posted on March 28, 2001 08:48:20 PM new
C.I.A., K.G.B., spies, Oh My! This sounds like the kind of stuff
that was used during the Senate hearing commie witch hunts
many years ago. Lets burn those dastardly sellers at the stake!
We don't need no stinkin' badge! Evidence, what's that?
Since I've got some great repeat buyers, I'd hate to think I'm being
flagged just for being a good businessman.
posted on March 28, 2001 08:50:06 PM new
esafe2bid,
According to the AuctionWatch Community Guidelines, as a company representative you may answer questions about your services in a strictly factual manner.
I certainly understand that you want to defend your product against criticism, but some of your posts come very close to the line. Please remember to respond to questions factually, without personal remarks.
Everyone,
The same courtesy due you is due esafe2bid. Please remember to discuss the topic, not the individual.
posted on March 28, 2001 08:58:15 PM new
OK, I'm confused. Let me see if I can get this correct. The program is suppose to detect Shill bidders or potential Shill bidding, or maybe just frequent customers. Sorry, I still don't get it. Why would I want something that is most likely not going to give me the answers I want? If I just want to check out a seller, then why not just check their feedback to begin with and forget this eSafe2Bid program?? To each his/her own, I guess. Not for me.
HUH??
posted on March 28, 2001 09:45:16 PM new
Ok folks! This was just to good to pass up. Happened upon this thread, so just had to download the software.
At least I didn't get a WARNING on mine, just an "Information Only" due to one of my best customers. Not to bad!
Then, I ran my best friend. Now that is a horse of different color! He had multiple warnings, including this choice one! (I have deleted all identifying info)
====================================================================
REMEMBER!! Warnings below could be the result of legitimate activities. Use this as a guide for further review if deemed necessary.
====================================================================
POSSIBLE SHILL WARNING:
Bidder ID mxxxxx(37) has bid on 6 of the 17 bxxxxx auctions that we checked.
mxxxxxx(37) has bid on 8 recent auctions by 3 different sellers, 6 of which were auctions by bxxxxx
This could simply mean that mxxxxxx(37) has a special interest in bxxxxx's merchandise.
====================================================================
POSSIBLE SHILL WARNING:
Bidder ID mxxxxxx(37) has bid on 19 of the 17 bxxxxxx auctions that we checked.
mxxxxxxx(37) has bid on 8 recent auctions by 3 different sellers, 6 of which were auctions by bxxxxxx
This could simply mean that mxxxxxxx(37) has a special interest in bxxxxxx's merchandise.
====================================================================
INFORMATION ONLY!
eSafe2Bid reviewed the following bidders for possible shill bidding. This is NOT a warning! Any resulting shill warnings would be listed above.
mxxxxxx (37) : 6 of 8 recent bids were bxxxxxx's auctions. Has bid on 3 different sellers.
mxxxxxxx (37) : 6 of 8 recent bids were bxxxxxx's auctions. Has bid on 3 different sellers.
Now I ask you! How in the heck do you bid on 19 out of 17 auctions??????
Now judging from the "slight" mathematical error above, there is evidently a bug in the system. In addition, this simple little program cannot possibly supply statistically accurate information. To do that you have to factor in winning bids (the bidder above won 5!), bidding times (shills don't snipe!), bid retractions (none is this case) and the statistical probability that a bidder is likely to make multiple bids within a given category or that the seller only sells in one category (which this seller does).
In the meantime, you are making very good sellers look bad. I know you have all the disclaimers, but a Newbie, looking at the above data, would probably run and that just isn't fair or responsible!
In theory, the idea of this program is probably good, and would be helpful if it were accurate, but it isn't, so you won't be getting my $9.95; however, here is my 2 cents worth. Send your programers back to school for a basic course in Statistics and then build an accurate program. The info needed to make this program accurate is retrievable, at least if you are licensed by eBay and I sure hope you are.
PS. I will be forwarding the above report to the seller and I imagine you will be hearing from him.
posted on March 28, 2001 10:29:51 PM new
Something interesting here I noted in esafe2bid's comments. I could be way off base here, but I find it peculiar enough to mention.
As a journalist, we learned in college how to "detect" when someone is writing about a subject but in reality are not, but misleading people into believing that they are. Confusing? Not really.
Example
(This is my interpretation and I could be wrong) The aformentioned person above made it look like he/she was referring to eBay. Even though I skimmed quickly over the text, I did not see anywhere where he/she actually refers to eBay themself.
He/she did mention Safeharbor, but the spelling was incorrect (Safeharbour). Was this done on purpose?
Ebay was only mentioned in this person's text in quotes from someone else.
This tactic is usually done by those individuals who need a legal foot to fall back on - "We never said that we had people kicked off of eBay." End quote...
posted on March 28, 2001 10:43:16 PM new
This is lots of fun... I get lots of repeat customers too! However, many of them emailing me wanting to purchase directly..
-Trey
***********************************
"If your mind can concieve it, and you believe it, then you probably can achieve it."
posted on March 28, 2001 10:43:31 PM new
I used to auction off a certain type of collectible on a certain night for a whole year. About 20 lots a week and close to 1,000 lots for the year.
90% of the lots went to about 5 repeat buyers. Week after week, they would bid. As I start the items fairly low, in some cases at $1, the items usually get multiple bids by this same group of buyers. I would think that this program would flag all of them as being shills
Anyway, disclaimers are not adequate when the software does not have any special technology to indicate it is superior in identifying shills. For example, if the software looks at a thousand sellers, there may be a certain number of sellers that deserves to be remove for shilling. But if the software identifies every seller as being a shill when only 1% may have shills, than it is irresponsible to publish this software with claims of success.
If the developer of this product truly believes it works, prove it. Take a test sample of about 1000 sellers and indicate how many the software identifies as shills. Than report back how many actually gets remove by safeharbor. Share with us the percentage of number of identified shills and those ebay actually removes.
Personally, I think this software is wide open for lawsuits. Disclaimers do not really help in such cases. One can put disclaimers on anything. Question is, what proof is there that this software really works. If none, than disclaimers would not protect the developer. The software is just slandering sellers based on faulty analysis of data.
posted on March 28, 2001 10:49:10 PM new
You're welcome Reddeer and thanks for the article. I am now really wondering if this guy has eBay's permission to gather this info. EBay has already won one suit regarding info gathering on the site, and has another in progress (but won't say with whom. ) It might be interesting to see what eBay has to say about this. Hmmmmm!
posted on March 28, 2001 11:10:26 PM newWhat seems to be at problem here is the fact that the programs algorithms can not apply common sence.
It's not what seems to be at problem here. That's the whole problem. You should get together with the reliable merchant. You guys were made for each other with your faulty algorithms. You both admit the program can not apply common sense and yet keep on pushing your faulty programs. Seems like you're just out to make a quick buck even at $10. I wouldn't pay one penny for this program based on what you just admited.
posted on March 28, 2001 11:36:31 PM new
To stamper3, who wrote:
Now I ask you! How in the heck do you bid on 19 out of 17 auctions??????
Thank you. You did in fact locate a bug. I have made a change that I feel corrects this and is available via the update feature. I know you don't approve of the software, but nonetheless, thank you for bringing this to my attention.
To brie49, who wrote:
As a journalist, we learned in college how to "detect" when someone is writing about a subject but in reality are not, but misleading people into believing that they are. Confusing? Not really.
Thank you for taking this thread to the totally absurb level. Sorry for misspelling a word. Geesh! Yes I of course meant eBay's SafeHarbor. Get a hobby please.
to laum1 who wrote:
If none, than disclaimers would not protect the developer. The software is just slandering sellers based on faulty analysis of data
The analysis of the data can only be done by the user. The program only presents to the user warnings of patterns that could indicate a problem. The user ultimately makes the analysis. Your analogy would be like saying that a software company could sue McAfee's for slander if their virus scanner flagged their software as a potential virus (which yes can happen to legitamate software). Wouldn't hold much water in court.
To stamper3 who wrote:
EBay has already won one suit regarding info gathering on the site, and has another in progress (but won't say with whom. ) It might be interesting to see what eBay has to say about this. Hmmmmm!
[b]Although I have had no contact from them regarding this, I do believe they are aware of it. The feature that can be used by the user to report shill warnings they determine to have merit adds that the report was generated by eSafe2Bid. Furthermore, I know they have looked at my auctions for eSafe2Bid. I would think they would have contacted by now if they felt a problem existed.
As for gathering data, eSafe2Bid does not extract or gather any data that the user could not obtain by themselves using their favorite web browser. So, in essence, eSafe2Bid can be viewed as that users choice for obtaining the information provided to them by eBay. I personally do not believe your senario applies. I doubt that Netscape or Microsoft obtains permission to retrieve the data made available by each website before gathering it and making it available to the user. If I was accessing eBay's database through direct means, yes, I'm sure they would have a problem with that. I'm not.[/b}
to AnonymousCoward who wrote:
You both admit the program can not apply common sense and yet keep on pushing your faulty programs. Seems like you're just out to make a quick buck even at $10. I wouldn't pay one penny for this program based on what you just admited.
When you find a piece of software developer that claims to be able to apply common sense, rest assured, they are lying to you! You may not like what I have developed, and I may be able to improve its function or presentation, but I at least am being honest about the limits of my software. No it can not now, nor ever will given todays technology, be able to apply common sence. That does not make it faulty. Can it be improved? Yes, and I will continue to improve it and add features. Keep your one penny my freind. Plenty of other grateful users seem quite pleased with their purchase.
Well, good night all. This will be my last post in this thread. Please enjoy your bash session. If anyone has any constructive suggestions on how to improve this software, please email me at [email protected] I would love to hear them.
posted on March 29, 2001 12:12:57 AM new
Edited because I went through the ReliableMerchant crappola and I better not even get started here.
Except I wonder why they always arrive to defend their ideas and then when critical comments and questions start flying they run back home again?
[ edited by shaani on Mar 29, 2001 01:20 AM ]
posted on March 29, 2001 12:24:06 AM new
Last time I checked shilling was illegal. If you change the wording slightly in the warnings it would look like this: POSSIBLE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY WARNING... It looks bad, no matter how many disclaimers are on the warnings page.
If these warnings are only informational and not to be taken seriously then why the heck are they there? What purpose do they serve?
You want a constructive suggestion. You need to modify your program, some how, so it doesn't flag legit customers that bid on multiple items and make a seller look bad for selling nice items for a good price.
posted on March 29, 2001 01:13:47 AM new
"Thank you for taking this thread to the totally absurb level. Sorry for misspelling a word. Geesh! Yes I of course meant eBay's SafeHarbor. Get a hobby please."
Ebaysafe2bid, what part of the moderator's post did you not understand?
Pattaylor said, "Please remember to respond to questions factually, without personal remarks."
You turn around and attack brie49 for a comment that is not only true, it is taught in other areas and not just in journalism. In rhetorical studies (communication studies) the subtle use or misuse of words dates back around 500 BC to the Sophists, Plato, and Aristotle. I am in a rhetorical criticism class, which focuses on looking at the printed or spoken word (rhetoric) of a person to discover the meaning of the message and the possible hidden meanings.
I will say this: I will not give my money to any company when their developer does not know how to communicate with the public in a respectful way.
This lack of professionalism could be symbolic of a much larger and deeper problem within the company. It stands to reason that if a person addresses the public in such a way, then the person may address the employee's in a similar manner. This may lead to tension within a company, which may in turn affect the outcome of a product in development.
The more threatened an animal feels, the more aggressive the animal will become.
The best way, in my opinion, to figure out what motives and meanings may be behind a persons speech (in this case typing) I say just sit back and let them speak.
So I will now sit back, put my feet up, and hand the rope to anyone who wants to use it.
posted on March 29, 2001 03:19:43 AM new
Am I the only one here who thinks that the software is a disaster waiting to happen and that the representative is being unprofessional and insulting to us?? Why aren't the moderators doing something about this??
Well, I won't be downloading the software. And I thank outoftheblue for bringing this to our attention.
posted on March 29, 2001 03:50:13 AM new
Well, I had to try this garbage out myself. I used it on a friends account. She has 868 all positive feedbacks, with a net of 675 due to repeat bidders. Due to the nature of what she sells, a crafty kind of thing, she has lots of repeat buyers, some buying 5-8 times or more.
According to this software, she is highly suspected of shilling. Now, I didn't write down the numbers it pulled up, but it was over 10. It is completely wrong...she sells a good handmade product that is highly popular at the moment. To assume that she (or any other seller) is shilling, based on multiple bids by the same people, is total nonsense.
After I installed it and played with it, it occured to me that we perhaps need to also be concerned with the fact that we had to enter our eBay password to use the program. I don't have anything listed at the moment, but I'll be changing my password anyway. (and no, I don't hear or see any Black Helicopters this morning)
posted on March 29, 2001 04:34:32 AM new
Meya - I did the same thing. As soon as I had run the program and uninstalled it, I went and changed my eBay password.
The home page for this piece of garbage states unequivocally "eSafe2Bid's most useful function is it detects shill bidding where sellers place fake bids on their auctions to elevate price or increase bid count."
posted on March 29, 2001 05:50:42 AM new
Fron the FRONT PAGE TEXT:
"eSafe2Bid's most useful function is it detects shill bidding where sellers place fake bids on their auctions to elevate price or increase bid count. (snip)
According to the Federal Trade Commission, Internet auction fraud has become a significant problem. " (with link to FTC site)
Well, my "how to analyse advertising copy" training says this falls CLEARLY in the "feed the fear of the auidience" category. YAPS ... Yet Another Parasitic Software.
You can't find the smart shills, those that create a new ID for each bid, so you merely make false positive reports on frequent customers, hoping to find a dumb shill bidder in there.
I heard from Ebay this morning and they are aware of the situation.
They say that the software is not 100% reliable "especially when the software is used on members with high feedback or a high percentage of repeat customers", however they do not consider it a violation of their Policies.
IMO, the program is useless!
[ edited by outoftheblue on Mar 29, 2001 08:39 AM ]
posted on March 29, 2001 08:50:26 AM new
I have a sense their "legal" dept will be taking a closer look, not Safe Harbour.
Quite frankly it sickens me that someone would sell a shill finding software that is so flawed. I'm also rather dissapointed with AW for flogging it on their site.
If eBay's legal dept can find a legal loophole to shut the sale of this software down, I'd be all for it.
I too have many repeat bidders/buyers, and have NEVER shilled any of my auctions, and take GREAT offense to *any* software that even remotely suggests that I have.
posted on March 29, 2001 08:53:09 AM new
According to the words of the author, he has no regard for sellers. What about the innocent buyers that are implicated as possible shills? I'm sure they wouldn't be to thrilled with it either.
If some changes are not immediately made to this program to make it more reliable, it is obvious to me that the intent is to make a quick $10 at the expense of others and has nothing to do with keeping the online market place safe. It does just the opposit. It would breed distrust twards honest sellers.
Feeding on the fears of others seems to be a popular theme lately...
posted on March 29, 2001 09:04:42 AM new
kellyb1: I agree with your post. At best, the owner & developer of this software has been repeatedly disrespectful to AW users, at worst, he has slurred them, ignored the moderator admonition, etc. I'm sure he is possibly just a very fine fellow indeed, but the manner in which he has belittled & insulted his potential customers is quite bewildering & totally unnecessary, and as kellyb1 pointed out, possibly indicative of additional problems or attitudes. If the product was so great, the strident responses wouldn't have been required, a simple, "thank you, we appreciate your concerns & opinions, please take a free look at our software & form your own opinions, and if you like what you see, we would welcome your purchase" or something like that, THAT would have been professional, the way the poster has handled the responses so far has often not been.
So, my #1 recommendation here is that AW should NOT be allowing this company to advertise on AW -- ESPECIALLY when within hours of this thread being started, an AW user finds a "bug" in the system.
Truly folks at AW, money ain't everything, and I don't think you did your homework on this company.
How about turfing their banner ad off your site -- this entire thread & advertisement is clearly annoying a great many of your other paying customers!
If anyone else feels this way, consider this a starting point for your petition.
(Edited only to correct a typing error)
[ edited by upriver on Mar 29, 2001 09:08 AM ]
posted on March 29, 2001 09:08:21 AM neweSafe2Bid: Here's some free legal advice for you...
On your home page, change the following statement:
eSafe2Bid's most useful function is it detects shill bidding where sellers place fake bids on their auctions to elevate price or increase bid count.
so that it reads as follows:
eSafe2Bid's most useful function is it detects instances where sellers may have placed fake bids on their auctions to elevate price or increase bid count. eSafe2Bid cannot definitively say whether or not a particular seller has engaged in shill bidding, but it can point out potentially suspicious bidding patterns.
I realize this will make your product seem less dramatic and might even adversely affect your sales, however it is a more accurate statement and may even keep you from being sued for false advertising.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on March 29, 2001 09:25:12 AM new
I agree with upriver on this. It shouldn't even be promoted here at AW.
One good thing though is that this program is brought to everyone's attention. I did download it last night but as soon as I was required to enter my password I dumped it.
I buy regularly from lots of the same sellers as I like their items and the way they treat me. This program is not for buyers as it insults their intellegence.
Gary's attitude is not that professional. Comments such as "Get a hobby please." remind me of some other young upstart. Then when things don't go his way he leaves because he only wants good "constructive suggestions". So I say take your toys and go back home, I don't want to play with them.
posted on March 29, 2001 09:29:44 AM new
Interesting topic....a few weeks ago, I was reading here about some other software and tools for posting auctions that had bugs and the providers were about to start charging for it....
The chorus sounds similar here....
While I prefer to ferret out shills on my own, I imagine this guy thought he could make a buck by developing some software to do it...
As most of we Internet folks are pretty well educated and somewhat cynical *G*, we don't easily throw money into someone else's pocket so I imagine this software will have to become a lot better before he starts feeding his family off the income generated...
I haven't seen this gentleman here before and his user ID shows he registered yesterday...possibly I missed something but he's treated folks pretty well in this thread considering he's trying to defend his work (and learning some good lessons to boot)...
I often say that some of the best ideas come from conflict so I hope that to be the case here...
BTW, I couldn't find advertising for his software anywhere on AW....I block all their banner ads and cookies except when posting...is that where it is?
