Now, maybe I'm missing something, but these guys have little or nothing going for them to start with...THEN they FURTHER strangle ANY chance they may have by tying up sellers with all these rules! No one will stay here for long...I emailed service requesting they shut down my sales and refund my monies. I got bigger fish to fry...
Please...feel free to comment, cuss, or agree....
 

It is with constructive critism that any site will improve itself.

Mark

 

You say the killer is that we don't list the buyers on your auctions.

This is not true. All high bidders in straight auctions are listed with their email addys. The same is true for Dutch auctions.

The only bidders whom we don't list email addy's for are those who do not meet your reserve.

Why don't we list them?

The simple reason is that we don't want the scammers that populate eBay and say, "Don't worry about the reserve ... I just put it there so I can choose who I sell to."

We all know that what these sellers are doing is avoiding the auction commission, plain and simple. Yep, these folks plan to cheat us.

And, if they'll cheat us without batting an eye, then they'll cheat our customers.

I'm sure you know the mechanics of the scam. They list something in a reserve auction, let the bids fall where they may -- none meet their high reserve -- and then go back and do a private deal with those bidders who bid high enough. Since the reserve was not met, they walk away presumably selling what they offered -- assuming they even take the time to deliver it.

Again, if that person would cheat the auction, they'd cheat our customers

Sorry, Time Machine, but we weren't born yesterday.

Regarding relists. At the bottom of the first page of the auction listing, there is a check mark that says that gives you the option for a "second chance." Uncheck it if you don't want your auction to continue.

Regarding the money up front. This is the way that we verify sellers. You don't have credit card that works or a check that we can cash -- well we have not idea who you are then, do we. Why, you could just come in and cheat our customers then, couldn't you.

We sure don't want folks flitting off with our customers' money into another time, do we now, Time Machine:-)

I think this pretty much covers your objections.

Thanks for pointing out them out. We feel these "so-called" problems are actually valuable features that keep everyone playing honestly on a level field.

I hope that upon reflection, you'll agree.

neomax

[This message has been edited by neomax (edited 12-07-98).]
 

I know of no other Auction that operates this way, and assuming everyone is dishonest will certainly NOT help your business!

Sure, you want to get paid...so do I...but when you wont give out bidders names, you
asssure NO ONE is a winner...YOU dont get paid, I don't get paid, and the Bidder loses out on an item he might have bot had he been approached. I also don't like the insenuation that everyone (including myself) is a scammer on these reserve auctions. (that's what I'M
reading into your post, and others will as well) SOME of us sellers are actually reputable...(check my FB on eBay)
I would be MORE than happy to pay you for ANY item I sell thru you...that is only fair. But when you assume a "trust no one" attitude as you call it, you severely limit yourself and good sellers from closing the sale.

Even putting us on the "honor" system would
certainly yield 50% or better commisions to you. I personally sell expensive items that would not be feasible to have a regular auction on...opening bid would be too high
to attract bidders, and I'm not going to give anything away...so reserve auction is my format of choice!
Everyone can and will make their own decision...and I welcome any further input from either you or someone else.
Tom
 

I understand your point of view and I really didn't mean to imply that ALL reserve auction sellers seek to cheat the auction of it commissions. If that were the case, we wouldn't allow reserve auctions:-)

If you look at my reply to you in the "good service, got to give them that" thread, you'll see that I noted that more than 1 in every 8 sellers who subsequently sold an item using a reserve auction reported it and paid the commission.

Our concern is more for the buyer than us as it is harder to deal with and catch this type of scammer.

I should note also that a buyer who does a deal with a seller without meeting reserve cannot even file feedback -- positive or negative -- on our system. Why?

Because the auction was never completed and our feedback is transactional. No transaction, no feedback.

Finally, if you want to "uncover" the bids of those who bid below your minimum reserve, you may bid once on that auction (at or above your reserve) and the identity of all bidders will be uncovered.

But to get this information, my impression is that you would be required to pay the commission on that amount, so take that into consideration.

Finally, it is not strictly a case of trust vs. no trust, Tom. It is more a case of automated vs. non-automated.

For instance, let's say that you bid the $180 on your scanner to reveal the top bidder at $160 and you sold it to them for the $160. The commission you owed was $4.00 but the commission you paid on the $180 was $4.50.

It would cost us all several dollars in time to credit that 50 cents or even collect the $4.00 if we had to go through the email determination. ...

So the question is would the sale at $160 ... and you might charge them the $4.50 commission you had to pay ... be worth it?

You choice. But you do have the ability to uncover the identities of the bidders... by buying the auction and paying the commission.

This solves our problem because it is automated collection of the commisson and it should solve yours.

neomax

PS. A second high bidder is under no obligation to complete the sale under our terms of service.

Our terms of service also does not restrict you from bidding on your own "reserve" auction as does "eBay's" TOS.

Tell ya anything?

Happy Camper at Auction Universe!
 

We do try to be fair:-)

My advice at this stage is that I wouldn't do a dutch. What I'd do... and mind you I've not heard any complaints or rumblings of rules on this ... is list multiple items. You might start one real low on a straight auction and put the other two or three higher.

The one offered at the low price might not close for two weeks but the others are priced where you want them.

The point is that unlike eBay, we don't tell you that you can't sell the same item at different prices.

There a multitude of strategies, including mixtures of reserve and non-reserve, high and low openings and closing dates.

One could even have a "manual" declining bid auction where the price dropped every day until the auctions end 14 days later. The bidders would have a choice when to bid... accept your offer and run:-)

AU can be fun:-)

neomax
 

What is your position on scams where third parties take emails of bidders in ongoing auctions and pitch the same stuff to the bidders? I mean, you're against it, but what safeguards are in place? eBay tells us to leave feedback, but I'd guess you have a better answer.
 

I guess one of the big differences is that I believe in rules. And the exercise of one rule I think should not be frowned upon is the right of the seller to bid once.

At AU we allow that single bid on a reserve items as well.

I never fully understood why everyone on eBay feels this rule frowned upon so much that I get the feeling many think it ought to be suspended.

In contrast, establishing this rule as an absolute "regulated right" would likely put more onus on the true shill bidding there than currently exists. (I think if eBay management had said flatly that this single bid is a right and can be exercised by sellers without prejudice, would go a long way to remove the temptation to establish secondary accounts and the phenomenon of "innocent" shill bidders."

The misguided aversion to this single-bid rule by the multitudes on eBay I believe encourages sellers to get a shill account to hid the fact they might NEED to do the single bid to avoid losing money.

I'm willing to lecture anyone (bidder or complainer) who gripes about a seller using the rule that allows them to bid once -- even on a reserve auction.

Fact is, I wouldn't find any problem with a seller using it to start bidding on an item. You know as I do that the first bid is often the hardest to get.

Nor do I find fault in using the single bid to uncover the bidder's names in a reserve auction.

You should remember also that as our feedback is transactional, there is little in the way of formal feedback that irate users can do for your use of your one bid right.

I'm actually going to create a new topic for this because I absolutely hate the name of this thread:-)

neomax