posted on December 29, 2000 11:10:31 AMTwinsoft - If seller A emailed seller B's bidders then yes we agree that would be spam, fee avoidance and generally unethical practice. That's already against ebay policy.
But to email your own underbidder is just good business. By bidding on your item they have shown an interest in that item. If you can sell them the another copy of the same item why not? Show me one other business that tells it's follow-up customers to come back another time.
Dc9 - We disagree. If we bid on it that means we wanted it. The price we bid is what we were willing to pay. If the seller can sell us the exact same thing at the price we want then we're happy for the offer. Even if we decide not to buy it we're glad to receive the offer for that item.
HartCottageQuilts - We hear you on that but again it just isn't good business sense. All business want to make things easier for buyer, not more complicated (no matter how small or minor the change may seem). With our main e-commerce site we often receive emails from customers wanting to buy some item. Some people even look us up and call us (we don't have an 800# and really aren't setup for phone orders). At first we directed them to the order form. But very few followed through. We lost the sale. So we just decided to tell them the total price, payment options and where to send the payment. Even offered to call them at our expense to take their CC info. It's not the way we'd prefer to close the sales, but we are closing many more sales than we otherwise might have.
Ebay can make all the rules they want to their little heart's content. But do they really think a seller is going to turn in a bidder who contacts them about another item? And we doubt very many bidders will turn in a seller for a friendly pleasent offer to buy an additional item at their bid price.
The bottom line: ABC - Always Be Closing.
In the above we're speaking about non-reserve auctions.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/artsnflies/
[ edited by artsnflies on Dec 29, 2000 11:13 AM ]
posted on December 29, 2000 11:14:02 AM
Twinsoft, I was not talking about a button for "dutch auction" type scenarios. We in our Voices group suggested a mechanism that would allow AN unsuccessful item to be purchased in some fashion even AFTER the eBay auction was closed, if both buyer and seller agreed to a price. Kind of like "Buy it Now," except "Buy it After." It would enable the item to close through the system. Since I deal in unique and collectible items, I am simply not that familiar with the practices of mass marketers and I agree that the bulk of the problem comes from people who sell duplicates on the side, leaving eBay out of the loop. And -- such an after-auction mechanism -- would still be used only by those of us with ethics and a conscience.
But you are absolutely right when you talk about the dishonest people being the ones to create the problem of spam and Fee avoidance that then affects us all. I just wish that if eBay really felt it necessary to implement its system changes regarding e-mail, it could have done so with the idea of counteracting the Spam Bots WITHOUT encouraging vigilantism at the same time. I truly believe the way these "policy clarifications" were worded and trotted out were not done in a way that demonstrated good faith. The wording serves only to alienate many of their LOYAL, LONG-TERM sellers.
posted on December 29, 2000 11:17:45 AMAnd we doubt very many bidders will turn in a seller for a friendly pleasent offer to buy an additional item at their bid price.
posted on December 29, 2000 11:27:29 AM
I don't get it. You are all apologizing for Ebay. They have these policies to make more money. Not to facilitate trading, but to make more money. I don't begrudge them that right, but let's be honest. You didn't see any of this stuff when the 30-somethings were multimillionaires and the stock was at $150, did you? They are trying to make money, and the sellers are trying to make money. Why is the first right and the second wrong? Where does morality of any kind enter into a discussion that involves Ebay making ADDITIONAL profit?
posted on December 29, 2000 11:29:45 AMLisa_B, I certainly agree that such a utility might be useful. I doubt eBay would implement it though. Seems more logical that bidders should bid during the auction. The real problem is that many bidders scan the closed auctions, and send sellers emails offering the buy the item at half the listed price. They are intentionally circumventing eBay's system, so offering them a utility wouldn't accomplish the goal.
And I do agree that eBay announced these changes with their usual lack of clarity and tact.
posted on December 29, 2000 11:32:11 AM
An idea - ebay can make money by giving a "Certified Ebay Regulations" degree.
Twinsoft - We're not a lawyer or an ebay regs guru. But can't recall seeing where it's against the old rules to email underbidders on a non-reserve auction.
You might just as well argue that robbing a bank is a good way to make money.
That makes no sense.
Show me a business that sells its products five for the price of one.
We must have missed something here. It's not ebay's products, it's our products. Someone bid (offered) to pay X for the item. You have additional same items. You offer it to them for X. Ebay may not like it but that's just good business.
To take it one step further at the end of a successful auction ebay has been paid to bring the buyers and sellers together. Their fee is per auction, not per customer or per bid. If they have a flawed revenue model change it. But it's doubt full too many sellers would appreciate a fee-per-bid-received system.
And last time we looked in the mailbox ebay wasn't sending us checks for policing their site. Always remember who is supposed to be serving whom.
We could probably go back and forth on this all weekend but I'm sure we both have better things to do on New Years. Suffice to say what ebay wants and what's good business practice for sellers are two seperate and incompatable things. Ebay will PO many sellers with these new rules. They may have a spurt of more income in the short run but it will hurt them in the longer run as sellers flee to other sites or setup their own e-commerce sites.
posted on December 29, 2000 11:36:22 AM
Twinsoft, certainly my opinions are affected (clouded? smiles) by the type of merchandise I sell and the category in which I sell -- vintage jewelry. My particular category is SO glutted with listings it is nigh impossible for a shopper or collector to browse effectively. Sometimes all I have time for is occasionally looking at the "Ending Today" items which do include closed items. I have been able to purchase several closed items by inquiring, and I'm not trying to get one over on the seller on eBay. The other problem is that many buyers in my category are DEALERS, which means they may be Watching umpty-ump items and of course, genuinely forget to bid on some.
Most of my buyers are repeats, so it behooves me to try to close a deal if they've bid on something they really really want! Otherwise it goes on my website.
eBay's reserve fees do not lend themselves to repeated gambles relisting perfectly good items that just don't get the audience they deserve.
posted on December 29, 2000 12:00:20 PMLisa_B, I'm not suggesting that every contact is harmful to buyers or sellers. And I am not arguing that eBay should get every last penny in your pocket or mine.
The problem is that many buyers and especially sellers, put themselves in a position of judging the rules. If they don't LIKE a particular rule, they ignore it. And I guess we can all figure out that a seller who selectively obeys the rules will approve of those rules that favor him, and ignore those rules that don't.
The end result is that the sellers who abide by eBay's rules are getting screwed by the "wolves" who don't consider themselves subject to eBay policy. Unfortunately, that type of seller doesn't even comprehend the real issues.
One typical example is the seller who claims thay pay eBay fees to "advertise" their product/company. Wrong. eBay is for selling a single item through a single auction. Not listing one item and selling five. Hell, a fourth-grader can see that's cheating. eBay is not in business to facilitate your web site, or to allow you to sell an unlimited number of items "under the table."
We all agree to eBay's rules when we buy or sell. And members who prefer to pick and choose which rules apply, and redefine eBay policy for themselves, shouldn't use the service. This policy is nothing new. eBay is simply tightening the noose on cheaters.
posted on December 29, 2000 12:16:14 PM
While eBay is not in the position to facilitate my website, that is exactly how it has worked out BECAUSE of Ebay's short-sighted and self-serving policies. Policies that were meant for the cheater, but mostly affect the honest everyday users.
Before reserve fees were implemented -- presumably to "take care" of the cheaters -- I sold EXCLUSIVELY on eBay. But faced with additional fees and an increasingly glutted category where my items may or may not sell due to factors BEYOND my control, I had to be flexible and cost-effective. So, I decided to put some of those "only a dollars" into building and maintaining a website, which ironically has attracted many of the true collectors who eschew eBay due to time constraints AND a decreasing lack of confidence in the sellers and quality of items they may be bidding on. Most of my eBay buyers are other dealers, so I have to be very circumspect in what I offer on eBay and how I spend my eBay fees. And yes, I'm anticipating the day when eBay outright bans (or charges outrageously for) auction links to websites.
The truth is, I have loved eBay from the beginning. I love buying AND selling, and I am now doing this full-time. I wouldn't be an vocal (strident?) participant in Voices 1 if I didn't truly care about eBay. But I also have to watch out for my bottom line. I don't engage in spamming, bottom feeding or any of the other nefarious practices, and I truly don't appreciate being "lumped" into that category by eBay or anybody on these boards.
I am for the most part, law-abiding. But when it comes to eBay, enough is enough. I will continue to interact with my customers and negotiate offline trades when it suits me to do so. I don't believe in rolling over and "just taking it" when a "government" attempts to dictate rules that are unacceptable and in my view, unfair.
posted on December 29, 2000 12:26:55 PMLisa_B, my point is that the playing field should be level for all sellers. And not with any group of sellers picking and choosing which rules they will abide and which they will ignore, and the rest paying their bills.
posted on December 29, 2000 12:32:44 PMartsnflies: "But can't recall seeing where it's against the old rules to email underbidders on a non-reserve auction."
This is an excerpt from an outbid email notice - this has been the text for ... oh, at least a year, maybe two:
Safety Tip: Now that you're no longer the high bidder, you may be contacted by the seller or another person to buy a similar or identical item outside of eBay. This type of transaction is against eBay rules and is not covered by services that protect buyers such as feedback, insurance, and dispute resolution. For your own protection, please do not participate.
posted on December 29, 2000 12:43:41 PMLisa_B, I used the term "you" above to indicate a general user, not you in particular. I'm sorry for the poor choice of words. I'm in no way criticizing you personally.
posted on December 29, 2000 12:59:42 PM
Twin..your equating ebay rules with laws, and they aren't.
I agree ebay has a right to a cut in transactions that occur BECAUSE of their venue. And it has nothing to do with cheating by those who do not obey the rules.
Ebay is a marketplace. Ebay deserves a commission on sales that occur because they brought the buyer and seller together. It is NOT cheating or unethical for me, as a seller, to offer to MY underbidders, duplicates that I may have of an item. It is GOOD business to try and sell to those who have shown an interest in my item (they showed that interest when they bid).
It is FOOLISH of ebay to make a rule that forbids this. Ebay needs to step back and really SEE what the marketplace they invented actually is. Then they need to work within the framework of the marketplace they created. If they were to institute something along the lines that Lisa mentioned ebay would win all around..and so would the sellers and buyers. Ebay would get the commission on most of the sales that occur off ebay now. The buyers would be able to buy more items and would have ebay "protection'. The sellers would be able to successfully close more auctions. Spam would be lessoned.
You are taking a position that to break ebay's rules is unethical...I'm taking a position that the rules ebay is making ignores the reality of the marketplace they created. The rules will hurt ebay more than they will help...I'm saying the rules themselves are unethical...and down right assinine.
And the question I asked about the mailing list was not rhetorical....You used an argument that stated it was unfair (unethical) to do anything that lowered the buyer pool for the other sellers. You specifically addressed a seller offering duplicates to HIS OWN underbidders. My underbidders also expressed an interest in my item..on their own, they chose to bid on my auction. I see no difference between that and you making a mailing list of people who have expressed an interest in your products.
The end result is the same...my underbidder is removed from the ebay bidding pool...your mailing list removes those customers from the ebay bidding pool...the putpose of that mailing list is so the customer will buy that widget from YOU and not from the other seller. THAT is UNFAIR to your commpetitors who are selling the same widget as the ones you are offering the mailing list customers. You are in effect trying to keep the customer to yourself and not sharing.
I agree ebay can make what ever rule they want, and I will obey the new rules (I never did see a rule before that forbade me offering duplicates to an underbidder...or negotiating a sale in a reserve not meant auction). But that doesn't mean the rule is a good one...it isn't! And the ones it will hurt the most is EBAY!
posted on December 29, 2000 01:19:51 PMAmy: "(I never did see a rule before that forbade me offering duplicates to an underbidder...or negotiating a sale in a reserve not meant auction)"
posted on December 29, 2000 01:23:54 PM
Glenda...I've seen that but was never able to find an actual rule that specifically stated this position. One could argue this or that rule was IMPLYING such a position, but there was no specific rule that actually stated such.
posted on December 29, 2000 01:32:10 PM"You are taking a position that to break ebay's rules is unethical. I'm saying the rules themselves are unethical."
The rules are the rules. What I'm saying is that sellers who ABIDE by the rules are being victimized by those who don't. This has nothing to do with my personal approval. Although I did say that once eBay clarifies this policy, they will be better for everyone.
The simplest analogy is fifty people waiting in line to buy concert tickets. Let's say for the sake of the argument that only fifty tickets are available. Then five people come in and "cut" to the beginning of the line. No doubt those five can justify their actions. After all, isn't the whole point to get the tickets? And so what if somebody else doesn't get theirs? What happens is that five people at the end of the line get screwed because they followed the "rules." But the alternative is simply a huge fistfight. Call them rules, laws, conventions, whatever.
First we need to establish that eBay absolutely does NOT allow sellers to offer duplicate items to underbidders. That is not a new rule.
Offering duplicates to underbidders is fee avoidance. It is also considered spam. eBay states that spam includes, "Sending unsolicited offers to bidders for the same or similar products that they have bid on in the past."
Once you start rewriting eBay's rules, then everything goes out the window.
"You used an argument that stated it was unfair (unethical) to do anything that lowered the buyer pool for the other sellers."
Oh, come on. I didn't say that at all. I said that sellers shouldn't be allowed to gain an advantage by using unfair business practices. A mailing list isn't an unfair advantage because all sellers are allowed under current policy to maintain mailing lists.
I wish to emphasize I'm not talking about the ethics of contacting underbidders. I'm talking about respecting the rules eBay establishes, whether or not I agree with them.
posted on December 29, 2000 01:46:08 PM
Well, gee. I don't know if I am breaking Ebays new rule or not! LOL
I paint one of a kind paintings..I have had many of my regular customers contact me privately and ask if I would paint either a scene they love or some other subject matter that I have not offered for auction, such as a dealy departed pet, etc....I am wondering if THIS is now against ebay's rules?
And..I'll be DARNED if I'll turn them in. I think Ebay deserves their commissions and fees for any and all business done through their auction "VENUE", but they have no right to try and dip into my other earnings.
Just my take on it...and I still think they have crossed the legal line of a "VENUE"!
posted on December 29, 2000 02:29:06 PM
Olga, I don't think that would be a problem since you are being contacted not only about merchandise not specifically listed on eBay, but about a SERVICE that you perform.
The problem is, eBay has attempted to address a problem with a one-size-fits-all set of rules and regulations, and it just doesn't work well.
posted on December 29, 2000 02:53:42 PM
Sorry Twin, I see the mailing list as being an unfair advantage also.
The argument I am putting forth is that the rule itself is counterproductive. It should be abolished. If it were, then your argument becomes worthless.
Your argument is based on a premise that the rule is correct...that such a rule is a natural extension of the ebay venue...it is the only way it could be. But this is an illogical conclusion....the rule is not an inevitable one.
If ebay were to have some type of system in order that would facilitate after auction transactions, then those who enter into such a transaction are not engaging in unfair business practices as everyone could do so..just as you argue there is no unequal footing with mailing lists because everyone can use them.
What you are missing in all this is the fact that the practices you consider unethical are normal buisness pracitces in the real world. What you (and ebay) are missing is that ebay is nothing more than the internet equilivant of the real world marketplace. The practices ebay is trying to prevent cannot be stopped.
Ebay has set up a marketplace. Part of a marketplace is the merchants attempting to take business away from the competitors, building up a customer base, up selling, etc. Just because ebay wants this to go away doesn't mean it will.
Ebay is trying to stop marketplace dynamics that are beyond it's control....ebay should be trying to make the dynamics of the market place work for it.
If ebay would work WITH the flow than trying to stem the flow, we would all benefit. and you wouldn't have to worry about other sellers having more of an advantage than you do.
posted on December 29, 2000 02:56:31 PM
LISA
Thanks..that is how I sorta look at it.
And, I do agree with you that this rule is too much of a "blanket" rule....I wish Ebay would go into specifics and perhaps even have a forum on this for some feedback from us.They have done this for other New Features (maybe they did do this, but if so, I missed it!)
I think their intentions were good, but they missed the boat with this one! LOL
Olga
posted on December 29, 2000 03:37:23 PM"The argument I am putting forth is that the rule itself is counterproductive. It should be abolished. If it were, then your argument becomes worthless."
Yes that's true.
"Your argument is based on a premise that the rule is correct."
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that either everyone follows the rules, or no one does.
"What you are missing in all this is the fact that the practices you consider unethical are normal buisness pracitces in the real world."
No, I'm not missing that. Although I would disagree with your statement.
Let's say I go into a drug store and give the owner a penny to purchase some penny candy. I then open the penny candy jar and take out five pieces of candy. The owner objects, to which I reply, "Hey, I gave you a penny so that I could access the candy jar. Now that the jar is open, I can take out as many pieces of candy as I want."
See the problem?
The compelling factor is that we all sign the user agreement, and that agreement should be honored. Not rewritten according to the whims of every individual seller.
posted on December 29, 2000 03:51:18 PM
If someone's looking for some potential metaphors on online vs. offline auction situation such as are being discussed in this thread....
First is on the seller emailing non-high bidders (underbidders).
You go to an auction house. The items are out in the open, say the sellers are all present, the bidders mill around and look and some decide to put in bids. On one seller's item, say there are two bidders. The high bidder buys the item in the usual way. The low bidder leaves an hour later, and on walking out of the auction house to the car, the seller approaches and says, "Hey, you still want to buy one of those? I saw you bid $100 on it." Some might think this is fine, others will find it unusual.
However, same auction house, say a different seller. High bidder gets the item, and along with it is a business card listing the seller's retail business address and/or phone number, bidder remains satisfied with the item s/he paid for and later decides to call on the retail location to see what is being sold there.
Although eBay's wording is still somewhat unclear in spots, it sounds like they're trying to limit the last (buyer contacting seller to inquire about other items not on auction, or that failed to attract bids).
Actually, eBay is a little more generous than an offline auction house in one way, in that eBay sellers can list their retail (Web) address, and even aside from that, their email addresses are accessible to anyone, bidding or not. That's as if every seller can go walking around the auction house giving their business card to anyone that even glances at one of their items.
Sellers are thus already getting more "advantage" (I hesitate using that word at this point in the thread, but I'm not implying "unfair" in the least, because all eBay sellers get it) over sellers at real auction houses, unless I'm forgetting or missing something.
Sellers also get further advantage in that they can see the addresses of underbidders, which at an auction house would be the equivalent of the seller being able to check the ID card of any bidder raising their hand for that seller's auction.
That's the part that would creep me out in real life, and strikes me as spam online.
I've never actually recommended that email access be restricted to the seller seeing the only the high bidder's address, because that would interfere with being able to offer the item to an underbidder if the high bidder backs down, even though I know this can also leave the door open for more spam. I don't even know what, if anything, an offline auction house does in that situation. Anyone?
What just occurred to me with that situation on eBay is that the underbidder might not have a way of telling the difference between a seller offering the actual auctioned item to the underbidder because the high bidder backed out, vs. the seller offering a different copy of the same item to the underbidder by falsely claiming the high bidder did not come through. The only way to recognize some false claims would be if the transaction gets a positive comment left by the high bidder, allowing the underbidder to realize the "my high bidder backed out" claim was false. Not all high bidders leave FB, however, and even when they do, it won't appear for weeks.
Not that online auction sites were ever touted as -- or could ever be -- identical to offline auction houses, so I'm probably still comparing apples and oranges, but I thought the comparisons were still interesting to think of in the context of this thread.
[ Slight clarification in fourth paragraph. ]
[ edited by dc9a320 on Dec 29, 2000 04:24 PM ]
[ Also edited to add: ]
None of the above is apologizing for eBay or agreeing with all their actions, because I don't. Primarily, I'm noting that there are already some additional advantages in online auctions, making borderline spam or abusive spam seem even more unnecessary. Buyers have more power than ever to find sellers of products they're interested in. That does not mean eBay should be trying to overreach and make claims over other people's items that it does not have. If the item is not currently for auction or already high-bid on, I think a potential buyer has perfect rights to ask about its existence/availability/cost.
I don't know, maybe my metaphors earlier in this post are more confusing than of value.
[ edited by dc9a320 on Dec 29, 2000 04:31 PM ]
[ edited by dc9a320 on Dec 29, 2000 04:36 PM ]
posted on December 29, 2000 04:22:47 PM
I don't happen to think a mailing list is an "unfair" advantage. It is, so far as I know as a non-seller, allowed by eBay, and does not strike me as the least bit unethetical -- so long as the seller leaves it up to others to explicitly ask to be added to it.
I haven't asked to be on an eBay seller's mailing list, but I end up respecting them more when I see them asking first (e.g. "If you wish to be on my mailing list, please make the request at __@__.__" ), because they are showing respect for my (or at least bidders' in general) wishes.
Of course, I'm not a seller, so maybe I've got the wrong perspective.
While a mailing list can be an advantage, it is not unfair, IMO. Sellers have the right, within the framework of a reasonable level/number of rules/limits, to distinguish themselves from others through things like (in no particular order): fast shipping, friendly emails, accurate postage, good packing, accurate item description, multiple payment options, attractive auction pages, thorough but readable descriptions and TOS, an occasional "extra," not forgetting FB for the buyer, packing well, and yes, even offering a mailing list choice.
Whether eBay is providing a "reasonable" framework is, of course, a whole other question that happens to be what most of the rest of this thread (and many others) is about, but mailing lists are a somewhat separate issue.
Personally, I agree they are reaching beyond what I (as a non-expert) would consider to be "just a venue," and although I agree with some of their recent defintions mentioned here, I'm not clear on what they're saying on others of those, and disagree on some.
They seem to be some odd hybrid of things right now, and I'd tend to agree that in apparently trying to control so many things, they might squeeze too hard. A bird in hand vs. two in the bush, I suppose. Or a dying bird in hand and a very scared one in the bushes, if they keep squeezing?
posted on December 29, 2000 04:59:22 PM
It's unfortunate that eBay has addressed several problems at once (related to fee avoidance and spam), with solutions that are poorly defined, and no hint as to how those solutions may be implemented. They are pointing a fuzzy finger in our general direction, so that nobody knows quite for sure who did what.
Also, eBay has conveniently avoided telling us what IS allowed, as that would of course cost them money.
I understand that before eBay takes any concrete action, they first need to define the problem (spam, sellers closing deals off eBay, etc.). I see this latest as a step towards defining (edited to add, I mean 'clarifying') the problems.
I am reading between the lines and think much was what was previously allowed (and that doesn't include selling to underbidders) will still be allowed. Bidders can still contact sellers after the auction closes, and sellers can still sell. After reading what eBay has said, and what they HAVEN'T said, it seems these new policies are only a tightening up and clarification of rules and policies already in place.
I've found that in running my business, an important goal (in addition to making profit) is cutting losses. I'm glad eBay is doing the same. I'd much rather eBay tightened the noose on spammers and reserve auction abusers, than to raise their basic listing fee.
Since there seems to be some confusion among sellers as to what exactly is allowed, hopefully eBay will continue to clarify their policies.
posted on December 29, 2000 04:59:43 PM
Yes, a squished little birdie is about what I feel like sometimes.
You ask,
"I've never actually recommended that email access be restricted to the seller seeing the only the high bidder's address, because that would interfere with being able to offer the item to an underbidder if the high bidder backs down, even though I know this can also leave the door open for more spam. I don't even know what, if anything, an offline auction house does in that situation. Anyone? "
At my local auction houses, the high bidder is financially beholden to the proprietors of the auction, not the consignors of the item. Many auction houses will consider the bids binding and the items sold AS-IS (with the understanding that bidders actually get to examine and handle the merchandise beforehand) although in some situations where a winning bidder reneges, I've seen the auction house immediately put the item back up for bid. At no additional cost to the consignor I might add.
posted on December 29, 2000 05:10:45 PM
I think I posted this elsewhere on AW and I certainly posted it on eBay Q&A the other evening.
eBay has no way to enforce the new policy other than to take complaints from users and act on those complaints. Which is really no different from what eBay can and will do now if it views the complaint as detrimental to its interests.
I expect that the only real effect this new policy will have is to make the sellers who would be considered in violation of the new policy more cautious in how they word things. Just as RedDeer suggested at the beginning of this thread. And if one is not cautious then one may get nailed by someone who really doesn't appreciate abuses of their contact information (just as it should be now but isn't because certain types of spam are in eBay's interest).
If eBay is serious about cutting off sellers from their losing bidders; stopping fee avoidance by sellers who use absurd reserves; stopping bottom feeding - then it will have to conceal the email addresses and userids of all but the winning bidder from everyone but the seller. And in a reserve not met auction it will have to conceal even the high bidder's info from the seller.
And it will have to conceal the seller's contact information from everyone but the winning bidder as well to prevent buyers from initiating the fee avoidance or off eBay transaction.
While eBay may be able to conceal the bidder info from everyone it is impossible to conceal the seller's contact info from anyone. What is eBay going to do? Expect folks to bid on listings when they don't even know who the seller is? Not be able to ask questions about the item? Not be able to check the seller's feedback rating and comments? Scan every listing to be sure the seller hasn't provided some form of contact info? Force everyone to change to userids so that one's email address is not also one's userid?
The more draconian eBay acts on matters like this, the more resistance it will encounter. Like any other business, eBay will push as far as it can and only stop when it perceives the resistance to be counter productive to its own interests.
[ edited by codasaurus on Dec 29, 2000 05:15 PM ]
posted on December 29, 2000 05:25:04 PM
Whew! I JUST made it back in here... will catch up on reading this thread and make comments tomorrow.
It seems that I had picked up a "bad cookie" and had to go in and delete all of the cookies I'd picked up from AW lately and then dump my internet files, clear the cache and shut down then reboot. (but it took me two days and the help of Auction Watch Support staff to figure it out)
Dottie
P.S. The current text for the "Helpful hint" provided in the Outbid Notices is less than a year old. I can check my notes for an exact time frame if it's important...
eBay HAS suggested in the past that contacting the highest underbidder in the event of NPB is appropriate. Even in the event of a reserve not met - since the RESERVE FEE was to help absorb potential revenue loss for these incidents. SOOooo eBay tells sellers ONE thing and then discourages bidders with DIFFERENT text.
