posted on November 21, 2000 08:16:14 PM new
Here is a very interesting story, on page three they talk about "fraudlent fraud" NetCops are doing more than just trying to save ebay it looks like.
"(It may be indicative of the general state of affairs in online auctions that eBay claims it didn't take the warnings seriously because it often receives bogus tips about supposedly fraudulent behavior from sellers who are simply trying to get a rival seller into trouble. In other words, the site apparently faces not only ordinary fraud but fraudulent fraud."
posted on November 21, 2000 09:16:12 PM new
Bear with me, I'm new to AuctionWatch and it's message boards. Mind you, I do almost as much buying as selling, and certainly I won't have any impact on eBay as a whole.
Frankly, I ratted out one eBay seller who had unthinkingly posted his $1000 item at two different auction sites simultaneously. I turned him into Safe Harbour and they took action. Just from the way his auction read, I figured he was a crook, but his feedback was all good, and he was at 1000 plus (I want one of those red stars too!). Consequently, he lost his account at eBay. He showed up one week later, same item, same ad, but with added text, apologizing for the screwup. So, did I do anyone any good? Turns out he was a out-of-country seller whose command of English wasn't too good, so I can understand that this may have been a mistake of ignorance.
I can see the need for a "consumer advocacy groups" and if I were bidding in an auction poarws by a hustler, I'd appreciate being tipped off. BUT, shouldn't I, The Buyer, take the responsibilty of making that final bid, regardless if the price has been inflated by shilling? Shouldn't I be held responsible for not knowing enough about the item, and for having bid too much? Hustlers, shilling, whatever you want to call it, the words Caveat Emptor appear each time we go to bid. Shouldn't this be enough?
posted on November 21, 2000 09:28:00 PM new
lswanson, just curious -- why did you feel strongly enough about the double-posting to turn the seller in? I'm trying to understand why you considered this to be a threat, especially given the decent feedback the seller had. IOW, why did you first attribute a sinister motive, when there are so many innocuous, and legitimate, scenarios that would have explained the seller's actions?
This is a prime example of the dangers of letting amateurs police a site. (No insult intended, lswanson.)
Edited to add: I'm THRILLED to report that this week's auctions, all of which were listed with the Private Auction option, are doing well! They were uploaded Sunday and as of this evening I haven't received a single nasty email (in fact, no inquiries at all!). So far it looks like my bidders don't give a whit that they're bidding on a private auction, contrary to some of the advice offered around here. I'm watching very carefully and, if all goes well, I'm going to list exclusively this way until ebay fully implements their own protections. No more eDicks for me!! Wooo-hooo!
[ edited by fountainhouse on Nov 21, 2000 09:35 PM ]
posted on November 21, 2000 11:27:04 PM new
Fountainhouse,
My reasons were as follows:
1. The item was a high-end (over $1K) piece of audio equipment that I was interested in. The second website that the seller had listed at is an "audio only website". I had never encountered, or ever thought about, the same item being listed in two different auctions. It flatly hit me in the face that this was a scam. Ultimately, one "winnning" bidder would have to be notifed that he "really didn't win". It bothered me that that bidder could have been me. The used high-end audio crowd is somewhat close-knit and very protective of one another. I've been warned of possible problems on a couple of auctions that I was bidding on.
2. The item was in was here in the States, being held by a friend of the seller, who was in Asia (living, not vacationing). Payment was to be by money order, sent to Asia. Upon receipt, the seller would notify the friend, and the item would be shipped.
3. All this was all rather irregular, and the grammar in which it was worded just gave the whole auction a bad "feel". I had saved the HTML of the auction to file and notified both websites. I even told them that this could be an "honest" mistake.
BUT, his subsequent relisting had a winning bid. Apparently this fell through on the bidders end. Ultimately, the item was offered 3 times, and ultimately it fetched a great price. It was only during the last auction that the description was modified to include the seller's "oops, I goofed" remarks.
Frankly, I STILL don't know if it was an innocent mistake on his part. I've learned since then that some less than scrupulous sellers DO list at two sites, and then prematurely end the auction at the site that has the lower bid. At the time, it was transparently clear to me that it was frauduelent. It was only after his "oops" statement, that I could honestly see his side of it.
I really wasn't playing policeman. I just saw something highly irregular and reported it. Ultimately, eBay and the other site were left to investigate. I didn't spam his bidders.
But, I'm with you, internet auctions are NOT the place for amateur detectives. Even if I had pursued the auction and won it, I still think that should be my problem, no some watchdog group.
posted on November 22, 2000 09:04:17 AM new
Hello Buffalo,
So what are you saying by quoting that article?
That eBay doesn't take reports seriously because some are bogus is the fault of those folks who try their best to make accurate reports?
That if the so called "eBay detectives" would just stop reporting valid suspicions that the bogus reports would also go away?
If sellers are making bogus reports to harm their competitors' business then isn't that auction interference and shouldn't that be cause for eBay to suspend the sender of the bogus reports?
I continue to believe that eBay's "venue only" facade to deny all responsibility for policing their site is the primary cause for not only the bogus reports but also the valid reports of suspicious auctions.
Are you blaming the "eBay detectives" for the bogus reports and for eBay's denial of all responsibility? If so, I think you need to re-think the entire situation.
posted on November 22, 2000 09:26:51 AM new
"That if the so called "eBay detectives" would just stop reporting valid suspicions that the bogus reports would also go away?"
The fact is the bogus reports will never go completely away,but my point is NetCops are not just trying to save us from the bad guys they are the bad guys !
posted on November 22, 2000 09:37:46 AM new
Where is a moderator when you need one ! Buffalo poop huh ? sounds like a personal attack to me LOL [email protected]
posted on November 23, 2000 11:44:09 AM new
Hello Buffalo,
"my point is NetCops are not just trying to save us from the bad guys they are the bad guys !"
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
You seem to believe that one is not entitled to defend oneself on the Internet until directly affected or attacked by a troll, scammer, shiller, bid shielder, stalker, etc.
My opinion is that such a philosophy weakens everyone of honesty and integrity. Just as nature provides the flock, school or herd as a defensive tactic against predators, so must rational people join together in defense of each other.
That some "watchdogs" don't act in a civil manner and that some "watchdogs" are really predators masquerading as such in order to attack the defenders is no justification for labeling anyone you come across who cares for others as a "bad guy".
[ edited by codasaurus on Nov 23, 2000 11:55 AM ]
[ edited by Buffaloguy on Nov 21, 2000 08:17 PM ]
