Shill Bidding on eBay: Case Study #2

Shining some light on the more sophisticated and therefore harder to detect shill bidding activity by many “professional” sellers on eBay auctions

This time a spreadsheet analysis of multiple auctions, from some “professional” sellers from the US and Australia. Needless to say the analysis demonstrates, once again, that, contrary to eBay’s claims, shill bidding by many “professional” sellers is rampant on eBay auctions. The full comment and spreadsheet download links at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=24296

Revised 13 April 2008

A comment principally on the whole-of-auction absolute anonymity of bidders recently introduced to Australia (and more recently to the U.K.) by eBay, including responses to the various, sometimes nonsensical, statements being offered by eBay in support of this decision—with apologies to all the shill bidders out there.

For those of you with a very short attention span I will summarise my comments on my principal concern, the issue of “shill” bidding:

It is said that “Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.”

It follows therefore that “eBay must not only be free of shill bidders; users must also be able to see for themselves that it is free from shill bidders.”

Putting aside for the moment eBay’s existing “shill-bidders’ hide” facility, “User ID kept private,” if eBay thinks that making all bidding aliases absolutely anonymous (ie, “Bidder n”) will not make shill bidding easier or that experienced eBay users will now trust eBay, of its own volition, to rid eBay of the shill bidding that will undoubtedly now run rampant, then eBay management is living on a different planet to that on which I reside, and I have no doubt that such anonymity will ultimately have a detrimental effect on eBay’s business.

Actually, they are on a different planet: they have already stated elsewhere that “… we do not immediately remove a member from our site if shill bidding is detected” because eBay believes “… that people are basically good and sometimes people need an opportunity to be educated instead of removed” (ie, eBay needs to protect its income stream). The problem with this policy is that it appears that the only shill bidding eBay is ever going to recognise is that which is so blatant and habitual that such sellers do not deserve and should not get further chances! And, what then about the extra consideration these shill-bidding cheats have taken from unsuspecting buyers who have bought in good faith (and trusted eBay)?

Clearly, eBay does not have any automated processes for the detection of shill bidding (we all can direct eBay to obvious instances of such activity); eBay apparently relies solely on the reporting of such suspected activity by users—yet eBay has just removed the user’s capacity to more easily notice such activity … Dah!

Further, I would not be surprised if eBay could not be held to be complicit in any shill bidding that can be proven as eBay, for what would appear to me to be a petty if not a disingenuous reason has chosen to lessened the capacity (to practically zero) for buyers themselves to be on the alert for and thereby attempt to protect themselves from such despicable activity.

If the various governmental “Offices of Fair Trading” had any backbone they should have the power to make eBay undo this absolute anonymity nonsense as the simple fact is it serves no purpose other than as a blatant hide for shill bidding—in which eBay appears happy to be complicit.

For those of you with a longer attention span, the full detail of this and some other eBay matters at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6497776#6497776
or a fully formatted pdf file on request from formset@exemail.com.au.

That is an awesome idea to not only prevent bid sniping, but actually to profit from bid sniping.

It’s like overtime periods in sports. It’s genius and it’s almost embarassing for eBay that they haven’t thought of it themselves.