posted on October 17, 2001 08:47:12 AM new
deichen I have to agree with you. ED promised no listing fees as his site has grown he see the money making potental and is trying to cash in on it and keep his word at the same time JMO. First came Premire membership join the club for discounts not enof money so then he moved on imageing pay premire or you cant down load pictures saying he did this because the band with cost after that he allowed bigger images if band with was realy the reason for the image charge then dont it cost band with to have larger pictures "That made no since" Now he wants more money people have been able to stay away from fees by downloading their images some place else so this one should get some money out of them Charge for verification saying it is a great cost I dont now if it would cost his site or not all I know is ebay is the money hungrest site on the net and they verify without a charge I believe if there is a great charge to verify ebay would have passed that on to the users along time ago. I do not believe Bidville cares about deadbeats trolls ect but they are very interested in getting more money and this is just the begaining. But I said that when they started charging for images.
I am not against verification I do believe it will help bring down some deadbeats & trolls but I am against being lied to. Does any other site charge for verification or is this a first in the auction world?
posted on October 17, 2001 09:28:11 AM new
Stavecards ...
The system, as described above has too many ifs, ands, buts and/or ors to be easily workable.
Unless things have changed at BV during the past few months, there are only one or two "employees" there. From what I can recall, and based on what I am seeing posted throughout many Bidville threads here at AW, these "employees" are struggling to keep up with your questions concerning real issues on the venue. IMHO, this new set of conditions is going to create mass confusion throughout the membership, and He is going to be swamped with a whole bunch of new questions that He won't have time (desire?) to answer.
If He had a hard time respoding before ...
I also believe that this is simply just another way to grab money from the members. Now, you have to pay-to-play whether you are a "Premier Member" or not. I don't think a venue with a sell through rate in single digits can, with a good conscience, tell their members they want more money, especially when they cannot guarantee better sales with these new changes.
But, it should weed out many of the disruptors. This will be good for the 100 or so members left over who tend to buy from each other anyway.
Just out of curiosity, and slightly off topic, whatever happened to the trading (i.e. no cash involved) idea on Bidville? I would be a fan of that.
Thanks for the reply. If programmed properly, I wouldn't think the tracking of the verification status should be very difficult. I am assuming that the plans are to do that automatically, not manually.
As for the trading idea, have seen very few posts on this subject in the last 2-3 months. The ones I remember are just an occasional posts to the old threads. I really don't think there was a lot of support for the idea. There was one person mainly pushing the idea and I believe he moved on to another site (his promotion of that site probably caused the deletion of the other auction site area). Most of the replies were of the "me, too" nature. The idea is one that I personally do not wish to see implemented. I have seen a couple of good buy/sell message boards ruined by the bickering caused by bad trades.
To me, the verification fee probably shows that the site does not have the economic capacity to handle new major expenses. I still believe that Bidville has grown far beyond the initial expectations and that has caused costs to exceed the initial forecasts. I wish they would just bite the big bullet and start a FVF. It probably would cause a loss of many listings which may not be a bad thing. Then the site might have some orderly growth and possibly some income for real advertising.
posted on October 17, 2001 10:42:41 AM new
Stavecards, I do not believe Bidville has any intention of ever advertiseing "I could be wrong" ED said sometime ago that word of mouth was the best advertiseing and I believe he has no intention of putting any money the site brings in into advertiseing. I sometimes wonder if he is going to invest any of it in the site? Bidville can become a great auction site but if the cost of doing business on bidville keeps going up they better get some buyers in some how other wise ebay will be cheaper to sell in. I will stick it out and hope I am wrong "I am alot" because I like most of the people there and I like the site but I have lost alot of trust in Bidville management I sometimes wonder if they are in it for the long run or is they just took advantage of a BOOHOO mistake and are looking to cashin. Some poster here have no use for bidville what so ever so you have to take some of their opinions with a grain of salt, but some do care about Bidville and its future you just have to pickout the bad apples as my grandpa use to say. Have a nice buying/selling day.
posted on October 17, 2001 10:55:55 AM new
opals4u:
The problem with Driver's License verification is that it is a very expensive to do verifications on them (usually through equixfax, even ebay charges you $5.00 for id verification) There are 50 states (all changing things from time to time), not to mention international sellers.
Also, I would NOT be willing to give out even MORE information. A driver's license was NEVER meant for anything other than verifying your ability to drive an automobile. It is not really supposed to be an id, and should not be used for even writing a check. I always refuse to let stores see my driver's license and instead got a state issued ID card, and show that when asked. If they don't like it, then I tell them that my driver's license is not for identification purposes other than to a police officer. I have an official "ID" issued by the state.
They don't like it, but I don't care.
To the rest:
One advantage to BUYER verification via credit card. A few months back ebay didn't require a credit card for BIN (buy it now). I had tons of people closing my auctions on purpose, for fun, and some because they just were not very smart. Then ebay came along and required a credit card for BIN if bidders wanted to use it. Right after that 99% of the NPB and bogus bidders using BIN on me dissappeared. They weren't willing to give out LEGITIMATE info.
You know a lot of the adult pay sites, subscription services, etc. require a customer to use a credit card as means of verification, whether they charge the card or not. There have been a few mistakes, but in general it is a good means to weed out the bogus elements.
posted on October 17, 2001 11:12:50 AM newThanks for the reply. If programmed properly, I wouldn't think the tracking of the verification status should be very difficult
Remember this the the site and team of programmers that has had a coming soon notation next to the 'description search' radio button on it's search engine from almost Day One.
Aside from that there are a million valid questions and suggestions being asked by the site's sellers and buyers over there. If that is not a logistical nightmare that I don't know what is.
It will be very difficult to satisfy the site members on this matter. I truly hope the management succeeds in their endeavour as it is needed badly on their site.
posted on October 17, 2001 11:21:22 AM new
kerrigirl wrote:
A driver's license was NEVER meant for anything other than verifying your ability to drive an automobile. It is not really supposed to be an id, and should not be used for even writing a check.
((( Where do you live girl? I can not even use my Credit Card without showing my drivers licsnse as proof of identification! How is Credit Card a better means of identification, when you have to prove your identification by drivers license in order to use the Credit Card. Doesn't make much sense to me.)))
posted on October 17, 2001 11:48:34 AM new
As I read it the ONLY way a user will ever be sent to the verification area is by clicking post an auction. According to the site for people who registered today or after that has already begun. For people who registered before today it will be begin 11/6.
So I ask again how does this set-up do anything to rid the site of bogus bidders or community trolls? Without clicking post an auction they would never be asked to verify.
posted on October 17, 2001 11:54:07 AM new
Maybe they oughta spend a little less time trying the verify the sellers, and a little more time trying to verify the items being listed
posted on October 17, 2001 01:51:03 PM new
opals4u:
I am not saying that people DON'T ask for your driver's license, but the ORIGINAL concept of the driver's license was not for identification purpose. I know everybody asks for it, like they would be able to spot a bogus driver's license or something.
Also, I recommend you get a state issued ID. In truth, they should only ask for a photo ID or state issued ID for the purpose of identification, especially when using a credit card. Why give stores MORE information to collect on you?
My understanding is that BY LAW only a police officer or court can request your driver's license. Even a bank has to say "Photo ID" and list was is acceptable.
Just people accept it as normal, and let everyone get away with it.
There was some recent Identity Thefts in our area. Seems that they got nearly ALL the information from working as a STORE clerk. They had DL# (some had their SSN on the license though most states do not), credit card information, etc. It was one of those stores that also takes your address and name for the receipt (like Circuit City, etc.).
posted on October 17, 2001 02:29:31 PM new
Regarding the use of drivers licenses for verification, a few years back there was a very lengthy discussion on "how to verify" on S Z and it was amazing how many Sellers responded saying that they did not have a drivers license and many have never driven.
Also, I would like to again point out that while there has been a few complaints of bad Sellers on BV, the verification requests were thought to be a means of ridding the site of bad bidders and trouble-making trolls.
Whenever a poster would point out to the posters who were requesting this that verification by credit card or other means WOULD NOT prevent or stop this problem, the poster was immediately slammed and "noted" as a person who was against BV rather than one who was trying to help the site.
Thus, sellers with a great deal of experience who truly wanted the site to succeed have left the site; more will now follow. There IS a significant lack of business sense shown by the majority of the remaining posters.
Regarding "trades". I personally feel that BV will soon incorporate FVF's using the excuse that this will result in effective advertising. Allowing trading on the site would critically affect FVF's.
I sold on BV, if you want to call that selling! I would return in a minute if they would:
1) Rid the site of the monotomous relisting of items that are not selling. (Yahoo!'s chief complaint and rightly so.)
2) Bring in bidders.
3) Cancel the accounts of -3 and over i.d.'s.
4) Rid the site of the sellers who have deserted and left their listings.
There are more stipulations, but that should do for now. lol
posted on October 17, 2001 03:22:49 PM new
Janandpals wrote:
Regarding the use of drivers licenses for verification, a few years back there was a very lengthy discussion on "how to verify" on S Z and it was amazing how many Sellers responded saying that they did not have a drivers license and many have never driven.
((( If there was a poll done and done honestly, I sincerely beleive that there is just as high a percentage that do not have a Credit Card. If not higher.)))
I also think that there is a much lesser risk with a Drivers License. I have never had mine used in a scam, Yet anyway. Who would want to use it with my record. I am completely safe in that respect.
posted on October 17, 2001 11:28:35 PM new
Looks like there is already a glitch. I have never and no way would I ever give my CC to BV. I have never even considered the Premier program. I just noticed my id shows "verified" so I checked my old ones. I signed up with 1 for buying & 1 for selling in Jan. Added 1 for selling in April to split product lines. I only used it 2 months then decided to go back to listing only on my orig seller id. I got another in Sept just to test the alledged no freemails allowed. The Sept id has never been used & neither has the buyer id so they have 0 ratings. But all 4 are showing verified, LOL!
Clicking numerous random about me pages shows everyone else is "verified" too.
posted on October 18, 2001 05:16:27 AM new
This is sooooo stupid! Now, the 2 biggest proponents (sp) are saying they do not like this verification process. It is being done all wrong. Totally stupid and is not going to help bring down the bogus bidders. Good people are looking for another place to sell. Ed, rethink this, this was not the way to go about this, we should not be forced to become premier members, until we have sales.
posted on October 18, 2001 06:37:17 AM new
I recall seeing Capital One, The World's Sleaziest SPAM SnailMailer pop-up ads very frequently on Bidville. I even commented on that in one of their forums.
Do you think the recent requirement for CC verification *may* have something to do with this?
posted on October 18, 2001 09:47:47 AM new
Here's my opinion on this recent rethinking by the ringleaders about the new verification system. The most important need to be fixed was the scam artists that have flocked to BV in great numbers selling items then keeping the money without sending anything. The CEO correctly addressed that as his top priority by having all new sellers become verified. The ringleaders selfishly didn't care about about people getting scammed but instead thought only of the inconvience of their getting a few deadbeat bidders. A very ego-centric group of ringleaders IMHO.
Now it's back to the bully-pulpit to harrass the poor CEO into forcing their agenda and not the CEO's. These people will never be satisfied. I can't see why the CEO takes all this guff from a very vocal minority.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:52:05 AM new
Latest announcement from BV
"When you view a member`s "About Me" page, it will state whether or not they are Verified. Since the official verification process does not begin until Nov 6th for most members, the "About Me" page currently says "Verified" for everyone."
IMO this is absurd. A bidder who doesn't read the announcement board might actually trust the "verified" statement on a low or unrated scam sellers page for the next 3 weeks. By the time they figure out their item isn't coming the seller will be showing not verified. Why, why, why would the site give this false sense of security instead of properly adding "verified" AFTER a user actually gets verified?
posted on October 18, 2001 10:55:10 AM new
I'm wondering if these sites offering verification aren't opening themselves up for liability.
While ebay offers verification, they also offer buyer insurance on all purchases over $25 (with a $25 deductible) up to a certain amount. Which, I would think would reduce their liability to a degree.
posted on October 18, 2001 11:06:37 AM new
It's amazing to read these messages from "smart" people. LOL
People here seem to think this change is a one step deal. They look at it in a vacuum. That's the WRONG way to look at it. This is just one change in a series of changes, yet Bidville can not and SHOULD NOT change everything at once.
In the future maybe buyers will be forced to become verified. I don't know. But it makes more SENSE to first verify Sellers before buyers so that buyers feel safe to buy. This attract more buyers and thus more sellers. THIS IS ESXACTLY HOW EBAY DID IT to a large extent.
What wheenie would first verify buyers? That doesn't make sense given Bidville's situation. Bidville NEEDS more bidders, not less. So what if I get bogus bidders... as long as I get more buyers? That's the point! It also doesn't make sense to verify buyers and sellers now... for the same reason as above.
The sad thing here is that people here THINK they know what they are talking about... yet many of you probably don't even have a college degree never minding an MBA. Yet you guys act like you have a Harvard MBA! Maybe there's a reason why many of you are stuck selling trading cards or such as a primary business while others are making millions as investment bankers or doctors.
posted on October 18, 2001 11:28:38 AM new
Very good post Dare. The CEO knows what he's doing and the ringleaders know how to tune a 56 Chevy. ( maybe )
The desire to verify bidders is a good desire but if it costs them $10-$15 a year to do so because BV is cash poor then the site has no chance to get new bidders. Do any of the alternative sites charge bidders to get verified? 'WHO' in the world would suggest such a stupid move.
posted on October 18, 2001 11:59:20 AM new
Yes, it does appear that the vocal minority is not happy with the latest verification change. (RB – not sure on the members of the gang of 6, but I am slowly figuring it out – have more than 6 on my list so I must eliminate names) Personally I would have started verification for all members, but I agree that it is more important to have the seller’s verified rather than the pure buyers. In an auction transaction, the buyer is taking a much greater risk than the seller. I think it is weak and selfish argument to claim that it is more important to verify buyers so you don’t get a few backlash bids and some disruption on the message boards. I have been selling there since January and am a regular poster on the boards. In that time, I have only had one NPB that I think was a result of my posting on the boards and I’m not positive about that one. To me, conducting yourself unprofessionally results in the backlash bids and feedback, not the policies of the site.
My general opinion on verification is that it is needed on any site, but will not solve all problems with bad sellers and bad buyers. There is not any system that cannot be scammed if you try hard enough. What you are trying to do with verification is trying to reduce the number of bad apples by making it more difficult to gain access. To think it will eliminate all problems is unrealistic.
To me, sites use CC verification because it is the most automated method. To use the other proposed methods require some sort of manual processing which is less efficient and usually requires additional employees. While there is some risk to putting your CC information on the net, it is just about impossible to operate in the internet environment without eventually having to use your credit card.
posted on October 18, 2001 12:02:17 PM newBidville NEEDS more bidders, not less. So what if I get bogus bidders... as long as I get more buyers? That's the point! It also doesn't make sense to verify buyers and sellers now... for the same reason as above.
posted on October 18, 2001 12:03:21 PM new
Bidsbids,
Definitely have to agree with you that it would be a very stupid move to charge buyers to be verified. Don't know of any sites that require a fee for buyers, but I think it would be the kiss of death for a small site if they did charge buyers.
posted on October 18, 2001 12:09:09 PM newWhat wheenie would first verify buyers
To repeat, Bidville really needs to verify listed items before they worry about verifying buyers or sellers. If they can eliminate the "non-item" listings, the bootlegs and the listings that were abandoned months ago, a big part of the problem with go with it.
yet many of you probably don't even have a college degree never minding an MBA
I got my education from living. Besides, who needs a college degree or an MBA to run an auction site? Heck, these highly educated folks have a hard time pumping gas!
Maybe there's a reason why many of you are stuck selling trading cards or such as a primary business while others are making millions as investment bankers or doctors
Seems to me that the guy who started this trading card site told us he was a, ahem, "doctor". Go figure eh ... you need to be a doctor to run a trading card warehouse
RB – not sure on the members of the gang of 6
Well, it has been months since I felt the need to get abused by whoever the group is now ... there could very well be more
[ edited by RB on Oct 18, 2001 12:12 PM ]
[ edited by RB on Oct 18, 2001 12:14 PM ]
Your point about needing to “verify” the listings is valid. It may have been missed, but one change was implemented to reduce the number of automatic relists. The number of auto relists was reduced from 99 to 10. I just checked and this change has already been implemented. Now I don’t know if they reduced current listings auto relists to 10, but I will try to find out. I hope it was done because I agree that the abandoned listings are causing some of the problems.
As far as the bootlegs, it is not good for any site to have illegal items. I’m not sure if it is a matter of “caring”. My opinion is that it may be the lack of resources to investigate and monitor the illegal items. I would not be in favor of a site just deleting a listing without investigation by the site. While I know you are sincere in your motives when you reported these listings, there are others who might report valid listings as illegal just to antagonize and disrupt. Bootlegs, like illegal drugs, are always going to be a problem because there are people willing to buy them and don’t care that they are illegal.
Concerning the “non-auction” listings, I have seen an occasional post on this but I really don’t think it is a widespread problem. I think “someone” saw a post from a couple of grandmas talking about their listings showing off their grandchildren and assumed this was a widespread problem. Now there could be a problem with “spam” listings with links to websites because I know this was a problem on Yahoo before the listing fees.
posted on October 18, 2001 02:48:38 PM new
Hi stavecards ...
While I know you are sincere in your motives when you reported these listings, there are others who might report valid listings as illegal just to antagonize and disrupt
You are correct, however everytime I report a bootleg video, I always include the name and contact info for the Copyright Owner. All the venue has to do is pick up the telephone and make a call. If they don't want to do that, they don't care. If, like BV, they don't even want to acknowledge that the problem exists on their venue, they *really* don't care. It's like saying to their buying members "too bad if you get screwed 'cause we're just a venue ha ha ha".
Bootlegs, like illegal drugs, are always going to be a problem because there are people willing to buy them and don’t care that they are illegal
But you cannot simply take the "oh well, there's nothing I can do about it" attitude or the problem will never go away. That would be like saying "we'll never have a fire, so why worry about it", or, "anthrax? No way!"
Like I have stated, *all venues* with the exception of Bidville are at least willing to talk about a solution.
Or at least they all were until Yahoo started charging fees Can you imagine the kinds of stuff BV will allow if fees are involved?
