E-Bay morons (1 Viewer)

[MarkHastings]

It's not a $40 profit because you are forgetting about the original $50 profit. I see it as a loss of $10 (i.e. the $50 profit in exchange for the $40 profit). Sure you can't spend the $40 elsewhere, but is that worth losing out on $10?

As for the video game...I'm not too familiar with this, but what about people in other countries? Paying above the US price may be acceptable because this may be the only way they can get the game.

 

[DaveF]

But can you get it for $14 shipped? Also, don't forget the time value of money. Is it worth a 3-hours drive to save $6? Wouldn't be to me.

(And that's the only sensible reason to can think of sell a gift card: you don't have that store available.)

 

[Kevin M]

I know Dave, that's why my very next words were "Then again I don't live in the middle of nowhere".

 

[MarkHastings]

Perhaps, if it were an oddball store, but most gift cards (like the previously mentioned Wal-Mart card) can be used online.

I would actually believe that anyone selling a $100 Gift Card for $50, has a TON of "stolen" ones on their hands.

 

[Charles J P]

I can see selling a gift card. First of all, people get gift cards to generic places for graduations and stuff all the time. Maybe what they really wanted was a set of Paradigm speakers or an H/K receiver. Sure is it a little selfish to sell their $100 gift card for $90? Maybe a little, but that's why this kind of stuff happens.

 

[Artur Meinild]

Again, you demonstrate that you don't know how Ebay bidding works. It's perfectly normal (and sane) to enter a bid of 200 after a bid of 100. Why? Because it will only raise 1-2 dollars at a time, until the maximum you're willing to pay (namely 200) is reached.

 

[MarkHastings]

Agreed. Raising it $1 would most likely mean someone will just outbid you by $1 (in a short while). Raising $100 is a nice way of eliminating a bunch of other bidders as well as scare away new bidders.

 

[Jim Sentry]

And feed the pocket of the seller.

The seller should set a price they can live with. By starting with artificially low numbers in order to throw the hook out they just waste the time of serious people.

Do you know if Ebay audits or tracks these transactions or they are just concerned with maximizing their revenue.

If they want to sell the item just set a reasonable price.

Stop with the games.

 

[BrianW]

What games? Proxy bidding frees the bidder from having to check on the auction all the time. Just bid the maximum price you're willing to pay, and wait for the email telling you that you've won or lost. If you've won, then you haven't paid a price you didn't think was fair, and there's a chance that the price you end up paying is only a dollar more than a distant second-place bidder's maximum bid instead of your own maximum bid. If you lost, then it's because the price exceeded an amount you decided ahead of time was too much to pay.

Are you calling the whole auction process a game? I can't think of a fairer way to establish the value of an item between a seller and a buyer.

However, I do believe that Ebay is concerned with just maximizing their revenue. But it is also my opinion that the vast majority of Ebay auctions are honest and of value to both buyer and seller alike.

 

[Marvin]

Just because your maximum bid is $200 doesn't mean the price will automatically go up from $100 to $200 (unless the current high bidder's maximum bid is $199, or whatever the increment is at that price).

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

You are free to just go to a store. Low starting bids attract more buyers - everyone is looking for a deal. Is it annoying to see an auction for something you'd like at $1 when the reserve is in the thousands? Sure, but at the same time, if you are willing to bid a fair price, you'll hit the reserve, if not, you haven't lost anything. If the reserve is unrealistic, then it is the seller's loss, not yours. they have to pay listing fees based on the reserve whether the item sells or not.

As for the original subject, I had a feeling that the answer to the higher bid was due to a lack of availability nearby. Not everyone lives within a reasonable distance to a major retailler, and factoring gas and time, paying a few dollars more is often worth it for the convenience. Also, even if the item is available locally, it is often more expensive, for the exact same reason. You pay more for convenience.

 

[Scott L]

I think many people here are overreacting. Ebay works perfectly fine. The only "morons" in my opinion are:

- sellers who end up unoficially canceling the auction after you've won
- bid winners that don't pay up
- thieves

Anything else is fair game.

 

[andrew markworthy]

To return to the original topic of this thread, I think the simple reason is because some people are idiots and get carried away with the moment. This is one of the reasons why people sell at auctions - they hope to get two or more stupid mutts who let their emotions overrule their senses. You see this all the time with DVD sales - I've seen countless examples where someone buys a used DVD for at least 20% more than a new one would cost from an e-tailer.

In addition, you get other cases where someone has more money than sense and just seems determined to show that they can outbid everyone else. In this instance, you don't need underhand dealings by sellers - these jackasses will happily shoot themselves in the foot. To give you a concrete example of this, I've largely given up on trying to buy stuff in my area of collecting on ebay. It used to be a good hunting ground - most of the time I'd pay a fair price (and save the effort of going to collectors' fairs) and sometimes I'd get a bargain. But then along came a group of four or five assholes who will pay stupid money for everything. This would be sour grapes on my part if they were just outbidding me on the desirable items, but they are prepared to pay really stupid prices for items that I know are next to worthless. I am not exaggerrating, but I once saw two of them get into a bidding war for an item that is widely available from dealers for (at most) £1. The eventual price the item was won at was - £65. Great news for sellers, but ultimately a deterrent to buyers.



Um, yes ... quite a lot actually. Though having said that, Walmart took over a Brit chain of stores (Asdas) a few years ago, but kept the Asda name.

 

[Brian Perry]

My biggest complaint about eBay is the way they handle these second-chance offers. Let's say an item is currently bid at $50, and then I bid $100. If no one else bids, I would win the item for about $55. However, if someone else had bid $105 and won the auction, but then later defaulted, the second-chance amount should be $55, not $100 as eBay currently dictates. After all, $55 would have been the winning bid had the bogus bid not been entered.

All this does is encourage shill bidding, and is the main reason I would always be skeptical about accepting a second-chance offer.

 

[Charles J P]

I totally agree, the computer logs exactly what happens, and it should be reverted back the highest bid by a non-retracting USER so ALL the proxy bids between $55 and $105 should be retracted, not just the one from $100 to $105! Its totally stupid.

 

[MarkHastings]

Why is it stupid? If you bid $100, that's what you are agreeing to pay (if you win). Why would you be mad if you were then expected to pay that amount (for winning)?

if it angers you, why bid it? or am I missing something here??

 

[BrianW]

Just because there weren't other bids between $55 and $200 doesn't mean there still wouldn't have been any such bids if the $200 dollar bid hadn't been placed at all. You may have stll ended up paying your maximum bid if others valued the item as you did. There's even a chance that you would have been legitimately outbid if the $200 bid had never been placed, since others might have been caught up in the rise to $100 and might be more willing to rationalize another incremental step above that price. The fact is that you don't know how that auction would have gone if the $200 bid had never been placed. As such, I'd have to agree with Mark that this is the fairest way to make the stuation not suck as bad, though it doesn't fix it entirely. You're given a chance to get the item at a price you've already decided you were willing to pay, and you can always say "No."

 

[Brian Perry]

Brian,

I agree there is no way to know how many bids were discouraged by the bogus bid; however, it would be interesting to see whether more second-chance offers would be accepted at the lower (highest "true" bid) as opposed to the high proxy bid that eBay uses. Are there any stats out there showing how many 2nd chance offers are accepted? My guess would be only about 10%.

 

[BrianW]

I don't know anyone who has agreed to accept a 2nd-chance offer - ever. Rereading my post, it looks like I'm defending the way they implement the 2nd-chance offer as being a good way to do it. That's not really the way I feel. I definitely agree that it's a situation that sucks all around, and shouldn't be tolerated if shill bidding is involved. But aside from re-auctioning the item (which is what I think should be done, IMHO), I can't come up with a fairer way to establish the item's value (or lack thereof). From the number of people who I see pass on the 2nd-chance offer (which is admittedly limited, anecdotal knowledge in my case), it sure seems like there could be a better way.

And where did I get that $200 figure from? I meant $105. How embarrassing.

 

[David McGough]

You never know they might live in Alaska or Bodoneya and don't ahve acess to games..