eBay disingenuousness (some classic examples)

[PhilipCohen]

eBay disingenuousness (some classic examples)

27 July 2008

Who knows what the real reason was for eBay’s introduction of absolute anonymity of bidding (“Bidder N”). I would maintain that it has nothing to do with fraudulent “second chance offers”: that supposed problem was solved with the blocking of access to underbidders’ direct email addresses. There never was any good reason for absolute anonymity except to make otherwise blatant and obvious shill bidding “disappear” which means that genuine bidders can no longer be on the lookout for and thereby protect themselves from such activity and as a consequence eBay does have to waste any of their valuable resources doing anything about it.

As a matter of interest I am vocal about the problems I see with eBay precisely because I enjoy using the eBay auction platform; it’s the disingenuousness of eBay’s management towards users that I have a real problem with. If eBay made such blatantly disingenuous statements to the stock exchange or to their shareholders they would undoubtedly be sanctioned.

Below are statements made by eBay on a workshop forum following the announcement that absolute anonymity of bidding was to be extended to the whole of auction. Read these statements slowly and try to absorb what they are wanting you to believe. Some of the statements are so blatantly absurd that I now find it difficult to take anything that eBay says at face value. I can only say that anyone who can believe any of the below nonsense is obviously capable of believing that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden too. eBay management apparently believes that all eBay users are idiots.

Regardless, users should understand that eBay is a publicly listed company and, notwithstanding any statements by eBay to the contrary, no action taken by the current management team at eBay has anything to do with benefitting eBay users: eBay’s every action is purposed solely towards improving eBay’s bottom line, and eBay users should be aware that if at any time there appears to be some benefit to consumers, that is purely coincidental.

My comments on the following statements are in boldface.

At http://forums.ebay.com.au/thread.jspa?messageID=502612080&forumID=1001#502612080—at post 7 of 162, michelleoz-at-ebay.com said:

“Won’t the recent changes to ‘safeguarding member IDs’ allow more shill bidding to take place?

“No - the changes will not make shill bidding any easier.”
This is such a patently absurd and disingenuous statement, it’s simply unbelievable that anyone with any intelligence could make it or indeed expect that anyone else would believe it: not even an eBay user ... well maybe some.

“Our experience is that the detailed information provided on the buyer, and how it is presented, has been more useful to members of the community who report such activity. That is, we still get good quality member reports.”
Where does that “experience” come from; where do the “good quality member reports” come from? The supply of this “detailed information” may seem like a good idea in theory; in practice this information is an ambiguous, confusing, and pointless set of statistics: in some circumstances it can actually make a genuine bidder look like a shill.

“Furthermore, ebay continues to monitor the back end of the site using both data provided by members and also data captured from members as they transact on the site.”
eBay itself has stated that they do not actively filter data to detect shill bidding; they only act on users’ reports; and that is why we now have absolute anonymity (“Bidder N”) so that you can’t detect it …

“And ebay continues to adapt registration and account activity rules to make the site safer overall.”
Rules? Now that gives me confidence …

“Shill bidding is banned by ebay for good reasons: it hurts buyers (who see less value - one of the major drivers for internet purchases) and also hurts legitimate sellers. Any person who argues that ebay wants shill bidding to drive up revenue through inflated final value fees is way off the mark.”
Shill bidding is “banned”; now that gives me even more confidence …

And at http://forums.ebay.com.au/thread.jspa?messageID=502612404&forumID=1001#502612404—at post 82 of 162, danieloz-at-ebay.com said:

“The hidden id changes do not have any impact on shill bidding. eBay introduced hidden IDs for auctions over $250 for over a year ago. These changes were introduced back then and enhanced last week in an effort to stop criminals targeting bidders with fake second chance offers and have nothing to do with shill bidding.”
The first sentence is an absurdity, the rest is more disingenuousness and another absurdity …

“In our efforts to stop shill bidding, eBay continues to monitor the back end of the site using both data provided by members and also data captured from members as they transact on the site.”
Repeat: eBay itself has stated that they do not actively filter data to detect shill bidding; they only act on users’ reports; and that is why we now have absolute anonymity (“Bidder N”) so that you can’t detect it …

“Most suspensions resulting from shill bidding are picked up by eBay’s internal detection methods, rather than reports from the Community.”
Here we go again! And there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, too …

And at http://forums.ebay.com.au/thread.jspa?messageID=502612512&forumID=1001#502612512—at post 138 of 162, danieloz-at-ebay.com responded to a questioner who asked if there was any “publishable data to back up the claims that second chance offers are such a problem, or that shilling has not in fact increased since the introduction of “hidden” bidder IDs for bids greater than $250?”:

“It is difficult for us to get accurate data on second chance offers because this activity happens outside of eBay’s systems and is not always reported to us.”
What? But, you have just said you have all these “good quality member reports” … How does one send a “good quality member” report to eBay? Has anyone ever sent a “good quality report” to eBay?

“However, I can assure you that eBay wouldn’t have lowered the limit to $0 when hiding bidder IDs if the results from the initial launch over a year ago weren’t positive.”
More blatant tosh …

“Once again, this initiative has no impact on shill bidding. There is no correlation between hidden ids and shill bidding.”
And another two patently absurd statements, in particular: “There is no correlation between hidden ids and shill bidding.” … They truly do think that we are all idiots.
_________________
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.