To everyone else, if you think ebay engage only the amateur software developer, hahaha, I am sorry but ask how many is using sniper service? Do you think the person who write the sniper can do it without ebay helping them? The answer is NO, if it is not obvious to you.

Thanks.

[*smee*]

I don't know if I will agree with you. I am a programmer and honestly, communication with user is one of the toughest aspect in this business. I will not say more other than if you are a programmer, you understand how a programmer think.

Herein lies the problem Low .... the programmers need to think how the users will think ... it is after all the users that need the program to work to their needs not for the program to work how the programer thinks it should work ...... the most success I have had with IT people or programmers is the ones who actually sit down with the users and try to get their heads around what the important functions are for the users 

[*Brum6y*]

Smee - I would have to concede this is the case far more often than it should be.  I have seen more occasions of 'solutions' being handed down from ivory towers than I can stomach.

I got to where I did by being different.

When I was involved in system design, I actually went to the user to understand what they were trying to do.  When I had design questions - I asked them what would be the best resolution from the business perspective - and then found ways to make it work.  If there were choices or compromises, I would ask them before committing to a path.

My philosophy was simple and I often declared it to the end user with this: "My job is to help you do your job".  That help direct their thinking as well as mine.  It also garnered a better commitment from them to participate in the review and testing phases - vital for a good result.

My challenge was to do this whilst still keeping my management happy - which I must have done reasonably well, since I was called in to head up several new projects over the years.


I despise those that live in their ivory tower and only deign to hand out meagre offerings that they think are adequate.  I sometimes think they are challenged to handle what little they do engage in and are fearful of stepping out of their comfort zone. 

Silly thing is, if they were to get out and get their hands dirty, they could see how half a dozen really simple ideas can be implemented to make life so much easier for their users.


But yes, Smee, your experience is far too common.

[low-enghooi]

I understand Smee. Fully appreciate your problem.

the programmers need to think how the users will think

And you know what, this is the toughest thing. Most often than not, no two user share the same thinking and that is where the problem start. Who do you think the programmer should listen to? And when the programmer goes back to his/her office, and the boss instruct him/her do the other way? Who to blame now?

Trust me, this is what I face. Unfortunately, I didn't get my salary from my user. So I have to listen to whoever pay my salary.

[*Brum6y*]

Sorry Smee - was typing when the last two posts were made.

It should be clear that a lowly code-cutter is often not in a position to do anything more than is presented to him in a spec.

Criticism is not to them directly, but to the higher level - systems analysis, design and specification...

[*Brum6y*]

... and if you want to get the whole picture, you would have to take in management issues, resourcing conflicts, corporate politics and external factors too.

[*Brum6y*]

I interpret Smee's use of the word 'Programmer' as representing all those iinvolved in the SDLC....

... and not a slight against those particular employees who have the job title 'Programmer' on their pay slips.

[cueperkins]

Without getting involved in this particular debate (knowing less about bid retraction and how it is abused than others).....isn't this what Philip was arguing?...or was that different?

[*Brum6y*]

Different.

Philip was arguing on the basis of 'normal' looking bids pushing up prices.

Bid retraction is a blatant way of actually revealing someone else's maximum bid. Bid ridiculously high, retract and bid again - just under the revealed maximum.

It is a shill, however it is a one hit exercise and is as obvious as anything.

Phil was sussing out the subtler methods...

[cueperkins]

Brumby, I'm pretty sure he was talking about bid retractions also and the fact that it exposed the other person's highest bid...I could be wrong....I don't know much about this side of things, but it all seems fairly connected doesn't it?....i.e. shilling bids up..

[*CountessA*]

It's related to that, but it shows very convincingly that shill-bidding IS happening, rather than assuming it does on no basis other than that someone has a lot of activity with one seller.

Bid retractions on this scale - 500! - in this pattern (being consistently withdrawn when the maximum bid is revealed, and then another bid placed just under that maximum) are about as obvious as one could hope to see.

But I wouldn't assume that every bid retraction, every Second Chance Offer, every pattern of bidding wars, etc., are "more likely than not" to be shill-bidding. I don't think we can assume that. But when it's as obvious as this example, holy camembert... it's completely unacceptable!

Not only that, but it highlights that in fact eBay don't have anything in place to stop someone from retracting bids on a perfectly massive scale. Their statement that buyers can only retract in "special circumstances" is laid bare for the falsehood it is. It's too easy and non-accountable at present, so it seems, for a buyer to retract and retract and retract and retract and retract and retract and retract and retract and... etc.

I have felt for a long time (I may be wrong) that eBay's main (and perhaps only, for some things) method of ensuring compliance with its rules is a reliance on eBay members reporting problems. I don't believe there's any accurate, sophisticated and realistic non-member-report-based method in place for detecting shill-bidding; for detecting too many bid retractions; for detecting listings that contravene the rules for drop-shipping; etc.

[*Brum6y*]

Cupie - he could well have, but I wouldn't have placed much emphasis on that argument, since it is one that is so blatant there is no debate in my mind.

I have taken more notice of his assertions on aspects that are less obvious.

[*Brum6y*]

I have felt for a long time (I may be wrong) that eBay's main (and perhaps only, for some things) method of ensuring compliance with its rules is a reliance on eBay members reporting problems. I don't believe there's any accurate, sophisticated and realistic non-member-report-based method in place for detecting shill-bidding; for detecting too many bid retractions; for detecting listings that contravene the rules for drop-shipping; etc.

That makes quite a bit of sense, actually.

Why pro-actively step in and fund resources to take action which will reduce your revenue, when no-one has complained about it?

If they only deal with loud noises and can keep skipping around the law and the regulators, then it becomes a pretty obvious business decision.

Ethics is a separate subject.

[low-enghooi]

I don't believe there's any accurate, sophisticated and realistic non-member-report-based method in place for detecting shill-bidding; for detecting too many bid retractions; for detecting listings that contravene the rules for drop-shipping; etc.

From system perspective, this requires the most sophisticated Artificial Intelligence (AI) which unfortunately, the scientist is still researching.

From business perspective, let's wait for any court to ban ebay if they fail to come up with any practical solution to make people happy. They will probably work on something then. Business is about problem solving. So you have to make ebay think this actually is a real problem. So if a user reported a problem, it is a problem, legitimate or not, is another matter.

From buyers perspective, I don't mind using sniper on seller I have not dealt with before. And for known seller, I don't mind bypass ebay and paypal for a private sale.

[*Brum6y*]

Low - while there are a few things that will require sophistication, some of those things are dead simple - especially when eBay have full access to the databases.

Shill bidding patterns can be identified.  Just ask Phil for some ideas on that.  If not definitive, the suspicious activity can be presented to for human assessment.

Excessive bid retractions ..?  A one-line query.

Contravening rules for drop-shipping... getting hard - but analysis will probably show some trends and indicators that could raise probability.  Human review from a list of suspicious indicators would be a start...

[*CountessA*]

Low, have you looked at the code used in some of those eBay pages? It's so clunky - unbelievably bad programming. I don't know whether it's because eBay hire programming teams who don't have an incentive in creating something that works best from the user's point of view, or whether eBay said, "Make it clunky" - but for all intents and purposes, they might as well have done so.

I'm not sure I agree with what you say, though, about "Business [being] all about problem solving." I agree when it's business on a small scale, but by the time it gets to eBay's status (a giant monopoly whose brand makes competition very unlikely, and who can thus enforce ridiculous and unfair rules and requirements because there's really very little alternative to eBay), it's no longer about problem solving. eBay doesn't have to appeal to customers by making it easy or fair; its brand recognition does that instead. eBay can and does ignore massive complaint from users. It has already driven away many sellers, but as long as the shareholders can be given their dividends, there will be no incentive for eBay to look at problems. This is one of the difficulties...

We see the same thing in gas companies in Australia, and phone companies. When they're small or starting out, they offer wonderful incentives and great deals and tread lightly and carefully when complaints are made. They know it's important to build their recognition and their customer base, and maintain a good reputation. But by the time it's a huge corporation... try making a complaint and see how well they listen.

I can speak from second-hand experience with regard to a gas company. Someone I know went through sheer hell with a gas company, having to call the respective Ombudsman nine times. He was charged for a massive bill run up by someone who owned a property beforehand; his gas was cut off because he didn't pay that other person's bill; he was threatened, harassed, sent a multitude of letters... It was unbelievable. The Ombudsman would issue the decision, point out that this was NOT HIS BILL, and the company would back down. Then, five months later, wham! The very same problem! The same old bill presented! The same threats, the same letters, the same arrogance on the part of customer service...

And this is not unusual. I'm sure many people here have horror stories in dealing with gas companies and phone companies, to name only two.

[*Brum6y*]

As for waiting for a court decision against eBay before they will take action...

Well, all I can say is, IMO, that is exactly what eBay does.

All the little people with these problems cannot afford to take these matters to court and eBay ignores the 'background noise'.

It will take a major incident or a class action for eBay to do anything - and that's assuming eBay don't settle the matter outside of court.

An out-of-court settlement is by far the most attractive option as it allows eBay to set the rules... they won't want to be told by a court what to do!

[low-enghooi]

Hi all, before I proceed. I want to make it clear I am not pro-ebay. Sorry but I just like to argue. To me, this is the best way to learn.

Just ask Phil for some ideas on that.  If not definitive, the suspicious activity can be presented to for human assessment.

I asked and he said simply no way to tell who actually shill bidding. His algorithm is not convincing to me. Not going to ask further.

Now I will present this scenario for human assessment:

I see a coin standing at $20. I bid right up to $80. Outbid at $81. I increase to $85. Again outbid at $86. I bid again at $95. Again outbid at $96. Now there is a good chance the bidder may stop at $100. (You just have to take my word). If I am right (quite a few times I am right), and if I bid up to $100 and stop, I still lose the auction, but indirectly it means I have push up the value by another $5. Do you consider that shill bidding?

Trust me, for some selected coin types, more or less I can guess how much people bid and how they react to bidding war.

Excessive bid retractions ..?  A one-line query.

Now this is very interesting. Of course I know one line query. I play with SQL everyday for the last 10 years. So I like to think I know a bit of this thing.

Consider this case:

The buyer (or bidder) bid 500000 items over the 6 months period and retracted 500 times meaning 0.1%. Do you consider this excessive bid retractions. This thing is not going to work if you measure by quantity. But if you measure by quality, again back to square zero, human assessment.

Contravening rules for drop-shipping... getting hard - but analysis will probably show some trends and indicators that could raise probability.  Human review from a list of suspicious indicators would be a start...


Yes I know human assessment. But HOW?

*************

Low, have you looked at the code used in some of those eBay pages? It's so clunky - unbelievably bad programming.

Are you referring to the html code? If yes, nothing wrong with doing that. Still not ugly enough to stop people from reverse engineer. It will be very ugly if they encrypt the html code. The original source code should looks better. Anyway, ugly source code means more difficult maintenance. It is bad programming practice but not meaning it is bad programming.

I can speak from second-hand experience with regard to a gas company.

This very same problem happens in web hosting industry. When the company is small, everything works perfectly. When they build up the reputation and expanded their client base, people start to face problem. Not unusual for people to switch web hosting company every year.

*************

I am surprising. There must be a lot of talented programmer who are unhappy with ebay. I have not seen any of useful work based on ebay API to tackle this shill bidding problem. It will be a very popular work.

[*Brum6y*]

Hi all, before I proceed. I want to make it clear I am not pro-ebay. Sorry but I just like to argue. To me, this is the best way to learn.

That's refreshing ... some people like to argue for the hell of it!

Just ask Phil for some ideas on that.  If not definitive, the suspicious activity can be presented to for human assessment.

I asked and he said simply no way to tell who actually shill bidding. His algorithm is not convincing to me. Not going to ask further.

Now I will present this scenario for human assessment:

Low - an individual auction as you have presented is useless in determining if shill bidding is taking place.  The bids you have described could be shill or genuine.  Your appreciation of the item's value and 'educated guess' that a particular value is a likely ceiling is just knowledge about the market you are in.  To be expected for anyone with experience, but not particularly relevant in regards to shill bidding.

When I talk about 'human assessment' I am talking about a human view on trend analysis - the sort of thing Phil has been doing.  But instead of doing it in the dark, as Phil has had to do, I am talking about analysis over thousands of listings from the databases that eBay have.  If you were to put Phil's assertions into queries on a detailed database, the results could be very interesting.

BUT do not make the mistake of thinking you could just run a single report and all the shills would show up.  The reporting process would need to be iterative - a human assessment of the trends showing up, with alternative approaches and 'what if' questions.  Defining the best process to come up with a short list will come from learning off the very data you are investigating.

Even then, it is likely a human brain will need to take each suspicious example and review the details to determine whether shilling is taking place or not - and that would require someone with training and experience in shilling practices.

Excessive bid retractions ..?  A one-line query.

Now this is very interesting. Of course I know one line query. I play with SQL everyday for the last 10 years. So I like to think I know a bit of this thing.

Consider this case:

The buyer (or bidder) bid 500000 items over the 6 months period and retracted 500 times meaning 0.1%. Do you consider this excessive bid retractions. This thing is not going to work if you measure by quantity. But if you measure by quality, again back to square zero, human assessment.

I'd consider 500000 bids over 6 months cause for investigation on its own!

Considering the rarity of such a scenario, I'd be happy to put my query together pulling out more than 20 bid retractions over a period of 6 months - percentages aren't really a useful measure.  I'd then look at each case individually.  If I get a report that has someone with 500000 bids, then I'd look at that one with particular interest.

From a practical perspective, the first report I would run would identify the profile of bid retractions over the whole database.  From those figures, I would determine a cut-off level for a more detailed report (I used 20 in my above example).

Again - DON'T make the mistake of trying to get your report to give you the absolute answer so you can plug it into an automated NARU routine.  EBay do that sort of carp too much as it is!!

Contravening rules for drop-shipping... getting hard - but analysis will probably show some trends and indicators that could raise probability.  Human review from a list of suspicious indicators would be a start...


Yes I know human assessment. But HOW?

Do some systems analysis ...!

Sit down with the data, a list of reported drop shippers and have a look to see if there are indicators you can use to pluck out suspects.  Put together a query and see what comes up. Review the results and refine your queries.  Do this until you get something you can run to give a list of suspects that someone could realistically work through.

Again, once more, human review of the development process is essential.


So when you ask "HOW?", I will say "It depends on what you find in the data".

[*CountessA*]

Now that's an interesting approach, Low. I would actually approach the issue of bid retracting in a quantity-based fashion. Let's put a cap on the amount of times anyone can retract a bid - say, 20 per six months. That seems an acceptable number of times to make the same mistake ("oops, I entered the wrong amount") over and over again.

Perhaps retracting one's bid because the seller has significantly changed his listing (e.g., he changes the description to say "genuine Georgian style modern reproduction", instead of "absolutely genuine Georgian antique dating back to 1740") should be calculated separately. It would be easy enough to correlate change in description to a special type of bid retraction.

But to claim one is such a silly person that one goes on entering wrong amounts 500 times in 6 months is ... well, let's admit it, Low, that's bad! A person who really did make errors in entering bids 500 times per six months could be expected to make errors all the time in handling money (never employ such a person if he handles money; never give this person money because he'll never know how much he's given back), errors in figures (I hope this person isn't doing his own tax return), errors in calling people (his phone bill must be doubled, because he always rings a wrong number first), etc.

....

You talk about the way you bid. You're absolutely and perfectly entitled to bid in whatever fashion you like. Obviously you like putting in bids one at a time, rather than entering your maximum bid early (am I right?). Some people like bidding that way. I prefer bidding remotely by using a sniping service to avoid shill-bidders.

And no, that isn't shill-bidding!

Shill-bidding is when someone who is somehow related to the seller (as a friend, as a co-worker, as a family member "helping out", as the seller's second ID on eBay) bids on items in order to drive up the price and to create a sense of competition that does not really exist.

[low-enghooi]

That's refreshing ... some people like to argue for the hell of it!

Maybe not too bad if that lead to some interesting conclusion. I will keep my mouth shut after this post.

I am talking about a human view on trend analysis - the sort of thing Phil has been doing.  But instead of doing it in the dark, as Phil has had to do, I am talking about analysis over thousands of listings from the databases that eBay have.  If you were to put Phil's assertions into queries on a detailed database, the results could be very interesting.

Sorry I don't really know what is so interesting about the results you meant, unless you are talking analysis over thousands of listing by the same seller.

I'd consider 500000 bids over 6 months cause for investigation on its own!

What is wrong with 500000 bids over 6 months?

So when you ask "HOW?", I will say "It depends on what you find in the data".

Fair enough. I have not study the ebay API, so I am not sure what is available here.

***************

You talk about the way you bid. You're absolutely and perfectly entitled to bid in whatever fashion you like. Obviously you like putting in bids one at a time, rather than entering your maximum bid early (am I right?). Some people like bidding that way. I prefer bidding remotely by using a sniping service to avoid shill-bidders.

And no, that isn't shill-bidding!

Now this is interesting. What if I (as a joker here) "helping out" (just for the sake of fun) a seller I don't know to push up the price? Please don't think this is uncommon. Say for an expensive item that I know I may not afford, I can bid up to a safe amount, so that the final winner will not get it cheap. I may also bid to very high amount, and retract it. (Note that, many people have a lot of spare "fake" id. I know I have many of them. Fake name, odd countries.) If I consistently do this on a seller. Sooner or later people will start to question about shill bidding.

Why do I do this? OK. I am not doing this.

But a seller who want to kill his competitor may employ this trick. How about that? I am interested to know.

[*Brum6y*]

Maybe not too bad if that lead to some interesting conclusion. I will keep my mouth shut after this post.

Don't feel you have to do that.  I don't mind honest questions and, as you say, 'argument' as in debate and discussion, is a good way to learn.

.... unless you are talking analysis over thousands of listing by the same seller.

Yes, that IS the sort of thing I am talking about.

What is wrong with 500000 bids over 6 months?

OK - for a large seller, this isn't impossible - but I admit I was thinking of that number from a buyer.  When you are talking about bid retractions, I think about a buyer's activities.  To me, the percentage of retractions against bids is not as important as the fact there are multiple retractions. 500 against a single seller in 6 months does seem excessive..... but before we get any further into this discussion - we have to have the answer to one very basic question: "What is the average rate of bid retractions on eBay?"  Your proposed 0.1% could, in fact, be an extremely high number for a seller of that size.  Otherwise we are debating on quantitative issues without having any values for reference.

Fair enough. I have not study the ebay API, so I am not sure what is available here.

No, no, no .... I am not talking about what would be available through an API!!!

I am talking about full access to the eBay databases!!!

Remember, we are talking about what eBay could be doing to detect this behaviour - not what you or I could drag out through an API.

On THAT basis, there will be petabytes of data that even eBay won't fully appreciate.  Even with the table definitions and data mapping, you will not be able to assess the value of the information contained in that data until you start looking at it.

That is when you will start noticing trends, blips and curiosities.  You then refine your queries to highlight various observations you have made and build on what you have found to take the next step.

This sort of thing would suit the analytical process of an OLAP tool - except you would need an astronomical amount of computing power to drive it, considering the volume of data that eBay holds.  The only practical method in this day and age is based on human observation supported by ad-hoc reports (and even that is a big ask!).


You couldn't do this from specifications of the subject system - you need to look at the data that system has collected.

[*CountessA*]

What if I (as a joker here) "helping out" (just for the sake of fun) a seller I don't know to push up the price? Please don't think this is uncommon. Say for an expensive item that I know I may not afford, I can bid up to a safe amount, so that the final winner will not get it cheap. I may also bid to very high amount, and retract it. (Note that, many people have a lot of spare "fake" id. I know I have many of them. Fake name, odd countries.) If I consistently do this on a seller. Sooner or later people will start to question about shill bidding.

Why do I do this? OK. I am not doing this.

But a seller who want to kill his competitor may employ this trick. How about that? I am interested to know.

That is the very definition of shill-bidding. If someone is helping out a seller to push up the price so that the "final winner will not get it cheap", that's shill-bidding.

But then you suggest a seller may want to kill his competitor by employing this trick. Ouch, that's a nasty trick! But you're right; a seller might go this far, invest this amount of time and energy into rendering his competition suspicious, if his competitor is sufficiently serious competition - as long as... as long as the time and energy resulted in a success.

(Success in this case would be - competitor suspended.)

But it wouldn't.

eBay would investigate (if we can use the term "investigate" very loosely - such as checking the IPs of the suspected shill-bidder and the competitor), and find no cause for concluding that shill-bidding has occurred. eBay would send a soothing email to the seller who's done so much hard work in trying to knock out his opponent (along the lines of "Thank you for your report blah blah can't tell you the result blah blah blah). eBay would not contact the competitor at all, since the "investigation" resulted in a no-find, and all that the seller would have accomplished would be the following:

   a) His competitor would have realised high winning bids for quite a number of his items;
   b) There may be some concern by other bidders who analyse bidding trends that there is shill-bidding involved. (This may affect the willingness of some to bid, but on the other hand, it may not);

That's it. That's all that would happen.

[low-enghooi]

Thanks *Brum6y* and *Countessa* for your replies. I definitely have learned a lot from you.

such as checking the IPs

Such is nearly impossible. If the joker use proxy server, third party DNS server, it will be extremely hard to nail him/her down. Most of us use dynamic IP, so that is a great technical challenge.

Anyway, let's consider who will benefit from shill bidding?

My very limited experience tells me the very small seller on ebay, and usually they contribute to extremely small percentage of ebay P&L. Clearly they are limited in resources and technical knowledge or otherwise it will be a lot more difficult to identify the shill bidding pattern.

Another question I have is, do you really think sniper protect you from shill bidder? Hmm. My opinion is maybe yes and maybe no. Depending on the knowledge of that seller. Everyone can use sniper, including the seller. You just never know.

How do that big seller survive without shill bidding? Simple. They overgrade their stuff and use excessive marketing tactics to win the buyer. When people found out they are cheated and started to complain, no worry, they have troops of loyal followers to shut down every unhappy joker. Right or wrong, they win both the battle and war every time.

Sometimes I sympathize the small seller and will give my very limited support in every way within my limit.

But I don't know whether this apply to other category on ebay. I only look at coins and banknotes.

Thanks.

[*Brum6y*]

Anyway, let's consider who will benefit from shill bidding?

My very limited experience tells me the very small seller on ebay, and usually they contribute to extremely small percentage of ebay P&L. Clearly they are limited in resources and technical knowledge or otherwise it will be a lot more difficult to identify the shill bidding pattern.

EBay has, in fact, made changes that reduce our ability to examine bidding patterns - the most notable being hidden bidder ID's.  Identifying shill bidding patterns from our side of the eBay fence, especially with reduced vision, is not easy.  Our friend Phil Cohen has been doing just that - quite a concerted effort, too - and still has been unable to prove anything.  The trends and indicators he has picked up on would (as I said earlier) be interesting to follow up with full access to the eBay databases.  But we are dreaming.

It is quite clear, though, that the actual level of shill bidding is an unknown.

Another question I have is, do you really think sniper protect you from shill bidder? Hmm. My opinion is maybe yes and maybe no. Depending on the knowledge of that seller. Everyone can use sniper, including the seller. You just never know.

The advantage sniping gives a bidder is that there is no time for anyone else to respond.  This immediately excludes bid retraction games of any kind.  It also leaves the question of 'how many bidders will there be on this item?' very much up in the air, so a planned shill bidding exercise would be more difficult.  A seller could place a snipe bid too, but if he overshoots the mark, he won't have given other bidders a chance to increase their bids and he will win the item himself.

So while sniping won't give you complete protection against shill bidding, it makes the seller's efforts to shill more risky.

But the big reason you snipe is to avoid a bidding war.

How do that big seller survive without shill bidding? Simple. They overgrade their stuff and use excessive marketing tactics to win the buyer. When people found out they are cheated and started to complain, no worry, they have troops of loyal followers to shut down every unhappy joker. Right or wrong, they win both the battle and war every time.

We won't argue much here - except the 'troops of loyal followers' only need to be a bunch of buyers who accept whatever they are handed and don't say anything negative... and there are quite a few of them around.

[low-enghooi]

EBay has, in fact, made changes that reduce our ability to examine bidding patterns - the most notable being hidden bidder ID's.  Identifying shill bidding patterns from our side of the eBay fence, especially with reduced vision, is not easy.  Our friend Phil Cohen has been doing just that - quite a concerted effort, too - and still has been unable to prove anything.  The trends and indicators he has picked up on would (as I said earlier) be interesting to follow up with full access to the eBay databases.  But we are dreaming.

Regardless of every good reason you may have, I believe:

1. Hidden bidder ID is important to me. I don't want anyone (except the seller) know what I am bidding on.
2. Apart from ebay, nobody, including the government should have full access to ebay database. That is just ridiculous.

Thanks.

[*Brum6y*]

1. Hidden bidder ID is important to me. I don't want anyone (except the seller) know what I am bidding on.

Quite understandable and I will not argue against that in any way

2. Apart from ebay,

YES! This is THE central point of this argument... See below ***

nobody, including the government should have full access to ebay database. That is just ridiculous.

Low - I would never suggest that.  I never will.  Decades in IT within the Finance Industry will command that.

IF you want to translate this discussion into the real world with real laws, then you must take the points I was making in the context of a hypothetical situation - one where, say, you and I WERE in a position to examine the data, legally and ethically ... such as being contracted by eBay for building such reporting for their review and action.

I thought I made that clear when included the statement "But we are dreaming." since that isn't likely to happen.


***
But the whole reason for entering into such a discussion as this is...

 1. EBAY DO have the data
 2. EBAY DO have the authority to examine it
 3. There ARE things that can be done to highlight suspicious activity - even if definitive reporting is not feasible.
 4. EBAY do have a responsibility to ensure transactions carried out on THEIR website are done in accordance with their rules
 5. EBAY has no EXCUSE for not doing so - but their REASONS appear flimsy at best and are not backed up by any hard data.
 6. It is the contention here that EBAY has a duty of care that they are NOT carrying out
 7. It is the contention here that EBAY should be doing something about it.

It is not for you and I to expect access to any private information - unless it is in a legitimate way.

So, what do you think of this idea, Low...
You and I team up and make a submission to eBay for us to be contracted to perform an analysis of bidding patterns and produce reports to aid them in the enforcement of compliance with site rules...?

(OK lurkers, stop laughing so hard!)

The only trouble with that is - we wouldn't be able to say anything about what we found - would we!!


Besides, I could think of a dozen better ways to commit professional suicide.

[*Yibida*]

(OK lurkers, stop laughing so hard!)------ Dratt's !!..how did ya know ?... I'm sure ebay would comply with the suggestion seeing their so honest..LOLOL

[*smee*]

eBay wouldnt have the slightest clue what you were asking them , their staff that we are able to contact  have a combined IQ of about 7 when they are at their absolute best ..as for live help , I think its compulsary to be severely retarded before you can work there either that or they are very very good at pretending that they cant comprehend the english language or any question about anything to do with eBay asked in any language or format , thats what I have experienced with them any way

[*Brum6y*]

(OK lurkers, stop laughing so hard!)------ Dratt's !!..how did ya know ?...

Easy - I read through my post before putting it up.... I just had to add that line.

[Roo]

Now...this is a true story...it happened on Ebay....and it throws another dimension into the whole shebang.

Two buyers...regular forum posters...start discussing a book they both wish to buy...very topical subject at the time....

The thread has a few laughs...and the posters both have a mini bidding war on a volume of this book.

Enters a big Power seller...who thinks they are making fun of her.

She contacts people she 'knows' at Ebay...and the two posters are suspended for Shill bidding!

Never mind the fact that neither actually won the book...and that one even bought the same book from another seller as BIN straight after that auction.

Ebay deemed those two as shillers...and when they appealed...they were actually told that they didn't actually shill....but there was no other reason they could be rubbed out under!

So...it seems that Power Sellers have the ear of Ebay...and can manipulate them as they like.

My thinking is...if one PS can rub two people out....then what would stop that same PS from getting Ebay to turn a blind eye to REAL shilling?

[*Brum6y*]

Typical.

...and I mean that.  Same thing happens in the corporate world.

The political pressures sway decisions that should be made solely on principle.

These pressures were obviously driven from bean-counter input ... you did say BIG Powerseller.

[Roo]

Big Power seller?

A definate legend in her own mind..lol

But yes...a spokesperson for the 'company' on many occasions...quite influential.

[*Brum6y*]

Eeek!

Eerie feeling I know this seller - by name at least.

.... and I'm one of the worst for picking up on these clues!

[Philip.Cohen]

On the matter of eBay aiding in any way the developers of sniping programs, this is simply nonsense. The developer of the sniping program that I use told me as much, that one should never admit to eBay that you are using a sniping program.

How the sniping “services” cope I cannot say because eBay could possibly identify them by the amount of interaction they have with eBay’s system and the potential mismatch of IP addresses. eBay can never know that I am using a sniping program because my program only collects the “watch” information by parsing the View Item page that I have opened, and it then makes any snipe as though I am making it.

Why would eBay object to sniping? Because it potentially depresses the sale price by removing the opportunity for unscrupulous sellers to shill bid. Why else do you think eBay introduced anonymous bidder masking other than to obscure the more sophisticated shill bidding that cannot be detected from the Bis History Details page, and potentially increase sale prices and as a consequence their FVF.

Please don’t anyone again tell me that they believe that nonsense about it being for the security of buyers—just the very opposite is the case!

With respect to AI shill bidding analysis, Trevathan & Reid from Queensland University have approached eBay twice and been ignored twice. eBay is not interested in doing anything that may effectively stop the sale price from being as high as possible, regardless of the means employed …

The fact is eBay will not do anything about anything if it is not in their financial interests to do so, always assuming they had the staff to take the complaint and then actually do something in the first place. A most unscrupulous organisation, eBay that is.

[low-enghooi]

On the matter of eBay aiding in any way the developers of sniping programs, this is simply nonsense. The developer of the sniping program that I use told me as much, that one should never admit to eBay that you are using a sniping program.

The software developer uses ebay API. Ebay API has to come from ebay and no one else. By the way, every single API call is a load to the server. Ebay actually limit the number of API call a software can make. They have different tier of licensing, so is like you pay more, you can make more API call. I don't know how many API call is involved when you place a snipe.

There is a also desktop version of sniper which running from your computer (and not someone else server). Doing this way is like you sitting in front of your computer doing the last second bidding. No IP mismatch this way. I can't think of any creative excuses ebay can use to penalize people who bid this way. Yes, I will tell ebay I am using sniper. So what?

There will never be a sniper without the API. For this reason, I say ebay helps people to develop sniper. If they don't like sniper, they can always take away that specific API that place bid on the server. They didn't. I see this as they endorse sniping.

Still nonsense?

I don't care whatever good/bad reason ebay introduce hidden bidder id. I am happy with this. I don't want people to know what I am bidding on and I am not interested in knowing what people bidding on.

I admit I have no working knowledge about the business/management aspect of ebay. So I take your words re AI, financial interest, etc.

A most unscrupulous organisation, eBay that is.

So they are worst than Microsoft? Oracle? Google?

[*Brum6y*]

I'd put them in the lead for that race.

[Philip.Cohen]

Unless I am totally confused, my sniping program makes no use of eBay's API; eBay's API is for those who require more information than can be gleamed by parsing eBay pages (eg, third party providers such as Goofbay); as I previously said, my sniper simply parses the View Item page that is currently open on my computer and it then makes its bids as though I am making them via the View Item page; there is no way eBay can know that I am using a sniping program (except for the fact that my bids habitually go in eight seconds before the end).

But if you think that eBay likes sniping programs, I am afraid you are dreaming, and I refer to my reasons for that opinion expressed previously.

Total anonymity of bidding might be acceptable if one could trust eBay to be an honest broker between buyer and seller; unfortunately they cannot be so trusted; they are only interested in maximising/protecting their revenue stream and will go to any unscrupulous extreme to do so. Masked bidding aliases are simply one of the many reasons that eBay is presently dying, or have you not noticed?

[low-enghooi]

Unless I am totally confused, my sniping program makes no use of eBay's API; eBay's API is for those who require more information than can be gleamed by parsing eBay pages (eg, third party providers such as Goofbay); as I previously said, my sniper simply parses the View Item page that is currently open on my computer and it then makes its bids as though I am making them via the View Item page; there is no way eBay can know that I am using a sniping program (except for the fact that my bids habitually go in eight seconds before the end).

OK. I am very convinced you are totally confused here. Ebay said they want to ban the sniper earlier this year. It does seem they have very short success in doing that. No more after that very short period. Whether ebay like it or hate it, third party web based sniper still function today. As long as I still can use them, who care if ebay hate it.

Total anonymity of bidding might be acceptable if one could trust eBay to be an honest broker between buyer and seller

I trust my seller. I trust my own judgement. I am pretty convinced I am not an idiot by any definition. Therefore I like the anonymity.

Never mind.

eBay is presently dying, or have you not noticed?

I don't own a share in ebay. Why do I care? I will start worry only when I am too rich that money can't buy what I want if ebay disappear one day.