posted on November 19, 2000 11:27:58 AM new
Here's the scenario;
A seller is having an auction. A bidder on that auction loses the item. (another bidder wins) The seller contacts the losing bidder (via email) and offers a second identical item to the losing bidder for the lower bid. Should the seller be suspended from eBay for a spam offense?
Another variation:
The losing bidder on that auction emails the seller to ask if the seller has another identical item. Should the bidder be suspended from eBay for a spam offense?
To remove fee avoidance from the scenario, the seller will voluntarily pay eBay all fees associated with the sale.
So, should these outside the auction communications be considered serious enough spam offenses to suspend these people from eBay?
posted on November 19, 2000 11:40:20 AM new
Brother!!! Can't you keep this simple, on a lovely, sunny Sunday?....
Well: If SELLER contacts BIDDER in order to make a sale, I would assume that is SPAM, based on an earlier thread....I don't know about being punishable by suspension...
The Seller was NOT given explicit permission to contact losing bidder.
On the other hand, bidder contacting SELLER is pretty much like someone calling a store to see if they carry such and such, or if item is on sale or what-ever. "Let your fingers do the walking..."
Although it may result in a SALE for Seller, still, bidder has "invited a reply", therefore, is not spamming....???
Is there a penalty for wrong answers, Ray?
Wanted to add that Seller WRITING to bidder first, would be like Telemarketting techniques, with phone ringing just as you made yourself comfi in the bathroom...Boy, is THAT annoying...!
********************
Gosh Shosh!
posted on November 19, 2000 11:47:17 AM new
This is not Spam anyone placeing a bid on your auction is expressing an interest to buy this item.
You send them email offering to sell this item to them then it cant be spam they contacted you frist by bidding on your item ebay is only a venue to bring sellers and buyers togeather how or why would they suspend you for selling these items.
Spam is email from someone you dont know have not show interest in doing business with a bid is a sign of interest and even more intent to buy.
Ebay lets us run Auctions and now with the buy it now price also retail sales it is not uncommon for auction dealers or houses and retail sellers to contact there past buyers with even up comeing items for sales prevue of up comeing auction items.
You buy from me on ebay and I send you email with a link to view up comeing autions items or tell you about next weeks sales this is not spam at all we have already exchanged not only email address but home addresses and in some cases phone numbers as well done business togeather you are concidered a custumer.
If a person placed a bid on my auction for an item and was out bid after the auction ends if I have more then one Item that I was selling and im willing to sell to them for the price they orginally bid they have a right to the chance to buy it frist before its is listed in the future on ebay.
They already showed frist interest and intent to buy this item from me and get frist shot at it its only far to them.
posted on November 19, 2000 12:02:52 PM new
I don't believe that it is spam in either case. However, Ebay might consider it fee avoidance, as you suggested.
There was a thread here a few months ago in which someone posted an email from an Ebay rep stating that it was OK to email your bidders one time asking if they would like to be put on your mailing list for similar items. The rep said that you could not offer specific items, though.
A lot of people were very skeptical as to whether this was actually allowed by Ebay or just a rep speculating.
From a practical point of view, you have to be very careful about the wording of the email -- something like "Thank you for your bid on X. Unfortunately, you were outbid on this item. I do come across similar items fairlly often. If you are interested, please let me know and I will email you when I have X available again."
I've done this a couple of times, though I don't actually put them on a mailing list. If they repsond, I immediately right back with a specific offer. However, I'm still very hesitant about doing this.
[ edited by amalgamated2000 on Nov 19, 2000 12:04 PM ]
posted on November 19, 2000 12:23:48 PM new
"A seller is having an auction. A bidder on that auction loses the item. (another bidder wins) The seller contacts the losing bidder (via email) and offers a second identical item to the losing bidder for the lower bid. Should the seller be suspended from eBay for a spam offense?"
The seller better HOPE the winning bidder doesn't know about it, and that the second bidder is not me. Offers to sell stuff outside the auction venue, based on my bidding pattern, are UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL. And eBay agrees that it would be "spam", because you ojnly have the right to use the WINNING bidder's email in conjunction with the completion of the transaction.
posted on November 19, 2000 12:26:16 PM new
You guys are crazy.
It ain't spam either way.
I have an automated system that AUTOMATICALLY sends emails to all the loosing bidders. I have been doing this for over 2 years. I have sent over 10,000 Emails this way. Not one complaint, never.
You guys are reading these rules through they eyes of an east coaster. These rules were written by a California company and the rule is: If it ain't explicitily prohibited, do it.
posted on November 19, 2000 12:32:33 PM new
[i]The losing bidder on that auction emails the seller to ask if the seller has another identical item. Should the bidder be suspended from eBay for a spam offense?[i]
Several months ago I asked ebay this questions since I had a losing bidder contact me about buying something directly.
ebay's response was that if the bidder contacted me, it wasn't in violation of any ebay rules & I wasn't required to pay any FVF to ebay. They did note that the bidder wouldn't have ebay protection if they made an "off-ebay" transaction.
That's pretty funny in that most bidders don't have any ebay protection if they make an "On-ebay" transaction.
posted on November 19, 2000 12:59:08 PM new
Yes all bidders that are out bid on your auctions recive email informing them they were out bid to begin.
There is honestly no law passed , assumed or imaginary about send mail to anyone . there is no law passed, assumed or imaginary that limits what you can write or say in any email to anyone.
So long as it isnt Threatening or sexual or any such thing.
There is truely no such thing as UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL from a seller you already placed a bid with win lose or draw.
After you place a bid win or lose you have shown interest and intent in the item.
posted on November 19, 2000 01:35:57 PM new
For me doesn't make a sense a bit, not a bit. If you bided in this item is because you were interested in it, right? Now, if this guy is offering you a similar item, how you can call it spam. What are you going to do, complaint eBay? I bet you will, NOT A GOOD IDEA. No offense my friend, but the only looser here will be you. All he's doing is offering an item that he/she knows that you are interested, you should tank him/her that he's contacting you to offer you this opportunity. But people (you) are more concerned about what eBay says about this about that, that you think there's no other way of doing e-business or have a relation between you and another person. If you are an eBay member and receive an email from another person which in this case by causality is also an eBay member, what makes you believe that eBay have to intervene here?
Ebay CAN NOT govern your life, unless you want it. If this guy is offering you an item that you are interested, you can't call his email spam, BUT if you still consider that his/her email was spam, well contact his/her ISP and complaint there. Why do you think this is an eBay matter? eBay has nothing to do with every email you receive and will receive, you are allowing them to decide in your life, if it's ok with you, that's ok, but I still believe that you should contact his/her ISP for sending you unsolicited email.
Poton.
The law says, everybody is innocent until it's proved that he/she is guilty. Not me, in this world doesn't apply that, I think EVERYBODY is guilty until you prove it was a lie or untrue. For this reason, I always, ALWAYS believe EVERYTHING people tell me about him/her/that until I prove it isn't a true.
posted on November 19, 2000 02:30:55 PM new
Neither is spam, in my view.
I think some folks have taken the definition of spam to an extreme.
eBay has given conflicting advice regarding a seller contacting an underbidder on his own auction, offering an identical item. We've gone round and round on this in previous threads- its pointless to try to convince anyone to change their position on this one. BUT- the short arguments for it NOT being spam (or a violation of eBay's rules) are:
1. eBay encourages sellers to contact underbidders to sell an item in some cases. Spam for the goose is spam for the gander.
2. Bidder has bid on seller's auction, making an offer to buy. The argument that seller cannot later email that bidder with an offer to sell an identical item is absurd.
3. eBay CS has said this is OK- here's the relevant portion of an email:
*******
----- Original Message -----
From: "eBay Customer Support" <[email protected]>
To: ***
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Other features questions (KMM15912076C0KM)
Hello,
Thank you for your e-mail. Any communications that takes place between a
seller and a bidder after an auction has ended are beyond eBay's
policies.
In summary, yes a seller can offer the item to other bidders if the
auction has ended.
If you are to complete a transaction off of eBay with a seller without
going through the auction process, then eBay policies do not apply.
For further details on eBay Listing Policies including eBay policy on
Fee Circumvention please visit the following URL:
I hope that I have addressed all of your concerns, and if you need
further assistance please feel free to e-mail me back.
Regards,
***eBay Community Watch Team
______________________________
eBay
Your Personal Trading Community (tm)
Original message follows:
-------------------------
Form Message
Subject: Other features questions
Item:
Message: I cannot find any information on what eBay would consider fee
avoidance! Where would I look?
I had a question posed to me by someone:
"If I contact the "loosers" of MY auction and offerred them the same
item as originally listed at their bid price-would that be legal?"-
I said NO, I do not believe it would be either ethical OR allowable, but
I cannot find anything that I can show to this person as PROOF!!!!
******************************
A CS person running amok? Maybe. But given these reasons, and much confusion, this is CERTAINLY not something that warrants a suspension. At most, it warrants a clarification of the policy.
OK- the arguments in favor of calling this spam, and a violation:
1. When a bidder is overbid, they get an automated email from eBay warning them that they may get a message from other sellers, or that seller, offering to sell an identical item- and eBay warns the bidder in this email that these actions are a violation of eBay policy (policy not specified, of course)- and noting that sales outside don't have the protection that eBay sales do (anyone know what that protection is?).
And that's about the only argument I can think of for claiming this is a violation.
As to fee avoidance, sorry Ray, I know you tried to exclude it from the discussion, but I cannot help myself!- It's only fee avoidance if eBay tries to lay claim to a fee for every item in my inventory, sold to any eBayer I've done business with. Another absurd proposition. The ONLY items eBay has a right to fees for are items placed at auction. Everything else I've got, I can sell as I choose, and eBay isn't owed a dime.
Least, that's how I see it. And around and round we go...
Many of them apply to any message that passes through equipment located in that state -- and you can never know for sure which states (or countries, even) that an interent message will pass through, even if it's sent to your next door neighbor.
There's an organization that encourages and facilitates suing spammers using these laws:
Just last Friday, I received a spam email from some idiot who had set up the reply to address to be the distribution list itself, meaning that any time a "remove" message was sent to the sender, it went to everyone on the list. Then the complaints that this generated went to everyone on the list. You get the picture.
By Friday evening, I was getting about 15 messages per hour.
And, of course, the spammer's site didn't list a phone number. So I called his ISP and they immediately suspended his account.
Saturday, I was contacted by an attorney to inquire whether I wanted to be part of a class action lawsuit that his client was initiating. Should be interesting.
Edited to add: By the way, I'm pretty sure this spammer got my address from Ebay.
[ edited by amalgamated2000 on Nov 19, 2000 02:49 PM ]
posted on November 19, 2000 02:55:42 PM new
Emailing a bidder from an auction though is not UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL if you bid on an auction you already have interest.
posted on November 19, 2000 03:00:03 PM newEmailing a bidder from an auction though is not UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL if you bid on an auction you already have interest.
Good point. As long as it's a single email related your auction and it's sent in a timely manner, I don't think it could be considered spam. Especially from a legal perspective.
posted on November 19, 2000 03:02:41 PM new
[b]amalgamated2000
[/b]...Thanks for the most informative links...
E-bay is rather ambiguous in it's answers, and pretty much leaves it to the inquirer's interpretation. And since it is human nature to bend the interpretation to fit one's personal need, that leads to conflict.
******************** Gosh Shosh!
posted on November 19, 2000 03:32:52 PM new
I don't see any reason to contact bidders that did not win the auction. I found the item the first time. Put the other item on ebay and I will find it again.
If the high bidder backs out, then relist it. I won't buy it because I don't know what the final bid price whould have been without the deadbeat bidding. (after all, the seller wouldn't wnat to give it to me for my first bid, right?)
If I don't win your auction and you send me email offering to sell me something. I will report you to ebay and you will be warned or hopefully your account will be suspended.
I have done it before and I will do it again.
It is spam (UCE) by definition. Just because I bid on an auction does NOT mean I asked to be solicited. That makes it UNsolicited Comercial Email.
posted on November 19, 2000 03:51:31 PM new
I absolutely agree with Steve on this issue. I don't owe eBay a thing if the item I sell hasn't been put through their auction venue and I believe eBay agrees with that assumption. I actually tried to pay them once when one of my items didn't sell during the auction but sold the next day to someone who missed it the first time. EBay told me they were no longer involved with the transaction since it occurred after the auction ran it's course and they couldn't accept any Final Value Fees. However, I strongly believe that eBay is owed all fees if an item sells during the time it's exposed on their venue and stopping an auction to sell the item outside of eBay is WRONG!!
I also don't see a problem with contacting any of your bidders after the auction is over and I don't consider it spam as long as it's still current and very little time has elapsed. If I were the low bidder, I would be pleased to know another item was available before I spent my money elsewhere. I think the key here is the time frame together with the obvious interest of the party, hence the bid.
RM, the only problem I see with your first scenario is the fact that the high bidder actually comes out the loser since the second bidder was able to purchase the same item for less. As the high bidder, that would definitely PISS ME OFF!!
posted on November 19, 2000 04:30:54 PM new
amalgamated2000:
In the EMails I offer the item at a price close to the closing bid. I also indicate that I have relisted another one and give them the link to my EBay about me page to find all my current listings.
posted on November 19, 2000 06:27:39 PM new
Magazine Guy,
Don't be surprised to see major changes surface in the way eBay treats the scenario I laid out.
It's not going to be an improvement and a lot of good sellers are going to be hurt financially.
I'm going to be voluntarily paying eBay their fair share on all sales of this nature from here on out. I'll be paying eBay by check and keeping a good paper trail of the transaction(s).
Sooner or later eBay will either have to recognize that there are shades of gray here regarding the definition of spam and that a zero tolerance policy will not be practical, OR eBay will have to refuse payments for these situations and send back the checks. I think the real motivation for the upcoming changes is fee avoidance, not spam. It will be interesting to see what eBay does when fee avoidance does not apply.
posted on November 19, 2000 06:34:20 PM new
Although probably common, I think sellers offering the idential items to #2 and #3 bidder for a lower price are being unethical and should be reported to Egay.
Yes, Egay because even though I list a lot of merchandize there, I really don't like a lot of their business practices, especially the really shoddy stability they have provided sellers for the past few months.
No excuse. However, sellers are participating in an auction and should not be cutting the throat of the victor by then offering the same product to the losers for less.
It's not right and sellers should be whacked for the practice.
posted on November 19, 2000 10:56:29 PM new
Okay, so if you put in a losing bid at a real life auction, and someone takes your photo and traces you and starts calling you about similar items, that would be okay?
You stroll into an antiques store and say, "Hmm, neat item, but I think $90 is too much, how about $70?" The clerk says no, it's not enough, then bursts out, grabs your wallet, writes down your address, and starts mailing you ads, would that be okay?
These scenarios might be hyperbolic (even ridiculous), but not by as much as it might seem. The first is analogous to being a low bidder on eBay, and the second is failing to meet reserve on eBay.
An email address on eBay is more accessible than your wallet, but to adjust for this, replace the thuggish behavior in the above with your "simply" having to wear a badge showing your address when you enter a store, and whenever you express interest, a clerk, who is keeping track of you, takes down your address. Kind of creepy, eh?
No matter which version of the above scenarios, you are not yet a customer, just a potential customer! This means the "prior business relationship" is not even applicable yet, and the "expressed interest" argument is painfully insufficient.
The American Heritage Dictionary (1981) defines "customer" as "One who buys goods or services, esp. on a regular basis." Note the word "buys" is an integral part of the definition.
Even as an actual customer of a number of companies I have bought from, however, I argue about what gets done under the name of "prior business relationship." Just because I bought something of theirs doesn't mean I want to start receiving extra junk (e)mail or telemarketing because of it. (I also question the ethics of some of those companies selling my information to other companies or direct marketers, but that's another subtopic I won't deal with here. )
The "I send this to hundreds of people but not one has complained yet" argument isn't sufficient either. Many people have given up fighting spam, or have not yet started fighting it. People who fight spam to some degree may not have the time to trace every piece of spam. Even aside from eBay, I'd estimate that only 1 in a 100 or 1000 pieces of spam elicit an actual complaint. Does that mean 99 or 99.9% of people either don't mind receiving spam? I don't think so. It's closer to the opposite. I'd say 95-99% of people don't like -- or outright hate -- spam, often no matter who sends it, but just do not feel like taking the time to complain when they are receiving dozens or hundreds a month. Does this somehow justify spam? No.
There are (as the other most recent "Spamming Sellers" thread brought up), shades of spam, where some is "not quite as bad" as others. However, what many people object to is the volume of spam. I've bought from dozens of sellers, failed to get high bid from dozens more. If they all started sending me emails once a month even, I'd soon be getting more UCE from them than from pyramid scheme, porn site, and "get your credit card" bulk spammers combined. All of it would be unwanted, unasked for. Heck, even now, about half my spam seems to have arisen from my activities on eBay.
If spam were ever legitimized in the form of "opt out," everyone would end up receiving scads more spam, because those potential spammers who currently hold back due to the ongoing "spam war," would surely start spamming forth. How much I couldn't say, but I am almost certain this is what would happen. This is another reason people find spam intolerable. Tolerate a little now, and we might be more likely to end up with more.
So what does all this mean?
Simply put, just ask whether your customer, while they are checking out or receiving your invoice or whatever during the transaction, would like to receive updates, extra sales information from you or "affiliated" or "partner" companies, etc.
It's win-win for the actual buyers, for the ones that don't mind direct marketing can still receive it, while the ones who do mind direct marketing don't have to have their time -- or money (e.g. CallerID or spam-filtering software) to block it.
It's a win for sellers, for all of their customers will respect them more for asking, the sellers won't have to waste their effort marketing to those people you might annoy or end up alienating, while concentrating on those who are potentially more responsive based on their explicit information.
The principle is simple: ask your customer before sending him/her an ad.
It is a simple enough principle, a basic enough idea. Perhaps it is on the basis of this idea being broken so much that so many responses to spam look like "zero tolerance."
It is clear from the threads here that some simply don't recognize the "ask first" principle, or, to be blunt, don't distinguish between someone who has become a customer versus one who has not (much less whether all of the former want extra direct marketing just because they bought something).
Two more hypothetical, slightly hyperbolic but hopefully illustrative, scenarios...:
You see a new store open, so you walk in, take a gander at the prices, and decide their items go for too high. A clerk follows you out to your car, takes down your license plate, matches this ID to your address (I realize it isn't quite this easy, but doesn't eBay make it that easy in a different way? ), and starts mailing you ads for their stuff. (On eBay, Just because someone places a bid does not mean they won't decide the seller's items or these sorts of items go for too much. )
You place a bid for $70 on something, but you get outbid by someone willing to pay $90. You decide to leave, but outside the door, a seller (either the same one or a different one), grabs your arm and holds you there for a minute to whisper about the having the same (or similar) item for $70. (Yes, indeed, how would the high bidder feel? Or if the seller offers it for the same $90 you didn't want to bid against, how much more likely are you to bid on it, while having your time wasted? ) This, BTW, is what RM's first scenario is equivalent to, IMO.
Do any of these scenarios something like them happen in real life? Not really (at least not anywhere legitimate), and curiously enough, that's another point. Offline, though direct marketers have crossed a number of lines IMO, even they have not crossed the lines that the four offline scenarios I presented (two at the top of my post, two just now) suggest. Online, however, those lines are being crossed all the time.
These arguments really boil down to a few points:
1) Direct marketing spends the recipient's time and/or money, even if they don't buy from you.
2) A lot of people dislike or hate one or more (or all) forms of direct marketing (junk mail, telemarketing, spam, door-to-door).
3) Someone making what ends up being a failing bid or offer or just browsing does not make that person a customer.
4) A customer is a person who exchanges money for a product and/or service (see prior definition). Others are just potential customers.
5) Even actual customers will not all want or accept a side helping of direct marketing (see #2), and some will get annoyed -- annoy them enough, and you'll have less hope of them buying something.
6) It isn't hard to ask a customer if they want to receive other offers by (e)mail or phone, during the transaction. They all might even appreciate you more, and trust their money to you more.
7) In this so-called Information Age, buyers can more easily find similar items again without much help.
eBay, if anything, is the ultimate example of #7. If I am looking for an item, and I fail to get high bid, I will see the next one they list on eBay, unless they seriously screw up the title and/or description. That is almost a 100% guarantee (how's that, a buyer making "guarantees" to sellers? ).
These, again, really all boil down to a basic, easy-to-implement principle: ask your customer first.
I've been arguing that no one except the seller should have access to the bidders' addresses on eBay, but I now wonder if I should be arguing that the seller should only have access to the high bidder's address. It won't even block sellers from tossing bids from IDs recognizable as prior deadbeat bidders, either. [ Edited to say bhearsch's subsequent reply pointed out this would interfere with the seller offering the bid-on item to the second bidder if the high bidder was deadbeat, which has nothing to do with marketing or spam. ]
No, not every buyer objects to direct marketing like I and others do, but many dislike it in one way or another. Asking first will allow you to distinguish between one or the other, while respecting them (or at least following their wishes).
Many people speak of "relationships" when it comes to business. First, these aren't real relationships in some senses, but even if you do interpret them as such in some sense, shouldn't the words "respect," "trust," "honor," and "politeness" be part of the equation?
If I'm sounding stubborn about this, and you are frustrated over arguing with people like me over the issue of direct marketing your products to individuals, then you know exactly how I feel when I see some sellers stubbornly resisting the idea of asking their customers first, respecting their information and also not selling it to others.
All this fighting, over what could be solved with a simple, respected question: "Would you like to receive other information and offers about our products and services?"
Is this really too much to ask?
----
What's being done in the name of direct marketing nowadays is crazy.
The above are all just my opinions, except where I cite facts as such.
Oh, I am not dc9a320 anywhere except AW. Any others are not me.
Is eBay is changing from a world bazaar into a bizarre world?
[ edited by dc9a320 on Nov 19, 2000 11:24 PM ]
[ edited by dc9a320 on Nov 20, 2000 07:47 AM ]
posted on November 19, 2000 11:20:45 PM newRM's second scenario at the beginning of the thread isn't actually all that similar at all. Marketing, commercials, or sales flow from the seller to the consumer, the latter representing turning a consumer into your customer, the former two as an attempt to do the same.
Not all buyers (on- or offline) want extra contact in the form of extra direct marketing pitches, at least not without being asked.
I don't know of any seller, however, that doesn't want extra contacts.
Therein lies the conflict, but also the solution: ask your customers first.
posted on November 19, 2000 11:52:31 PM new
Finally, in none of my replies do I argue "zero tolerance" is actually a good thing. "Zero tolerance," in general, can lead to abuses.
I can recognize when someone sends me an ad with innocent intent, not really realizing what they're doing. These cases, however, are getting harder to separate from the hard-core spammers who play the "look what I found" or "here's what you were asking for" games. Regardless, all of them, innocent or hard-core, add up to the same problem: Unsolicited Commercial Email. Unwanted junk email.
So I don't just nuke. After three years of informal research, I've found out plenty, and built up a fair arsenal of facts on how direct marketing operates and how to fight and mostly evade it.
Essentially everyone has to waste some time each week dealing with direct marketing, whether they like it or not. I simply decided to wedge into that time, taking some control back, to figure out what was going on, how reduce the junk. Now, most of the same amount of time I spent simply "living with" the problem in the past is now mostly free to battle it instead.
I get much less junk, but I continue to use the additional "freed" time to figure out even more about this hydra called "direct marketing," to find more of what is done in its name, how to be more effective against it, and how to help other people be smarter flyers, more in control of the time direct marketers try to use.
Anyway, enough of and about me.
----
What's being done in the name of direct marketing nowadays is crazy.
The above are all just my opinions, except where I cite facts as such.
Oh, I am not dc9a320 anywhere except AW. Any others are not me.
Is eBay is changing from a world bazaar into a bizarre world?
posted on November 19, 2000 11:54:17 PM new
Hello dc9a320. I absolutely agree with you and I'm sure you know how I feel about privacy and the direct marketers, web bugs, tracking devices, hidden and deceitful tactics, third party involvement, etc. However, as a seller there is a situation that can and does occur on occasion with regard to the high bidder either backing out of the contract for one reason or another or just plain not following through with the payment. In this case, one of the seller's options which has always been encouraged by eBay is to contact the second bidder to see if they want the item for their bid amount. I honestly don't see this as spam if the auction is still very current. I have been on the buying end of this scenario and I was happy to be contacted because I did want to purchase the piece at my bid price.
There isn't any way to ask the second bidder for permission to contact him before the need to do so arises. Without this option, the seller loses his listing fees and has to go to the trouble of filing for the FVF's and waiting for a period of time before he can relist the item.
As a practical matter, eBay's policy concerning a bid retraction states that the second bidder is obligated to become the high bidder in the event of a retraction so he's still involved with the auction whether he's been outbid or not until that auction actually ends. I personally don't care much for eBay's policy about bid retractions and think it's unfair to the second bidder but that's beside the point.
I really think there are shades to black and white and people need to use a little common sense in order to judge the appropriate action for any given circumstance.
Blanche
[ edited by bhearsch on Nov 19, 2000 11:57 PM ]
posted on November 20, 2000 07:23:46 AM newBlanche (bhearsch): You are absolutely correct. I'll take back my paragraph on maybe only the high bidder's address should be available to the seller. What you mentioned is clearly not spam, because contacting the second bidder in case of the high bidder being a deadbeat is still dealing with the transaction at hand, and not some other item being sold on or off of eBay, so it does not represent marketing in any form.
I'd have never mentioned it if the spam problem weren't at play. If everyone could see those [email protected] addresses on their auction bidder lists as people who may not want direct marketing, who may not appreciate being sent yet another piece of junk email, and act accordingly (don't market to those who have not yet actually bought something, and ask those who are buying something), this would not be a problem.
posted on November 20, 2000 07:38:46 AM new
Blanche: and yes, I do remember your stands on privacy.
I agree there are shades of black and white, but if everyone used some common sense in regard to direct marketing (ask first! ), the grays would be more tolerable, and wouldn't look more like the black (part of the UCE problem) than the white.
Actually, if everyone asked first, there wouldn't be much black at all, and no one (not even I) would care much about whether individual grays were spam or not.
(Yeah, dream on, I know; but I can try... )
Like I said, I don't nuke every passing spam. I don't have the time for that, so I'm more selective, and would rather root out the underlying causes of spam and other unwanted junk, than try eliminating all individual symptoms on my own. )
posted on November 20, 2000 09:36:01 AM new
Ebay is a venue, and they've emphasized that many times. Therefore, ebay is stepping over its boundries if they suspended someone for spam in these cases (I don't believe it's spam anyway). Primarily, what ebay rules are geared for, is to prevent someone from gathering thousands of ebay users emails from a general collection method and mass sending emails.
"If you lend someone $20, and never see that person again, it was probably worth it."
posted on November 20, 2000 01:07:16 PM new
I actually have to agree that the cure would end up worse than the disease if eBay had to become the arbiter of every case. I hope they suspend people who repeatedly and clearly spam in bulk, when proof is provided by multiple recipients; but the VERO program is proof of what happens when they let "protectors" run amuk (guilty until proven innocent being an operative principle in VERO, it seems).
eBay could do something very effective, however -- even as just a "venue." That is to restrict the ability to get buyer email addresses from eBay IDs to just the seller whose item the buyer bids on. I've been arguing this for a little while (minus my highest bidder-only bit that I put forth last night and retracted this morning), because I can't see anyone but the buyer having a legitimate need to get at buyers' addresses.
As it stands, spammers and bottomfeeders (or anyone else wanting to interfere with auctions) have a fairly easy time getting addresses with the current setup.
eBay has taken a half-step in partially limiting the visibility of addresses when listed in groups of two or more, which is not a complete solution, but is a big step in the right direction.
Someone else (sorry, can't remember who) recommended that eBay set up forms. This would truly hide addresses from everyone except eBay or those bidders and/or sellers that reveal their address anyway. I'm not sure what the originator said about eBay's actual EOA notice (using forms for high bidder to seller communication can further secure both parties' email addresses, but could also be more inconvenient for both). We'd have to trust eBay with handling the person-to-person communications, however.
One or the other would represent technical solutions, and the former would give the biggest bang for the buck, I suspect, in terms of eBay being able to implement it rapidly while still helping cut down a lot (not all, but a lot) of the spam. It would be a powerful compromise for all involved.
All without having to decide what is spam and what is not -- maintaining the status quo on the "venue" claims.
posted on November 20, 2000 03:20:30 PM new
Here's another scenario;
A seller's auction closes unsuccessfully. No bids. A buyer emails the seller and asks to buy the item for the starting bid. Once again, to eliminate fee avoidance from this scenario, the seller will pay eBay fees on the sale.
).