WTB: Working Apple Lisa

[Plasma]

I think ebay would be better if it was a silent auction with proxy bidding. The seller would set the minimum bid, but after that you can't see what others have bid or who is winning. Then you could always just put in your max bid, and if it's the highest at closing, you get the item for one increment above the next highest bid.

 

[NeXT]

Is this thread even on topic anymore?? Saying how you know how to make ebay better has been BEATEN TO DEATH.

 

[Plasma]

This thread has been off-topic for a week. Settle down.

 

[VERAULT]

I have a beer every time it goes off topic.. oww my liver.

 

[oldpcguy]

I've actually been the 'second chance' bidder in a few of those situations. There was one I remember where I bid a max of $2000 or something, and my bid held at $300 until the very end when the 'winner' nuked their bid and won at $2100 or something. The seller wanted me to purchase at $2000, and I declined. I figured if the other bidder was nonsense and nobody else bid, as had happened here, then the real winning bid should have been $300. I suggested he rerun the auction and I think it ended up going to something close to that price.

I had that very situation happen to me too. I lost an auction due to my max bid being hit and knocking me out. There was one difference though...after the seller canceled the winning bid I automatically became the winning bidder (at my max bid). I wasn't given an option to decline and had to contact the seller and tell them I was not going to be purchasing the item, especially not at max bid (having been knocked out I ended up buying the item from a different seller so I no longer had interest in buying it even at my initial price).

 

[VERAULT]

So let me get this right. You made a bid (your max bid) and it was something you were unwilling to pay?!? But you made the bid by having a max bid set. That sounds pretty dishonest if im hearing that right.

 

[d5aa96]

I think oldpcguy's point here is that auction was declared a fraud due to the high bidder being a shill. This shill bidding had artificially raised the price and then the shill was not held accountable, yet oldpcguy was expected to honor his max bid with known fraud in the bidding. Is that fair? If there was no shill bidding in the auction, would the price have risen to oldpcguys max? We will never know.
If eBay is not going to hold the shill accountable, then they can't expect other honest bidders to honor there max price.

This was not a "blind" auction. Only in a blind auction would you be held to your bid if a higher bidder backed out.

Rick

 

[VERAULT]

Are you assuming these things happened? He did not mention them in his reason.

MAybe you know him and he told you the story, I just didnt get that from what he wrote.

 

[d5aa96]

... after the seller canceled the winning bid

any bidding that raises the price that is later rejected should end the whole auction. It the seller's or the host's fault for not qualifying a bidder before allowing the bid to be placed.
Just because seller rejects the high bidder for whatever reason, it does not obligate the any of the other bidders. Technically, any of bids prior to the highest bid are canceled once the higher bid is made.

If the seller want's to make an offer to the next higher bidder, that is OK, but that bidder is not obligated to take the offer.

 

[cjs]

Are you assuming these things happened? He did not mention them in his reason.

By his description (which I am not vouching for the correctness of) it was pretty clear that the auction was being treated as an English auction for the first bidder: i.e., you enter hidden maximum bids and the item price at auction close is the second highest maximum bid, or one increment above it. One would expect that if the highest bidder is disqualified, the second highest bidder should buy at the third highest bid (or one increment above it). But in this case, it was described as the second highest bidder being forced to his own maximum, rather than the maximum of the next bidder below, despite this not being the case for the first bidder.

 

[VERAULT]

By his description (which I am not vouching for the correctness of) it was pretty clear that the auction was being treated as an English auction for the first bidder: i.e., you enter hidden maximum bids and the item price at auction close is the second highest maximum bid, or one increment above it. One would expect that if the highest bidder is disqualified, the second highest bidder should buy at the third highest bid (or one increment above it). But in this case, it was described as the second highest bidder being forced to his own maximum, rather than the maximum of the next bidder below, despite this not being the case for the first bidder.

I didnt ask for a run down. Ive been on ebay for over 23 years and im a seller.

This all sounds like speculation..


Anyway it doesnt really matter.. ya know because of Apple Lisas...... Yep

 

[cjs]

I didnt ask for a run down. Ive been on ebay for over 23 years and im a seller.

In that case it would be good if you could give a run-down of how E-bay actually works. I find it odd that E-bay would use a different price calculation for the second bidder if the highest bidder is disqualified, and even more odd that a seller could ask a second bidder to pay a higher price than the English auction price if the highest bidder is disqualified.

 

[oldpcguy]

I think oldpcguy's point here is that auction was declared a fraud due to the high bidder being a shill. This shill bidding had artificially raised the price and then the shill was not held accountable, yet oldpcguy was expected to honor his max bid with known fraud in the bidding. Is that fair? If there was no shill bidding in the auction, would the price have risen to oldpcguys max? We will never know.
If eBay is not going to hold the shill accountable, then they can't expect other honest bidders to honor there max price.

This is what happened for the auction I mentioned:

• A shill bidder drove up the price of the auction past my max bid.
• Having been knocked out of this auction (by my max bid having been exceeded) I ended up buying the product from a different seller in a different auction.
• The shill bidder then won the auction (we were the only two bidding on the item).
• The shill bidders winning bid was canceled by the seller.
• Due to the cancellation I became the winning bidder at my max price. I was not given the choice if I wanted to be the second-place bidder, it was automatic.

There were two important aspects as to why I dd not feel obligated to buying this item:

1. Due to my max bid having been exceeded I was no longer a participant for the remainder of the auction and therefore under no obligation to complete the purchase.
2. Had I not already purchased the item elsewhere I would not have paid my max price. The only reason my max price was reached was based solely on the shill bidders participation. Had I still wanted the item the appropriate price would have been the price prior to the shill bidders entrance to the auction.

If this had been allowed to stand I see nothing that would prevent a seller from shill bidding on their own auction to drive up the price and, if they exceed a bidders max price, cancelling their shill bid to force the previous bid price to be the winning bid. IOW an easy way for a seller to determine what a bidders max price is and game the system.