posted on May 18, 2001 09:45:57 AM
OK, You’re the king [or queen] of the Internet and have just been given the opportunity to design the “best of all possible worlds” on-line auction site. This is not a “dream” proposal, and should be as practical as possible. The goal here is to come up with a plan that has the features you feel are most important, but is also sufficiently flexible to attract enough bidders and sellers to be viable. Assume for this exercise that you have essentially unlimited funding and that you will be able to do an advertising blitz when the site is ready to go.
[And no, I am not looking for free ideas to go out and start my own company here. But with all the complaining about eBay and the talk about how wonderful it used to be, I thought it would be an interesting “thought experiment” to see if we could come up with something better that might actually work.]
Ready? I’ll start…
1. General Layout.
My “dream” site would just deal with antiques and collectibles, with no retail merchandise. I don’t think that is practical, however, especially since other sites that have tried that have gone belly up. So, my “best of all possible worlds” site would welcome all types of merchandise, but would keep them sharply segregated. Half the site would be devoted to retail sales, and the other half would be devoted to antiques and collectibles. Each half would have its own separate set of categories, and buyers would have the option to search the entire site, just the retail side, or just the antiques and collectibles side.
The Retail section would allowing sellers to set up on-line storefronts and sell their merchandise either as direct sales or in an auction format. If they chose to sell an item in an auction format, they would also have the option to sell multiple items in eBay-style “dutch” auctions. Sellers would have the option of either paying a commission fee for each item sold, based on final sale price, or else a monthly “rent” based on the number of items listed. The latter option is similar to renting space in a mall; it doesn’t matter whether you are selling inexpensive widgets or $10,000 diamond rings, the rent is based on how much “space” you take up and not the cost of your items. A seller who expects to list many inexpensive items that may or may not sell might opt to pay a commission on the stuff that sells. On the other hand, a seller who sells fewer items that are more expensive might decide to pay a flat fee each month rather than a commission.
The Antiques and Collectibles half would be strictly an auction format with no dutch auctions available. Anything “antique”, “vintage” or otherwise “collectible” could be sold here, and the focus would be on “unique” items. Things like Beanie Babies, while collectible, would be gray items. Individually, they could certainly be considered a collectible, but if a seller wanted to sell them in bulk he would have to do so from the Retail section. There would be no listing fees [although a seller could choose to pay extra for “featured” or “bold” options], but there would be a commission fee based on final sale price.
The strict prohibition against retail merchandise in the Antiques and Collectibles section would obviously mean that people couldn’t sell shipping material, tools, or other “accessories” there, and I’m not sure how one could allow those sorts of items without opening the door for other retail goods. One option would be allow sellers of retail goods to purchase “banner ads” that could be targeted to specific antiques and collectibles categories. The sellers would HAVE to be members of the site, however, and the banner ads could ONLY point to the stuff they are selling on-site. The banner ads would be priced in line with “featured category auctions”. For, say, $14.95 a seller could have his banner ad appear in rotation at the top of a given antiques and collectibles category for a week. Or perhaps even at the top of every listing within a category. The only requirement would be that the seller is selling something actually related to the chosen category. Advertising shipping supplies, jeweler’s tools, watch chains, etc., in the pocket watch category would be fine. So would “auction tracking” software. Advertising Beanie Babies or “Banned on eBay” CD’s, on the other hand, would not.
2. User Verification.
All sellers, whether dealing in retail or antiques & collectibles, would be required to have a valid credit card on file at all times. This will be used to not only collect all fees, but also to verify that the seller is a “real” person with a verifiable contact information. This is not a perfect solution, but would cut down fraud to a large extent I believe. And yes, it would exclude some sellers who don’t want to have a credit card. But I think there has to be SOME sort of mechanism in place to provide bidders with a sense of safety, otherwise there won’t BE any bidders.
Since bidders send payment to the sellers and not to the site, bidders would NOT be required to have a credit card on file. There should definitely be some mechanism to prevent deadbeat bidders, but I’ll be darned if I can think of a good one that wouldn’t give too much power to unscrupulous sellers [which, although a hopefully rare breed, can ruin things for everyone else]. I’m tempted to say that the feedback system [see below] is a good enough deterrent.
3. Feedback.
Feedback would be strictly transactional between the buyer and seller, and multiple transactions between the same parties would each count as a separate transaction [in other words, you could leave new feedback for the seller for each item you bought, and each feedback would “count”]. Feedback would be either positive (“satisfied”) or negative (“dissatisfied”), and feedback would be displayed as both a total score (positive minus negative) and a percentage (showing the ratio of positive to negative). No neutral comments, but there would be plenty of room to respond to any comment. In addition, the person leaving the feedback would have the ability to revise or remove a comment that was left.
Certain feedback “events” would be flagged for automatic investigation by site personnel. This includes things like if a user receives X number of negatives in a single week or month, or if a user’s feedback percentage drops below a certain point. Nobody would be automatically suspended because of one of these events, but neither would another user have to turn the user in before any action was taken. Once a user has been “flagged”, site personnel would make a case-by-case determination if there is reason for suspension or other action, and may contact the parties involved if so warranted.
4. Prohibited Sales.
Anything legal to sell will be allowed, as long as it is in the appropriate category. There may not actually be a category for some “questionable” items, however, which would mean they couldn’t be sold. For example, there would probably be a category for “erotica” in the antiques & collectibles category, dealing with older merchandise, but there might not be a “pornography” section in the retail section, so somebody selling new porno videos would be out of luck.
5. Live Support.
There would most definitely be a “live” message board for users to ask questions and get responses.
----
And that’s pretty much all I can think of right now. I’d love to hear other people’s proposals on the subject.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 18, 2001 12:40:35 PM
Hmmmm, sounds a lot like what the online cooperative is trying to set up. I don't know if they're trying to split it in two tho. I certainly would like to see a place that's split between new and used.
Wading thru hundreds of new reproductions is the pits!
posted on May 18, 2001 01:03:21 PM
I like your ideas and thanks for starting such a nice thread.
1. How about a site where you can easily list and relist whether you're using IE or Netscape or a third party launching software? No more technical glitches that prevent getting auctions up on the site.
2. How about a choice of relisting either with or without editing? If you don't need to change anything, you can get a 1-click relist or something without having to go through multiple screens.
3. How about 3 free images hosted like Yahoo has?
4. How about a choice of number of times to relist if the item isn't sold, similar to what Yahoo and BidVille have in place? Of course, this is most appealing only if, as you suggest, it's a FVF only or monthly fee structure.
posted on May 18, 2001 02:01:55 PM
User Owned Cooperative
TAGnotes - daily email synopsis about the Online Auction Industry http://www.topica.com/lists/tagnotes
posted on May 18, 2001 02:57:35 PMdeco100: Well, in my mind, that is the number one thing that would distinguish "my" site from anyplace else. I acknowledge that the market for antiques and collectible alone is not large enough to support a viable on-line auction site, but that doesn't mean you have to just throw the doors wide open and let everything be sold together, either. I think my idea of splitting the site and allowing bidders the ability to search both sections if they want to is a good [and mopst important, workable] alternative.
rnrgroup: Who would the "users" of such a venture be? The sellers and the bidders, or just the sellers? If just the sellers, what incentives would there be to attract bidders?
My [admittedly limited] understanding of the whole online cooperative auction site thingie is that it is basically a profit-sharing venture set up to empower the sellers and make sure they have a say in the way the site is run. Which I think is a great thing. But I'm not sure what the benefits would be to the bidders.
Care to elaborate?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 18, 2001 03:21:08 PM
Barry, I agree with idea if ID verify. In fact, I'd require EVERY user to have a credit card on file. When an auction ends, the winner is billed immediately. The billing/payment would be handled by the auction house. In other words, a ZERO tolerance for deadbeats. Seller fees would be deducted from the winnings.
This is the main drawback to all the "storefronts" I've seen. They prepare an invoice, but they don't handle the billing/payment. That, in my opinion, is a serious limitation. The so-called storefronts are nothing more than server space that provide fancy templates.
I know that automatic payments wouldn't be popular with bidders, but since you asked, there's my two cents.
Regarding a co-operative site, I don't think that user-owned would work as well as a non-profit seller collective. The reason is simple: Sellers of cheap items would be welcomed until the site is strong, then the bigger sellers would start to squeeze out the little fish. It would be the same as eBay, except the profits would go to the top 10% of sellers. The rest would be working for the big boys.
A non-profit sellers co-op would not be hard to design. $500 bucks and a cable connection would be enough to start, with limited free listings (say, 100 per month). As expenses grow, space could be rented through an existing auction site. Eventually, there could be a flat membership fee for a limited number of listings, with additional auctions costing extra. Or a flat fee for unlimited listings (with strict category spam rules).
With all the hoopla and eBay's huge earnings, every commercial auction site is seeking to cash in on the big bucks. Even sites that are free for now will implement fees as soon as the site takes off. Sellers are smart enough to know that their hard work building a successful auction site will eventually go into investors' pockets without even a by-your-leave. We've seen it at eBay, Yahoo, and other sites. Most sellers aren't big businesses, they're casual sellers who don't have a fortune to spend in listing and final value fees.
I think a successful, non-profit site should put proceeds back into the auction house, and in principle it should remain accessible to everyone, including small sellers, and not just big retail companies. I believe that is the only way an auction site can grow to compete with eBay - by picking up the small, casual sellers that eBay is casting off.
I think the buyers would come to a co-op,if it were full of the merchandise they want...in an uncluttered, browsable category format. EBay in its present form is a nightmare for buyers, too.
A small thing...but, I'd like more room in the title. I find it too short for an adequate listing...at least for antiques.
posted on May 18, 2001 05:56:08 PM
Site stability and ease of use would be one of my top requests. Pages can be designed with an absence of javascripts, banners and excess additions that slow down the page loading. And don't put the cart before the horse -- buy large enough servers before you get the traffic, instead of waiting until afterwards; and don't add things without testing them first to make sure they won't crash the system.
Then, in addition to what Barry said about layout, I'd like a more user-friendly "tone" such as epier has. Other things that matter to me are integrity and honesty... That's as deep as I can think at the moment - I'll watch and see what else is said.
Violetta
(Not known by this nickname anywhere but here.)
posted on May 18, 2001 06:31:12 PM
I'd like to add my 2 cents if I could, basically on the setup of the auction site.
I recently inherited over 100 Playboy magazines, and decided it would be best to list them over at Playboy auctions.
This is an auction site set up by Fair Market Auctions in Massachusetts.
I found it extremely easy to use starting with the built in scheduler. Create your listing and start it virtually any day in the future. (It will also bulk list up to 500 auctions, although I never tried that feature.)
When the auction is over, you receive the winners email, AND their name and address!
If you need to relist, view all your auctions, without a time limit, and simply check which ones you would like to relist and it's done.
They only accept basic HTML (font color, font size, pictures) which may be a blessing in disguise...no long loading pages.
It was just cleaner and easier to use. I was able to list 50 auctions at one sitting in less than 20 minutes.
This is just my opinion, based on the auction site I was using.
posted on May 18, 2001 07:06:42 PMtoke: "I think the buyers would come to a co-op, if it were full of the merchandise they want...in an uncluttered, browsable category format. EBay in its present form is a nightmare for buyers, too."
I agree 100% that eBay is a nigthmare for buyers. The question is how do you provide an "uncluttered, browsable category format" in a seller-owned co-op without stepping on any seller's toes? I don't think it's enough to say, in essence, "build a site that will make sellers happy, and when they list enough merchandise bidders will come." Sheer numbers of items for sale won't help if the experience isn't a pleasant one for the bidders. eBay tries to walk a fine line between keeping the sellers AND the bidders happy, and generally fails at both. And I'm not sure a site that focuses primarily on the wants of the sellers would be any better.
As I said, the idea of a seller-owned [or at least seller-run] co-op certainly has merits. But that idea, in and of itself, is not enough to provide a viable, vibrant auction site where bidders will WANT to come and will stick around once they get there. If you want to keep the categories "uncluttered" and "browsable" you simply HAVE to restrict sellers' ability to list anything, anywhere, and in whatever quantities they choose.
twinsoft: I have very mixed emotions. Having had my share of deadbeats as a seller, I am very keen on the idea of verified bidders. I see two main counterarguments, however. First off, the damage to a seller is much less than the damage to a bidder when the other party fails to honor his side of the deal. The seller still has the merchandise, after all. Yes, I realize there is time and effort involved, and the seller may have to pay more listing fees, and also may not realize as much the second time around. But that's still a lot less, on average, than what a buyer suffers if he sends payment and never hears back from the seller.
Second, I think that the nature of sellers and bidders is fundamentally different. Sellers, for the most part, come to an auction site with a plan. They decide to sell a certain item, take pictures, write a description, choose payment terms, etc. Asking a seller to provide a credit card is just part of the process. The average buyer, especially the average first-time buyer, on the other hand, often comes to a site just to look around. They don't mind giving an e-mail address to register, but they won't want to give out their credit card without a lot of thought, and they may decide it's not worth it [especially when they've all heard all the horror stories about how it's just not safe to give out your credit card number over the Internet...]
Oh, and as for automatic payments, I'm not sure I like that idea! That gives the sellers a little TOO much power, in my opinion. Not that I encourage being a deadbeat, but sometimes not sending payment is the ONLY power a bidder has if something about the deal is not quite right [say, for example, the bidder discovers that shilling was involved, or that the seller has been NARU'd, or is selling the same item in a different auction....]
Violetta: Good point! That's why I stated up front that, for the purposes of this exercise, we can assume "essentially unlimited funds". When eBay first started it was a new concept and people [for the most part] accepted the fact that not everything would work well all the time. Now, however, Internet auctions and e-commerce in general have been around long enough that people just won't stand for major site outages. So you would DEFINITELY want to make sure you have the equipment to handle the potential volume BEFORE you start, instead of adding power as you go along.
ziggydog: There's certainly a lot to be said for ease of use and less complications. I think a lot of these sites that have tried to compete with eBay start out offering too many bells and whistles, which leads to the site instability mentioned above.
I agree that javascript should be completely verbotten in an auction listing. It may be necessary in a "storefront" setting, however, such as I envision for the "Retail" part of the site. In general, though, as long as the framework of the site is not full of clutter [wav files, dancing gifs, javascript banners, etc.] I think an individual seller who clutters up his own listing only hurts himself by driving away customers. I'm not sure it needs to be "regulated" by the site as a whole.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on May 18, 2001 07:09 PM ]
posted on May 20, 2001 07:54:37 AM
Hi,
Well, I certainly like the suggestion that in the Auction House ~ End of Auction Notice ~ that the NAME & MAILING ADDRESS should be included. It should be the address you want your merchandise or payments mailed to.
I think that would cut down tremendously on scams and deadbeats.
Should you be requested to ship to a different address you can do so based on their feedback record. If it looks questionable then ship to the address provived by the Auction House.
I know I would sure like to get the bidders mailing address right away, this allows me to get the label printed and the package all ready for the PO.
godzillatemple,
I like all of your ideas, especially the splitting of the sight. I've been suggesting that on this board for 2 years that I wish eBay would do that.
Of course my suggestion always has been to have a sight that has a $1.00 NO RESERVE section. That would be a sub-division where the bidder could click onto a link to take them to ALL the $1.00 auctions.
That to me would be the hook.
As I said on the other thread...you don't need to start out listing items you paid a couple hundred dollars for. Get into those auction "junk" boxes and list out of those. This way anything you make on them would be a profit. And don't think for one minute that you can't find some REAL VALUABLE things in those boxes. Besides I've been reading garage sale finds.....looks to me like you-all are making a heck-of-a profit off some of the things you got for little or nothing.
I think after the idea spread that good auctions were being offered for a buck, the sight could and would grow to be able to offer much better things.
Just some thoughts rattleing around in this empty head of mine
posted on May 20, 2001 10:52:03 AM
I'd like to see free listing as follows: say 25c to list up to $9.99 etc., like the old eBay structure - but, if your item sells, you get your listing fee back and only pay the FVF. This would keep out the garbage listings by charging up front, yet not really cost you if your item sells.
I'd like to see a deadbeat system like this:
1st offense: 7 day suspension
2nd offense: 30 day suspension
3rd offense: you're outta here, UNLESS you're willing to put a credit card on file and have the sellers fees taken out when you deadbeat.
While I know this wouldn't keep people from creating new user ID's, it would be more of a hassle for them.
I'd also like to see AOL treated like an "anonymous" provider. If your only email is yahoo for eg., you have to provide a CC# even if you're only a buyer. AOL, since it refuses to police itself, should be treated the same way. [email protected] should have to sign up with a cc.
Also, the whole two-step NPBA/FVF is a pain. Make it 20 days from the auction's end, then FVF - that's fair to everyone.
I don't like the idea of everyone being verified because I think that would turn off buyers. I think the same of an automatic pay system. People don't like when you limit their options.
I don't like the idea of the auction site itself hosting pictures. Just one more drain on the system.
Blow the whole PowerSeller concept - good sellers can be seen by their feedback.
Give everyone the option to void negative feedback they've given. Don't let people who've deadbeat auction #111 leave negative feedback for auction #111.
posted on May 20, 2001 11:35:45 AM
What a great topic!
Let's just say that the co-op idea can work:
My ideal auction site:
The site would select a distinct number of categories that are very popular, work well and attract a lot of buyers. As a result, some things just would not be offered (can't be everything to everybody). And each "master category" would be it's own sub-domain (similar to the way eBay Motors or Premier is different).
This would allow each sub-domain to be able to tailor to the needs of its users. For instance, I could really see why a person selling high end computers, software, jewelry, etc. would want verified bidders but someone selling $10 items would feel that it's not worth the hassle.
Each sub-domain would be able to also supplement the site with content that is relevant. For example, the sub-domain that would encompass photography or electronics may have a guide to selecting the right digital camera or dvd player.
Having the sub-domains appropriately structured and branded would allow that sub-domain to target it's niche. Instead of being the everything under the sun kind of place, it would be where the specialty buyers are. And by default, there would be some spillover as buyers browsed the other categories.
I would not split out retail merchandise because (with the sub-domains) it should not be necessary. For instance, in my category (clothing) there is no need to separate used/ vintage/ collectible from new. And there really is no need to make sellers of new clothing sell in a site different than used clothing.
And the ideal site would not take any crap. It would have a zero-tolerance policy for shill bidding, counterfeit merchandise, keyword spamming, listing Ginsu knives in the antiques category, non-paying bidders, etc.
In fact, it would distinguish between the very very occasional hobby seller and the professional seller and require professional sellers to be fully verified (not just credit cards) that way you could cut down on the big rip-offs where someone steals $10 grand using computer auctions. Sure the true crooks may slip through the cracks, but I would make it more difficult.
Anyhow, the site would be owned by a corporation and the sub-domains can be managed by a co-op. I think there has to be some controlling body that has enough of it's own interests (making money) that it is not pulled in different directions by different members wanting so many different things. For example, I would never offer free listings (maybe to bring in the sellers initially) because it encourages too much clutter as the seller has no financial risk. The financial risk is what keeps the categories manageable.
Some categories could even have a higher listing fee to "weed out" the sellers of marginal merchandise, or require certain levels of business verification or supply a certain kind of distinguishment to sellers that have a certain level of knowledge. For example, in the computer category, some sellers are authorized resellers, or have achieved certifications or have authorized repair centers, etc. I think that is what would make someone a power seller, rather than sales. I would not make the decision for that category, but rather each category would manage that based on the needs of both buyers and sellers.
Like right now, I'm trying to buy a pool cleaner. I would much rather buy from a real company that sells this stuff and knows their pool equipment than a person who liquidates merchandise and just happens to have some pool cleaners in the latest load. If there was some kind of distinguishing factor (that was standardized), then it could make it easier for buyers to decide, when they are looking at the smaller sellers. You can use feedback as a guide, but only to a certain extent because you get new sellers all the time. And some sellers sell such high value merchandise that they don't sell as much and have low feedback numbers.
posted on May 20, 2001 11:45:01 AM
One way to Keep catagories uncluttered like Ebay is to give each registered seller there own little mini auction site they set up there own catagories and list inside them.
then make the search data base, search each sellers auction site by key word rather then running the whole site with one lump batch of catagories for everyone.
Each sellers privite auction booth could have a personal search or site search choice for buyers.
the only Items catagories that would show up on the main site would be New Items listed today Closeing today and featured items.
The main site could have space for small 33x88 ads that could be purchased by sellers on a 7 or 10 day bases to advertize there auction booth or site.
I dont think CC verification for buyers and sellers or the auto Payments from sellers will work to well we already have to good fail exsample of these thing in yahoo and bidville yahoo verifys buyers and seller there sales dont off 60% and bidville had the auto pay system that failed . http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
posted on May 20, 2001 08:16:41 PM
Two problems I see in your post there godzillatemple
2. User Verification.
The MAIN problem I see in this point is Online Security.
The Media has been portraying the Internet as a Wild West Frontier. eBay is portrayed as a "circus" of sorts, with the "Sideshow" attractions and the Crooked Carnies.
A good majority of people that are "basic" users don't (and have been warned constantly) to NEVER reveal vital information, like SS# or Credit Card Numbers.
People who are even using the internet for the first time are apprehensive, considering what the Media has portrayed. They may go to basics like Yahoo or CNN, and nothing else.
A good way to cut the throat of the beast before it has time to hatch.
4. Prohibited Sales. \
It's been said (depending on who's viewpoint you get) that Porn developed the net to what it is today.
And, the old adage "Sex Sells" applies even today.
Porn is $$$$ no matter how you view it. Many of the sites (Yahoo Particular) have basiclly killed any hopes of raising their stock prices (and I was EXTREMELY miffed consider I hold 100 shares of Yahoo Stock since January till Yahoo caved in to a buncha hipocrites).
Banning porn is also, another way to gut your throat. But, whom am I to say, it's your site...
Then again, if I had a stake in it, I'd ask for a wee-bit more "diversity."
:\\\\\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on May 20, 2001 08:45:28 PM
Like I said, I know credit card verification, and especially automatic payment wouldn't be favored by bidders. That's just the way I'd like to see it.
[Venting now...]
Just what part of "your bid is a binding contract" don't you understand? Binding unless I change my mind afterward? Binding unless I find the same item for less later on? Binding unless I decide there's something "funny" about the seller's auction?
It's really very simple. Don't play if you don't intend to pay. And pay immediately. Forget about "I'll send you a check after next payday." There really is no excuse, and I mean no excuse, for not following through on a bid.
Yes, I know instant payments would not be popular with deadbeats ... er, bidders. Some sites do process credit cards (Amazon books) and it seems to work okay for them.
posted on May 20, 2001 09:42:06 PM
Forgive me if I don't see the apparent sarcasm in your post...
But then again, you do want your site to grow, right? And, no hobby theorecticlly "shuts off" the memebership flow; the US Mint has made new Coin Collectors of it's State Quarter's Program, the USPS is doing a horrible (dare I question profitable?) venure of making new stamp collectors, and so forth, and so on...
I understand contract law, but then again, I took nearly 27 different classes pertaining to Business, everything from Business Law to Taxes and Tariffs.
One quote I saw in a textbook was "A business cannot prosper unless it is open."
This is why (if not a main factor other than Venture Capital) E-Commerce has dropped since the dot-com crash; it theoreticlly closed itself out.
Go to most any website, you have to go screen after screen after screen to pay for 1 item. (No thanks to Amazon, damn bastards.)
Add to the fact that the Media has given a "black-Eye" to the Internet, and the threat of "Idenitity Fraud" in this day and age, and your system of verification is, as I say, a very serious death kneel.
Quote Dennis Miller:
Course, that's my opinion, I may be wrong.
:\\\\\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on May 20, 2001 11:25:42 PM
I guess I'm not following the rules of this thread. No, instant payments would not be practical. Hey, CS, I figured that out with only six years of high school!
Soooo, anyhoo. But then again, given that I have unlimited funding (see initial post), I might just "tough it out" or stick with high end jewelry.
I guess I'm puzzled by the premise. What exactly is the "best of all worlds auction site?" One that makes the most money for investors? One that is most fun for bidders? I think I need a lifeline. Obviously, there is a big gap between "practical" and "desirable."
posted on May 21, 2001 05:08:14 AMWhat exactly is the "best of all worlds auction site?" One that makes the most money for investors? One that is most fun for bidders?
Yes, and then some.
The whole concept of "best of all possible worlds" originally arose in a philosophical context, as a way to explain the presence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument was made that due to a variety of factors, including natural laws and man's free will, it is impossible -- even for God -- to create a "perfect" universe. Instead, the argument continues, God made the "best of all possible worlds" where suffering was reduced to a minimum and joy was maximized.
With regard to on-line auctions, my premise is that there's simply no way to come up with a scheme that will make everybody happy in every way. Give too much power to the sellers, and the bidders will suffer. Give too much power to the bidders, and the sellers will suffer. Allow anything to be sold in any category, and the sellers of antiques and collectibles will suffer at the hands of the retailers and the bidders will get upset at the clutter. Restrict the site to selling antiques and collectibles only, and there may not be enough interest to keep the site alive. Therefore, the goal is to come up with a scheme that provides the least amount of suffering for all involved, at the same time it maximizes the "joy" [i.e., both fun and profitability] for everyone. And it has to be practical, in the sense that it could actually be built and would have a good chance of staying afloat.
I wasn't particularly concerned with thinking up a site that would be the most profitable to investors, to be honest. I realize that any venture such as this would need investors, but I also feel very strongly that most of the problems with eBay directly stem from them going public and having to be accountable to the stockholders instead of the members.
In sum, the "best of all possible on-line auctions" would be one where:
1. a large number of sellers would want to list merchandise, because of flexible rules, a friendly atmosphere, and a high chance of profitibility;
2. a large number of bidders would want to buy merchandise, because of flexible rules, a friendly atmosphere, the ability to find what they want, and a sense of satisfaction, either because they can get a "bargain" or find unusual items they can't find elsewhere; and
3. the site itself is profitable enough to keep running [the ability for the original investors to all retire as multi-millionaires would certainly be nice, but is not required].
Carry on....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on May 21, 2001 05:10 AM ]
posted on May 21, 2001 05:27:43 AMCrystalline_Sliver: Just to answer a couple of points you raised about my initial post.
I agree with you about user verification, which is why I don't think it would work for bidders. A site has to encourage new people to browse and shop, and placing too many restrictions and regulations will discourage people from getting their feet wet. But I still think user verification is necessary for sellers. Not only is the potential for damage higher when a seller turns out to be phony, but I think that sellers are less likely to just be "casual visitors" to a site. Selling requires a certain amount of commitment in the first place, not the least of which is agreeing to pay fees to the site.
As for pornography, I understand where you are coming from. I raised it only as an example of something which MIGHT not be given a specific category. In general, though, we need to keep in mind that even if we say an auction site is only for the use of adults, there is no good way that I know of to keep minors from LOOKING. Even at the local 7-11, they place the porno behind the counter and out of site of curious eyes. One option is to do what eBay did and require some sort of "adult verification" to enter the pornography category, but I'm not comfortable that this really accomplishes much good. And, as we've seen by recent events, more and more government agencies are willing to go after the auction sites for the things being sold by the sellers, even though the sites claim to be "just a venue". I just think that permitting the sales of items -- any items -- that cannot legally be sold to minors is a problem when you are dealing with an essentially anonymous marketplace such as the Internet. Not from a moral standpoint, necessarily, but certainly from a legal one. Remember, the goal of this exercise is NOT to have the site shut down because of lawsuits....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 21, 2001 07:42:39 AM
I think an instant payment system would work. It makes it easier and quicker for the buyer, and much better for the seller. It works on Amazon and Half.
If someone doesn't have the money to buy the item when placing their bid, then I really don't want to have to deal with them anyway.
Sitting here with 4 shelves full of sold items and only receiving 1 payment a day in the mail is getting discouraging.
If you could take the best parts of Ebay, Amazon, Half and Yahoo, you would have the perfect site.
posted on May 21, 2001 07:52:09 AM
There are a number of things I'd like to see in an "ideal" auction site - but since I don't foresee them coming to pass, I really see no reason to reiterate them. I can say I don't foresee any type of co-op as an answer as I can't see any co-op being funded well enough, and having enough business experience to produce such a site and be able to run it in a professional, detached manor.
posted on May 22, 2001 01:09:32 AMgodzillatemple: I know that ANYTHING in this world isn't perfect.
Religion is notoriously NOT perfect. Any Car on the road has an inherent problem that may never reveal itself till the day it faces the Scrapper's torch, or it turns over on the road and kills it's occupants a year after manufacter.
But I still think user verification is necessary for sellers. Not only is the potential for damage higher when a seller turns out to be phony, but I think that sellers are less likely to just be "casual visitors" to a site. Selling requires a certain amount of commitment in the first place, not the least of which is agreeing to pay fees to the site.
Ah, notice in my initial post, I was refering (althought not indirectly) with bidders. Sellers are a completely different matter.
Trust me, we'd be arguing for a month before we even come to a clear consensus.
In general, though, we need to keep in mind that even if we say an auction site is only for the use of adults, there is no good way that I know of to keep minors from LOOKING.
One of my serious Major Psychotic Hatreds is how people worry about Children.
No matter what filtering system, what safeguards, whatever, one things for sure; KIDS ARE GONNA BREAK IN AND BE "CURIOUS" NO MATTER WHAT.
Kids today are smarter than some programmers. You can see in media reports of how kids Hack into websites. And let's not forget that DOS Attack on eBay (and other sites) a while back, all contrived by a 16 yr. old Canadian Teen...
But then again, I do believe in Parental Responseability.
Parents shouldn't cry foul when Junior stumbles onto a auction for S&M Equipment on eBay, when he should be doing his homework and not tapping keys for sites on Porn.
Or if Junior stumbles onto a website that they deem offensive.
Their are tools out therre for them to use, but never put your blame on someone else. Which leads me to my next point...
And, as we've seen by recent events, more and more government agencies are willing to go after the auction sites for the things being sold by the sellers, even though the sites claim to be "just a venue".
Another one of my Major Psychotic Hatreds has to be Censorship and Goverment Intervention.
Truth be told, we today as a society are too reliant on Goverment. And, I have a serious omen that the Goveremnt is exerting on the whims of SIG's (Special Interest Groups) and Big Business too much as of late (particularly with GW at the helm).
But notice also that Goverment today seems to be more apprehensive against Technology. Microsoft sued for having a "Monopoly." The RIAA and MPAA having a fit with Napster and Online File Swapping. Religious Groups and Morality Groups wanting to "censor" parts of the Internet, regardless if it takes along free speech as well. And let's not forget our Elected Officials...
I do believe in one aspect; Responseability. And lately, we haven't been doing it per say.
Here's my point:
The "We're only a venue" status stops at Legal Liability.
If your a customer, you accept some (if not all) responseability. If you buy Lawn Darts sharpened into a killing tip, you absolve all liablity from the seller and the site. Whatever you do with them, your responseable if someone get's killed. Notice that we don't go after people who raise Pitbulls because their deemed to be Vicious Animals (given the right Conditions). Because we cannot blame breeders for rasing a breed that is notorious for being fighting animals or dogs that people have as protection.
Or Big Tobacco is constantly shelling out money to people who smoked a pack per day for 40 years and ruined their system. They knew the risks, and their trying to find a scapegoat.
Case in point: The Columbine Victims and Families of the Slain have filed a $5 Billion lawsuit claiming that Media like Movies and Video games egged on the Killers. They have already won a case aganst the Famalies of the Killers and the person that sold the killers their guns. It totalled around $1.5 Million.
I say, Goverment has no right to intervene except for 3 things: taxes (even Income taxes is up for debate; techniclly, the Goverment shouldn't be collecting Income Taxes!!), regulation of whatever #*!@ laws they have already (and the duty of abolishing whatever #*!@ laws they have already), and to uphold the Consitution.
Of Course, that's my opinion, I could be wrong.
:\\\\\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on May 22, 2001 05:16:26 AMAnother one of my Major Psychotic Hatreds has to be Censorship and Goverment Intervention
Well, be that as it may [and you are certainly entitled to your opinion], the fact remains that government censorship and intervention does exist, and for an auction site to remain viable it must acknowledge and deal with the issue.
Yes, it might be nice if the consumer bore all responsibility for buying infringing items. But that's not the way the law currently is.
The issue is not "relying" on the Government to keep an auction site "clean". It is simply that the Government WILL intervene whether we like it or not, so unless a site wants to be shut down and/or sued, it will probably have to proactive about self-censoring questionable items.
That's why this is the best of all possible auction sites we are discussing. Whether or not you agree with the laws of the land, the fact remains that an auction site will have to abide by them in order to be successful.
Again, I am not saying I disagree with your views on government intervention, or that you are "wrong". And nothing in my previous post actually said that I think the government SHOULD intervene, either. But the government likely WILL intervene whether we like it or not, so a successful site will need to deal with that and not just ignore the problem.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 22, 2001 05:23:00 AMOne of my serious Major Psychotic Hatreds is how people worry about Children.
No matter what filtering system, what safeguards, whatever, one things for sure; KIDS ARE GONNA BREAK IN AND BE "CURIOUS" NO MATTER WHAT.
Just out of curiosity, do you object to the fact that the local 7-11 keeps the pornography behind the counter and out of site, thereby forcing adults to go to the trouble of actually ASKING to see it? Do you think that the pornography should instead be placed out front with the rest of the magazines, and that if children have access to it the fault lies entirely with the parents who don't follow their kids wherever they go?
I'm not saying that pornography should be completely restricted from an auction site [although there are certainly some arguments I could make for that]. What I am saying, though, is that a site can take SOME responsibility to make it less accessible to minors. Then it's up to the parents to do the rest.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 23, 2001 01:39:32 AMJust out of curiosity, do you object to the fact that the local 7-11 keeps the pornography behind the counter and out of site, thereby forcing adults to go to the trouble of actually ASKING to see it? Do you think that the pornography should instead be placed out front with the rest of the magazines, and that if children have access to it the fault lies entirely with the parents who don't follow their kids wherever they go?
Funny, I was thinking this as I was at the local Borders trying to find the latest issue of "Heavy Metal."
Sure enough, along with the Heavy Metal Magazine, I also found Penthouse and Several Playboy Specials on the highest shelf of the rack, which I could easily reach for (6' even here). And the various Tattoo Magazines, "Bizarre" magazines, Cult Films, etc., etc.
Of course, there are security cameras all about, and probably kids wouldn't bother to be in a "sterile" store like that.
I believe it all depends on each store. While 7-11 might have one policy, Borders has another. Or Waldenbooks feels comfortable placing the magazines 7 feet up, near the cash register. It all depends on the foot traffic of each store.
I've know of at least one store manager at a Waldens that will call Security and have the kids arrested for theft should they open a Playboy issue from it's polybag.
But as I said before, kids are "curious" and will try to get their kicks. Whether it's in Dad Closet or online, their gonna get it somehow.
Just don't blame me or anyone else if you cannot keep your kids in line. If you couldn't take the responseabilty, then why did you have kids in the first place??
:\\\\\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
Goddamn UBB...
[ edited by Crystalline_Sliver on May 23, 2001 04:28 AM ]
posted on May 23, 2001 03:14:13 AM
Free speech is all fine and good. REALITY CHECK!! Whether you agree with them or not, special interest groups do wield power. If we're talking practicality, special interest groups are a force to be reckoned with.
For example, the Simon Weisenthal Institute may have few members, but they can influence a large segment of your auction site customers. And you may feel that KKK items, since legal, should be allowed a venue. However, you do so at the risk of slouging off a large percentage of your customers.
I can tell you that if you display explicit pornography where it can be easily viewed, by children or adults, many people will not shop your site. Sorry, folks, that's just the way it is. Whether you love porn or not, many people do not care for it in their faces. The same goes for guns, cigarettes, hate literature and other "questionable" items.
A porn dealer will be the first to scream about free speech. Take that same dealer and give them a million shares of stock in an auction site, and that dealer will change his tune. No auction site manager will sit by and let one percent of sales chase away ten percent of the customer base. It wouldn't be prudent.
Barry, I certainly agree that going public created real problems at eBay, especially for sellers. The goal became making money for investors, a goal that was incompatible with the flea market, "buy it for less" nature of eBay. For that reason, I suggest that taking the profit out of the equation.
Back when we were discussing a seller's co-op, one of the ideas that came up was a decentralized, networked site a la Napster. Do away with the auction "site" entirely and create what amounts to a real-time classifieds bulletin board. Instead of song title and artist, just a short, searchable item title and the seller's email address. This would be a true minimalist approach to online "auctions" and would put the deal squarely between buyer and seller.
CS, "Just don't blame me or anyone else if you cannot keep your kids in line." Sorry, but that doesn't float at all. Do you know what pandering means?
