eBay to hide all User IDs in ALL auctions

PhilipCohen

Yes, I know this is an old thread but it is still very very topical!

"RFW",
indeed anyone, please take the time to read my "rant" on this matter at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6498345#6498345
and then come back and tell me that you still believe that anything eBay does has anything to do with protecting consumers!

"iieee",
if you don't like old threads being resurrected, don't read them.

soolin

I htink we gave up reading the rant after the first few times you posted it thank you.

Most sellers have much more important things to worry about with the changes.

PhilipCohen

"soolin",

You seem to be suggesting that sellers can get along without buyers: that is an interesting concept. I, on the other hand, would have thought that what adversely affects buyers will have an adverse affect on sellers and ultimately on eBay: eBay apparently aren't smart enough to recognise that simple fact.

Unless buyers are indeed of no importance to you then I think that you have not got more important things to worry about than eBay's disingenuous policies, such as SMI, that will undoubtedly destroy buyers' confidence in the auction platform.

RFW

PhilipCohen wrote: »

Yes, I know this is an old thread but it is still very very topical!

"RFW",
indeed anyone, please take the time to read my "rant" on this matter at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6498345#6498345
and then come back and tell me that you still believe that anything eBay does has anything to do with protecting consumers!

"iieee",
if you don't like old threads being resurrected, don't read them.

Your rants seem to be stuck on one track and don't address any other issues. I have pointed out that the anonymous ids were introduced to protect consumers, I could (but won't) give details of Ebay users who were scammed by bogus second chance offers. Its all very well having a cause but at least take into consideration other points of view. You haven't even addressed the point that shill bidding is not illegal in the UK and that most auction houses incorporate shill bidding into their conditions of sale (see how many have "the auctioneer reserves the right to bid on behalf of the vendor"), I can't speak for the other countries mentioned but can't see how it can be illegal, as it is so difficult to prove (more so than on Ebay where it is still quite transaparent!).

PhilipCohen

RFW,
 
First of all "the auctioneer reserves the right to bid on behalf of the vendor" is not "shill" bidding (do look up the definition of “shill” in the dictionary). The auctioneer in your stated situation publicly declares that he is making a bid on behalf of the seller and other genuine bidders are therefore made aware that it is the seller’s bid and not that of another genuine bidder. Shill bidding is the "undeclared" bidding by a seller or his accomplice for the purpose of deceiving genuine bidders and I doubt very much that such “shill” bidding is legal in the UK or in any other western democratic country.
 
You apparently take eBay’s statements at face value; very dangerous. Notwithstanding what eBay states is the reason for introducing anonymous IDs—it has nothing to do with second chance offers—the only entities to benefit from such anonymity are shill bidders and eBay; certainly genuine bidders are not benefitted: they are only deceived (read my linked rant, slowly).
 
Or the matter of being “stuck on one track” I can only suspect that you have not in fact actually read my previously-linked rant (on auctionbytes.com) as that post includes other links to other comments by me on various other eBay matters, including the new feedback system, eBay’s naïve attempt to impose “exclusive dealing” for PayPal in Australia, etc.

 
I invite you, once again, to read my comment at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6498345#6498345
and when you have read it, or if you have already read it, I would be pleased to have you point out any errors of fact or logic that you can find therein.

RFW

PhilipCohen wrote: »

RFW,
 
First of all "the auctioneer reserves the right to bid on behalf of the vendor" is not "shill" bidding (do look up the definition of “shill” in the dictionary). The auctioneer in your stated situation publicly declares that he is making a bid on behalf of the seller and other genuine bidders are therefore made aware that it is the seller’s bid and not that of another genuine bidder.

No they don't, they tell you that they may do it, they never say when they are doing it, which is exactly shill bidding.

As for your other point (which again never took into account my point about bogus s.c.os being sent), the simple fact is, if you don't like the system, don't use it, then Ebay won't be earning the extra money.

PhilipCohen

RFW,

Shill Bidding:
Of course, the fact that eBay’s user conditions supposedly prohibits shill bidding does not per se make shill bidding “illegal”. What does make it illegal in the UK is the UK Fraud Act 2006.

If the Fraud Act is too legalistic, could I suggest that you read the following stories:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540882/Seller-barred-from-eBay-after-claims-of-fake-bids-to-boost-price.html
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/includes/common/print.asp?id=6381

I am not saying that at attended auctions, sellers and unethical auctioneers don’t shill bid (I understand that at times flies on the wall have been known to make bids); nevertheless that does not alter the fact that shill bidding is a fraud and is prescribed by statute to be illegal in most civilized countries.

Securing Members IDs (SMI) / Second Chance Offers (SCO):
I did take SCOs into account (read my rant again, more slowly). SMI has nothing to do with protecting buyers from fraudulent second chance offers; it is all about making shill bidding “disappear” so that eBay does not have to waste any of their valuable resources pretending to do anything about it: if shill bidding is not detectable then it “does not exist”, and if you think that eBay will, of their own volition, do anything about that which cannot be detected by buyers you are in a dream world.

And, due to the fact that the direct email addresses of eBay users are no longer generally accessible there is simply no need for such extreme anonymity at all: SMI’s only purpose is to deceive the buyer!

I don’t mean to be offensive but anyone who takes eBay’s pronouncements at face value is a naïve fool, and if you read my rant you will be supplied with a number of examples that expose the blatant disingenuousness of many of the statements made by eBay with regard to “SMI”

RFW

Do you know of an example of anyone on the UK (and if you like anywhere in the World) where an auction house has been convicted of 'fraud' for shill bidding? I'd be amazed if its ever happened, and that's from my experience in and around auction houses for 30 years plus.

You appear to believe what you want to fit in with your original beliefs, as I said in the last post, you have a simple course of action if you don't trust Ebay and its policies, DON'T USE IT!

Within the last couple of days on here shill bidding has been reported and detected from the changed system.

PhilipCohen

Not aware of any, but I am not in the auction business; although I did once buy some real estate at auction and the bidding stopped dead on the reserve (which was generally known) and I wondered at the time if I had been bidding against a fly on the wall. …

Obviously, such shill bidding is hard to prove: at an attended auction, even without the connivance of the auctioneer, a seller could have a friend place shill bid up to the reserve.

But, as long as the auctioneer publicly makes a bid on behalf of the seller that is not a shill bid because the intention is not to defraud; it is simply to say that the seller will not then sell for less than that amount, and the buyer is not deceived into thinking that there is another genuine bidder placing a higher value on the item. If an auctioneer does not disclose an “auctioneer’s” bid as being that of the seller then, of course, that is a shill bid and the intention is to defraud; but who can prove it?

It is an entirely different matter for internet auctions: there are “black and white” records of bids that should be able to be traced back to individuals, so that shill bidding can more readily be investigated and proved. Of course, one has to have access to those records to be able to do anything about it, but eBay has by their actions made it clear that “joe public” has got no chance of getting any access to that information: no detection; no media coverage; no action; that is the simple fact of the matter.

In eBay's case the application of absolute anonymity now enables those unethical sellers to shill bid to their heart’s content with very little chance of being exposed; eBay are (unintentionally?) effectively, and now knowingly, “aiding and abetting” such shill bidders. This is reprehensible behavior, and being that it is a crime to “aid and abet” a criminal act, such facilitation should not be allowed to continue.

RonWooney

There was a blatent example of a shill bidder on this forum a few months ago.

The sellers last few auctions had the same bidder bidding on their items during the closing minutes. A lot of us reported the seller and nothing was done about it.

The seller must have had different ip numbers or something.

Ebay's claim that 'Shill bidding is prohibited on eBay.' is not worth the pixel space it is wirtten on, they couldn't give a crap about shill bidders and would rather everyone did it so that their profits would go even higher.