On the eBay “naughty chair” again!

[PhilipCohen]

On the eBay “naughty chair” again!

25 June 2008

Well, I’m on the eBay “naughty chair” again: for 30 days this time. A permanent ban next time? They really do make it difficult for an honest eBayer with only one user ID and one email address to make any serious comment; I guess I’ll have to go with the flow and take out multiple IDs and get some more email addresses! I’ll probably have to go back to a bit of “dial up” too to avoid them sensing my static IP address. What a shame one has to learn to be so devious to deal with these disingenuous snakes.

It appears that eBay will not tolerate any detailed critical discussion on the matter of absolute anonymity of bidders, that further increase in the level of anonymity that they have recently introduced (at least) to their Australian and UK sites and which serves no other purpose than to further obscure bidder IDs to the point that genuine bidders have got absolutely no chance of detecting and thereby protecting themselves from shill bidders. This is a reprehensible action that serves only to deceive consumers. eBay doesn’t like such discussion on the US boards either which suggests that they are in the process of trying to make up their devious little minds as to when to introduce this policy onto the US site also. You all in the US should be prepared to confront them when they do so, and I look forward to seeing the US buyers’ response when this despicable feature is introduced.

Sellers in Australia are currently squealing like stuck pigs: between the recent introduction of absolute anonymity for (shill) bidders upsetting buyers; the nonsensical new feedback system upsetting sellers and the farcical attempted “grab for cash” with “exclusive dealing” for PayPal annoying everybody; here, just about everybody (except the shill-bidding sellers) is unhappy.

The fact is that although it is sellers who pay the bill, an outrageous eBay policy, such as absolute anonymity of bidders, that will reduce buyer confidence will ultimately hurt (ethical) sellers—and ultimately eBay. But apparently nobody at eBay has the intelligence to understand that; then, probably, their only immediate concern is the triggering of the next executive bonus for which they will require an improvement in the bottom line; a reduction in customer support staff will help effect that end.

Not one change that eBay has made recently has been in the interests of consumers (except for the shill-bidding sellers, who are undoubtedly rubbing their hands in anticipation); all appear to have been aimed solely towards improving eBay’s bottom line (nothing wrong with that per se as long as you don’t openly abuse your customer base in the process). Regrettably, I have come to the conclusion that the current management team at eBay are an unethical, disingenuous mob of cowboys.

I assume some stooge on the UK site has reported me this time, although I am surprised that with all their claimed sophisticated processes eBay don’t have some automated process for keeping track of “pests” like me. I say that because, although I am now barred for 30 days from posting on all eBay discussion boards, they have not pulled any of my current batch of posts from the US or AU sites and, strangely, not all of my “offending” posts have been pulled from the UK site either although many have been and eBay, even more strangely, are polite enough to notify me regarding each pulled post individually to that effect.

As a matter of interest a summary of the posts removed and the reasons given therefor follows. The strange thing about it all is that apart from me occasionally daring to mention the unmentionable, the common denominator appears to be the link to a certain “commercial web site”, but, of course, many other members’ posts bear links to other commercial web sites but they are not pulled, and a simple search on the discussion boards (by User ID) for my user ID (philip2727) shows that there are still plenty of my posts containing such links remaining. Apparently eBay are not even efficient at being disingenuous.

It’s interesting to note the difference in mentality between eBay “members” and eBay discussion board moderators. On the UK site some of my posts that were not pulled are contained in a thread that I started and titled “There is nothing wrong with eBay!”. Some members obviously thought that whoever started this thread must be insane and posted responses; eBay moderators apparently took the title literally and looked no further!

======================================
Hidden Bidders
For anyone that is interested, a detailed comment on the disingenuousness of eBay on the matter of hidden bidders at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23355

We have removed this post because the following is not allowed on our boards:
Advertising merchandise, listings, services or commercial Web sites, including offers to trade, "wanted" posts.
======================================
Hidden Bidders
A much greater threat to consumers on eBay. For anyone that is interested, a detailed comment on the disingenuousness of eBay on the matter of hidden bidders at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23355

We have removed this post because the following is not allowed on our boards:
Using JavaScript, active or other coding, making repetitive posts, or other actions that interfere with site operations.
======================================
Easier for eBay!
Hidden Bidders
For anyone that is interested, a detailed comment on the disingenuousness of eBay on the matter of hidden bidders at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23355

We have removed this post because the following is not allowed on our boards:
Using JavaScript, active or other coding, making repetitive posts, or other actions that interfere with site operations.
======================================
What about unfair to buyers: Hidden Bidders
For anyone that is interested, a detailed comment on the disingenuousness of eBay on the matter of hidden bidders at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23355

We have removed this post because the following is not allowed on our boards:
Using JavaScript, active or other coding, making repetitive posts, or other actions that interfere with site operations.
======================================
If you think the attempt to introduce “exclusive” PayPal to Australia is a bad decision by eBay read the detailed comment on the whole-of-auction absolute anonymity of bidding recently introduced to Australia and the UK (and undoubtedly coming soon to the US), and some other matters, at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23355
I notice too that the threads on “Hidden Bidders” are being pulled from the US forums: eBay no like?

We have removed this post because the following is not allowed on our boards:
Using JavaScript, active or other coding, making repetitive posts, or other actions that interfere with site operations.
======================================
Hi citydivision,

If it’s lasted four years then it must have some usefulness; I assume that is why you are watching this thread.

With regard to threads being pulled, I was referring to posts on the matter of “hidden bidders”. If you follow the link to my detailed comments elsewhere you will see that my original post was made there in March 08; that was after the robots at eBay kept pulling my posts and slapping me on the wrist when I was complaining on line about obvious and blatant shill bidding (does that tell you anything). Whole threads on the matter were being pulled. You won’t even find mention of such matter on eBay’s “hidden” boards.

Now, of course, buyers in Australia and the UK (at least) cannot detect even the blatant shill bidders who are undoubtedly now running rampant; but don’t worry, what you don’t know about, won’t hurt you: not even your wallet will feel the pinch.

I don’t mean to be offensive, but if you are not concerned then I have to presume that you are a seller. Otherwise, I am waiting for a meaningful contribution from you to any of the debates!

Do please read my comment on “hidden bidders” at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23355
and by all means offer some meaningful comment; that’s what these forums should be all about.

Then ask yourself why you can find so little critical comment on this matter on the eBay forums: it’s not because members are not concerned. (Such comment on the US site literally bounces straight off; and they have not even got absolute anonymity, YET!)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any statements by eBay to the contrary, no action taken by the current management team at eBay has anything to do with benefitting consumers: eBay’s every action is purposed solely towards improving eBay’s bottom line, and consumers are hereby advised that if at any time there appears to be some benefit to consumers, that is wholly unintentional.

We have removed this post because the following is not allowed on our boards:
Discussing or reposting deleted posts, warning letters, or discussion of sanctioned or no longer registered members.

[Talk about censorship! This explanation at least indicates that the eBay robots are capable of reading]
======================================
Just a thought …

Another outrageous eBay idea: the proposal to bar sellers from lodging negative feedback against buyers—supposedly because some unscrupulous sellers have used such negative feedback in retaliation.

The fact is if a buyer receives previously sight-unseen goods and they are not “as advertised” the buyer is entitled to be dissatisfied, but that stage of the transaction comes after the buyer has completed their part of the transaction by making payment to the seller and the seller should be “satisfied” at that point in time and should post feedback to that effect. What subsequently happens regarding any suggested “breach of contract/warranty” regarding the description of the goods should be treated as a separate matter of warranty.

Some unscrupulous sellers seem to think that a seller is entitled express dissatisfaction with the buyer because the buyer is dissatisfied, and then use retaliatory negative feedback as a pay-back or more usually as a blackmail device to obtain the withdrawal of the buyer’s negative. I doubt that that is the way Wal-Mart works.

Sellers should never have been waiting to see whether or not a buyer was going to communicate dissatisfaction with the goods before posting feedback. If a seller has so little confidence in the goods/services they are offering they probably should not be trying to sell them/it on eBay; certainly not in any ongoing commercial sense.

As predominantly a buyer I have received three such feedback negatives from sellers (3/177); all have been in retaliation for negative feedback that I had lodged against them after all attempts to communicate were exhausted or the response from the seller was not satisfactory to me. So, I think that the feedback system definitely needed some attention in this respect.

Unfortunately, eBay uses a totally different form of logic to me; I would have thought that, to stop such unscrupulous sellers from using retaliatory negative feedback as blackmail, instead of barring sellers from posting negative feedback—if and when such feedback was truly deserved (a non-payment being the principal reason)—the simple answer would have been to require sellers to lodge feedback first, before there could be any system-generated request for a buyer to lodge feedback, as surely the transaction is “satisfactory” for the seller when they receive payment for the goods (credit card purchases from Nigeria always excepted).

Clearly, positive feedback is of much more value to a seller than it is to a buyer: for a buyer a retaliatory negative is little more than an irritation; but the fact that unscrupulous sellers could attempt such blackmail was inappropriate.

A fairer solution to the problem would have been to require sellers to leave feedback for all “sales” within a specified period of time of receiving payment therefor (with a suitable provision for the recording of “no pays”) or after such specified period receive a feedback negative in lieu by default.

Where the seller has so lodged feedback for the buyer, but the buyer, for whatever reason, still does not bother to lodge feedback for the seller, eBay could after a similar period simply give the seller a feedback positive by default.

Those sellers who in the past habitually delayed lodging feedback until the buyer had done so are potentially the unscrupulous ones who will retaliate with negative feedback blackmail—not that a buyer knows that prior to buying: maybe eBay could also consider publishing that statistic (ie, how many of a seller’s supposed “sales” have not had any feedback for a buyer lodged for them by the seller) on the Seller’ Feedback Profile page; better still, on the primary auction page. A large number of supposed “sales” sans feedback could indicate dissatisfied buyers; it could also indicate the possibility of the seller being involved in failed shill bidding.

I accept that it may be difficult for sellers to protect themselves from unreasonable buyers and there should be an effective mechanism to deal with that problem, but, I still think it was inexcusable for a seller to use retaliatory negative feedback as a blackmail device—and that has been the source of the only negative feedback that I have received.

Unfortunately, you also have to bear in mind that, in all matters, nothing eBay says can today be taken at face value: an improvement in eBay’s bottom line via a reduction in the number of their customer service staff will be the only goal for all eBay’s actions. And, on whatever matter, once eBay has made their decision they are not interested in feedback from members; indeed I have no doubt that they do not read eBay forum posts unless they are “reported” by a stooge—notice how simple it is to “report” a post, compared to the maze one has to work though to report a “shill”. eBay forums exist simply as a distraction.

Having said all that, as predominantly a buyer, I see the absolute anonymity of bidding (“Bidder n”) recently introduced initially to Australia and more recently to the UK (but not yet introduced to the US) as the greater threat to all eBay “consumers”: it serves no other purpose than to further obscure auction bidding to the point that buyers have got no chance of detecting and thereby protecting themselves from the shill bidding by unscrupulous sellers that will undoubtedly now run rampant, and eBay are now knowingly “aiding and abetting” this despicable activity: absolute anonymity’s only purpose is to deceive buyers. Detailed comment at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23355

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any statements by eBay to the contrary, no action taken by eBay has anything to do with benefitting consumers: eBay’s every action is purposed solely towards improving eBay’s bottom line, and consumers are hereby advised that if at any time there appears to be some benefit to consumers, that is wholly unintentional.

We have removed this post because the following is not allowed on our boards:
Advertising merchandise, listings, services or commercial Web sites, including offers to trade, "wanted" posts.
======================================
Hi pm_booksandstudiopottery,

Sorry, but the US still has a bidder-specific form of anonymous alias (“a***b (n)”); with this alias, in conjunction with the accompanying feedback count, they can still track another bidder across (a seller’s) other auctions and thereby attempt to protect themselves from at least the most blatant forms of shill bidding.

We in Australia and the UK now have an absolute form of anonymous alias (“Bidder n”); this alias is totally anonymous and is different for each auction, being simply a chronological numbering of the bidders for that particular auction. We now have absolutely no chance of detecting even the habitual shill bidding dealer. The introduction of such absolute anonymity in such circumstances can only be described as reprehensible.

Read my detailed comment this and other matters at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23355

But read it soon; eBay does not like comments on such matters!

We have removed this post because the following is not allowed on our boards:
Advertising merchandise, listings, services or commercial Web sites, including offers to trade, "wanted" posts.
_________________
Clearly, the lunatics at eBay have taken over the asylum and are bent on burning it down.
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.” ~ Albert Einstein.

[Charli]

Nothing ebay does is in the interest of its customers. Everything is in the interest of Ebay and only Ebay. This is just one more example of ebays lack of caring what happens to it's customers.
_________________
Gene & Charli
If you're disabled and still want to enjoy a hobby contact us about adaptive tools.
ggcs@Too-Bad-Dogs-Inc.com

[Tradguy]

Again - WRONG FORUM

This is not "News".

[Charli]

Isn't news the informing of people about issues that may effect them? Might not be breaking news but I believe it is news.
_________________
Gene & Charli
If you're disabled and still want to enjoy a hobby contact us about adaptive tools.
ggcs@Too-Bad-Dogs-Inc.com