posted on October 28, 2000 04:25:16 PM new
edited because pointy did. I guess it wasn't the answer she was looking for. also off topic for this thread.
Ain't Life Grand...
[ edited by twelvepole on Oct 28, 2000 05:07 PM ]
posted on October 28, 2000 04:28:38 PM new
Glenda, thanks for the correct wordage
And, yes I know the term 'bottomfeeder' is not a compliment.
I just received one of those outbid notices not 2 hours ago on a cd I had bid on. The auction ended while I was doing my own listings so c'est la vie. I'm a big girl, I can do my own search for another one. But if I were to get an email from another seller who had that same cd and were willing to sell it to me, I would forward that email right to SafeHarbor, as I have a couple of times before when I've been emailed by spammers/bottomfeeders, because it is AGAINST EBAY POLICY. Period. End of story. And I would avoid that seller's listings in the future because if they're willing to break one little policy with nary a thought, how do I know what other policies they have decided in their own minds to blow off and re-write for themselves? If you want to break policy, knock yourself out, but don't try to justify it as an ok thing to do because it is not.
posted on October 28, 2000 04:41:38 PM new
TP...In all respect, it doesn't seem like you'd be a big loss for Ebay or the legit sellers on Ebay. As you relish doing business with the bottomfeeders, they'd be the only ones losing.
..You MIGHT be on to something here though. Please explain why people would have to change their nicknames.
posted on October 28, 2000 04:46:28 PM newToke, it's my habit to read the documentation over at eBay. And, when the live support board was online, I spent many hours a day learning - there was a point when I could quote Louise, Bridget, and Colleen almost word for word.
If knowing the policies makes me a "flack," then I guess I am.
I'm participating in this thread more than I usually do because I've been burnt both as a buyer (the two items I bought "off eBay" didn't exactly match the item I'd been outbid on) and as a seller (I would have sold an item to an underbidder when the high bidder weasled out, but he'd already bought from a bottomfeeder).
posted on October 28, 2000 04:54:39 PM newGlenda...
When you speak from eBay's point of view, to their constant advantage...continuously, that makes you a flack. You've been doing this for quite some time. Spare me the non-involvement bit. Sorry...your bed...you made it. This is no surprise to those of us who have been here a while.
posted on October 28, 2000 05:03:15 PM new
Well pointy, I think that my spending on ebay would be missed, but that's ok...other sites to visit too. Of course I will always be at ebay, already have a nick...
As to your edit, I will ignore the rest of your question.
Ain't Life Grand...
posted on October 28, 2000 05:07:21 PM new
Is anyone else wondering why, if having hidden email is so important to everyone, that everyone isn't already using the private auction option? It seems strange to me that the option to hide email has been available for years but it sure doesn't look like anyone is "overloading" it's use.
This looks more to me like the agenda of a few being held up as the "right" way, by those who know what's best for all of us. And those of us who don't want to hide ourselves, just don't understand. Yeah right.
posted on October 28, 2000 05:29:15 PM new
Glenda:
I'm participating in this thread more than I usually do because I've been burnt both as a buyer (the two items I bought "off eBay" didn't exactly match the item I'd been outbid on) and as a seller (I would have sold an item to an underbidder when the high bidder weasled out, but he'd already bought from a bottomfeeder).
This statement makes it sound as though the only reason you are against bottom-feeding is because you tried it and it didn't work out to your satisfaction. Would you care to clarify?
posted on October 28, 2000 05:54:13 PM newabingdoncomputers: I'm not sure I would put it that way. In addition to knowing it's against the policies, my personal experience in buying from a couple of bottomfeeders demonstrated to me first-hand the pitfalls of participating in it. And, when it happened to me as the original seller, I was frankly annoyed that I had to go to the bother (and minor expense) of doing the auction over again.
toke: Perhaps you're under the misapprehension that I have a problem ["your bed, lie in it"] with people thinking I know the policies of eBay, etc. - I don't.
posted on October 28, 2000 06:23:48 PM newSafety tip: now that you're no longer the high bidder, you may be contacted by the seller or another person to sell you a similar item without going through eBay. Because this is against eBay rules and we cannot track such transactions, you would not be eligible for eBay's services that protect buyers, such as insurance or mediation."
Maybe this has been covered before, but my understanding is that if the winning bidder defaults, the seller has ebay's blessings to offer the item to the next highest bidder. Does the above paragraph not apply in this instance and ebay's guarantee would protect the second highest bidder? Or is the seller not allowed to offer the item to the next highest bidder?
posted on October 28, 2000 06:27:04 PM newlondon4 it is my understanding that the next highest bidder would not be protected either, partly because how many sellers sell to the next high bidder, but still claim FVF's for the non-payer?
posted on October 28, 2000 06:36:29 PM new
london4,
Excellent question. I can't say for sure. My guess is that eBay will change any existing policy that conflicts with it's newest effort to control ALL sales and expand the definition of the word "spam" into a new universe.
posted on October 28, 2000 07:04:24 PM new
Well, I have a question.
We are all looking at this from the view of a seller contacting a buyer to make an "off-E-Bay" sale. What about the other way; the buyer contacts the seller to make a deal?
For example, I recently went looking for an item; nothing rare or unusual. Several auctions were up but I noticed one seller had plenty of closed and new auctions for this item. Rather than wait the days for an auction to close and possibly not get it and have to do it all over again, I e-mailed the seller who ran lots of these auctions and asked if they would sell me one immediately. And let me be clear, NOT the item currently up for auction; I meant another copy of that item. They had more and sold me one.
My question is, is this "bad?" Judging by the reasons we call bottom feeding bad, it is. First, as an "off E-Bay" sale, E-Bay did not realize any fees from this transaction. Second, sellers with existing auctions for the same item did not get a bid from me that may have won the auction or, at least, raised the price of the item.
Now, I do not condone bottom-feeding, nor have I done it; either as a perpetrator or agreeing to buy from one after being spammed. But, a lot of the reasons given on why it is bad can also apply to other situations that aren't condemned. Or, are they?
Was it wrong of me to contact a seller and asked if they had more of an item and then buy it?
posted on October 28, 2000 07:25:05 PM new
Okay then what would it be if an underbidder emailed the seller to ask the seller if they had another or other items of the same caliber and if you do can I purchase them. Would you turn them down and say I am going to list them on ebay? Or sell to them? I think that ebay might prohibit any selling other than their auctions because the buyer is not protected if the item is a fake.
posted on October 28, 2000 07:33:44 PM new
<<because it is AGAINST EBAY POLICY>> Uh, maybe I'm missing something here - who gives a crap that it's against eBay policy? What are you, the eBay police? I hope they pay you handsomely to enforce their policies?
I welcome the bottom feeders, and don't consider it to be Spam at all. FYI, I do resent Spammers sending me unsolicited email with eBay in the subject line, and then trying to sell me crap I have no interest in whatsoever, such as Metabolife, "free" vacations in Florida (I already live in Florida) etc. And I report all those scumbags to www.Spamcop.com
But if you have an item you know I want to buy, please, feel free to send me an email. Don't worry, if I don't want it I won't report you to safe harbor, I have more than enough REAL Spam to deal with!!
posted on October 28, 2000 07:40:16 PM newOf course it's spam! It doesn't matter who sent what and what circumstances surrounded the email, ANY unsolicited commercial email is spam. Period
This is a quote from an earlier post. Therefore, according to this seller, any buyer who would contact a seller or sellers asking if the seller had any more items to sell outside of the auction forum is spamming the sellers.
posted on October 28, 2000 07:51:47 PM new
A buyer contacting a seller is not spam because they're not trying to sell anything.
who gives a crap that it's against eBay policy? My, what a lovely thought.
Are you really willing to have ALL of your auctions under administrative cancellation and sit your time out in suspension with that big ol' NARU hanging over your head? That's what can happen if you contact another seller's bidder, trying to sell them something, whether the auction is closed or not. That buyer did not contact you. Therefore, for you to contact them, it is UNSOLICITED. And unsolicited commercial email is spam.
Spam is against eBay policy.
Are we the eBay police? Yes. There are many many many of us who are more than happy to forward an unsolicited email from a seller to SafeHarbor, who can and have suspended seller's, causing them to lose a great deal more money than they stand to make with that one little bottomfeeding deal. I've done it....I pass spams right onto SafeHarbor. And I know others who have as well. Do you want to roll the dice and hope that whoever you spam also doesn't give a crap if it's against eBay policy?
posted on October 28, 2000 08:04:24 PM new
IMO, emailing other seller's bidders during an auction and offering "better deals" is wrong and should be against eBay rules. Period.
I don't think it should be against the rules for a buyer and seller to make other buys or sales during an actual auction transaction with each other. I do think eBay is entitled to FVF for duplicate items sold as a result of the eBay listing. eBay could make it easy to voluntarily pay those fees and allow feedback. eBay could disclaim responsibility for the transaction to let them off the legal hook and people could be responsible for their own insurance and dispute resolution.
However, unfortunately it's much easier for eBay to simply apply the word SPAM to ANY communication that isn't single item, individual auction transaction related. Treating things as black or white is always easier than trying to deal with the grey that really exists.
posted on October 28, 2000 08:14:07 PM new
This is from the American Heritage Online Dictionary:
SPAM
SYLLABICATION: spam
PRONUNCIATION: spam
NOUN : Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.
TRANSITIVE VERB : Inflected forms: spammed, spam·ming, spams
1. To send unsolicited e-mail to. 2. To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups.
posted on October 28, 2000 08:22:35 PM new
Two individuals engaged in a ligitimate eBay transaction, offering to buy and/or sell "other" items to/or from each other, shouldn't be considered an offense. Call it whatever you like. I call it doing business and if eBay wants a part of it, they need to make it easy for me to report the sale and pay the fees.
[ edited by RM on Oct 28, 2000 08:36 PM ]
posted on October 28, 2000 08:26:20 PM new2. To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups.
Using this definition then, a buyer who contacts a seller asking if the seller has any more items to sell is spamming the seller. This definition says nothing about you must have something to sell in order for the message to be considered spam.
Although it depends on your definition of "indiscriminate"; a seller who contacts a buyer is very discriminating. The seller is contacting a particular individual who has bid on a particular item. Can't get much more discriminating than this.
posted on October 28, 2000 08:38:14 PM newOffering the underbidder of another's auction a similar item at a reduced price is capitalism, while offering a similar item to an underbidder in your auction is sleazy. WHY? Because you would then be charging the losing bidder LESS than the winning bidder. How fair is that?
posted on October 28, 2000 09:30:32 PM new
To set the record straight, I have never taken part in either side of a bottom feeding transaction. I don't sell on eBay that often anyway, and to me getting kicked off eBay just isn't worth it, I'd rather just list the item, pay my fees and take my chances.
My husband does (bottom feed) and I have warned him he may get NARU'd one day but he thinks it's worth it. (He has his own eBay ID). You never know who you are emailing, they just might be one of those eBay cops I was talking about. But if I received an email from someone offering to sell me something I wanted, why should I consider this to be Spam? Spam is "sent indiscriminately" according to the definition. I hardly call bottom feeding sending indiscriminate Spam. After all, sellers who do this are quite discriminating about who they email. It's not random!
(I think this thread is very interesting, especially reading everyone's opinions. I apologize for addressing the individual rather than the subject earlier, I just got carried away!)
posted on October 28, 2000 10:06:49 PM newBut if I received an email from someone offering to sell me something I wanted, why should I consider this to be Spam?
Because eBay does.
