6 Responses

1. ebay forum

   November 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

   1

   Ugh. I really wish I beat them to the punch with that digg / ebay concept. Damn it damn it damn it.

2. Philip Cohen

   March 7th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

   2

   7 March 2008

   eBay Australia introduces total anonymity for shill bidders

   An expanded version of an earlier comment on the total bidder anonymity recently introduced to Australia by eBay (presumably a testing of the water for a more general application), including responses to the various nonsensical statements being offered by eBay in support of this decision.

   I have bought many more items than I have sold on eBay so this comment is primarily from a buyer’s perspective. I am most unimpressed with eBay Australia’s decision to now make all auction bids absolutely anonymous, and the various reasons given for this decision I find unconvincing. Indeed, the principal reason given, the protection supposedly afforded buyers from fake “second chance offers”, is far outweighed by the field day this decision creates for shill bidders from whose activities buyers will now have no effective means of becoming aware and thereby protecting themselves.

   I have in the past corresponded at length on the matter of shill bidding with the robots at eBay Customer Support and, frankly, the experiences have invariably been very frustrating and unsatisfying. I have formed the opinion that eBay does not have any tools, let alone the “sophisticated” tools that eBay claims to have, for the detection of shill bidding. I realise that investigating user reports of shill bidding requires the expenditure of some ergs; but eBay has a moral and (usually) a statutory obligation to stop shill bidding whenever eBay is made aware of such activity. Unfortunately, my experience with eBay is such that I have formed the opinion that eBay is very little concerned about this activity, and indeed eBay’s responses to my reporting of such activity in the past have habitually been to initially deny that such activity is taking place and it is only after much kicking and screaming and threatening that eBay has finally taken any action against a shill bidding seller.

   Shill bidding brings no financial disadvantage to eBay; indeed it potentially increases the listing and selling fees that eBay receives, and I have therefore, reluctantly, come to the conclusion that eBay is, in fact, not concerned about shill bidding, and this decision to now make all bids absolutely anonymous will, intentionally or otherwise, very effectively hide such activity and will stop buyers from being able to notice and report same. As a consequence of this decision, eBay will no longer have to worry about shill bidding or do anything about it as genuine bidders can’t detect and report that which it is no longer possible for them to be on guard against. Considering the fact that eBay has made the absurd statement: “… this initiative has no impact on shill bidding. There is no correlation between hidden IDs and shill bidding,” one has to wonder if indeed this whole exercise is not simply a disingenuous move to remove shill bidding from view and thereby simplify matters for eBay. A very unsatisfactory situation from a buyer’s point of view. I don’t like being cheated, I don’t like watching others being unknowingly cheated and I particularly don’t like the thought that eBay appears to be so indifferent to such cheating. Clearly, from a buyer’s point of view, eBay has now become a not so “safe and fun place to trade.”

   On 26 February, on the eBay Workshop Board michelleoz@ebay.com, in anticipation, posed a question and responded thereto:

   “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.
   “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.
   “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.
   “And ebay continues to adapt registration and account activity rules to make the site safer overall.
   “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.”

   The first sentence of this answer (“No—the changes will not make shill bidding any easier.”) is a patently absurd statement; of course absolute anonymity makes shill bidding easier—as it could so do at any attended live auction—just as the absolute anonymity offered by eBay’s “User ID kept private” facility has already enabled shill bidders to operate on eBay with little fear of detection (see below)—notwithstanding eBay’s claim of having “sophisticated tools” for the detection thereof.

   And, to the contrary, the “detailed information provided on the buyer” now supplied is not more useful: you really cannot expect the majority of the sheep that graze on the eBay slopes to be interested in sifting through multiple pages of such “detailed” information to try and ascertain whether or not another bidder is a shill—assuming they are aware of such activity in the first place. I am certainly not interested in doing so; I prefer to be able to put a “face” on another bidder, so that I can more easily make that judgment. I use a third-party auction processing programme to keep track of current and past auction activity on eBay that is of interest to me (with no 90-day limit) and I can manipulate that data (like an Excel spreadsheet): previously, that gave me a good chance of noticing any suspicious patterns of bidding—but no more.

   Having said that, and not wanting to appear negative, no matter what, to any suggestion of change, the “Bid activity (%) with this seller” on the Bid History Details page may, at first appearance, appear to be of some use in some circumstances but its usefulness is severely limited by the fact that it is a summary of only the past 30 days. I accept that the compilation of the Bidder Information data is more complex than simply storing and incrementing a count of a buyer’s feedback but why is this “30-Day Summary” not a summary of at least the previous 90–120 days—ie, for the whole of the period that past auction details remain available on/to eBay? Now, if that was the case and an indication of that “Bid activity (%) with this seller” figure appeared on the Bid History page and, better still, also for the current high bidder on the primary auction page (eg, “Bidder n (nnn I nnn%)”)—notwithstanding the basic objection to the absolute anonymity of “Bidder n” as opposed to “a***b (nnn)” which allows some opportunity for checking for any habitual appearance on a seller’s other auctions—that might well be of some usefulness in detecting shill bidding by regular eBay sellers.

   Unfortunately, a 30-day summary is of little use when a bidder is only an occasional buyer and may well cause others to mistakenly suspect that a genuine non-regular bidder is a shill; and that is made even more likely now (in Australia) because, unlike in the US, the alias currently used in Australia (“Bidder n”) does not include the total feedback count, but only the new member symbol or the vague feedback “star” symbols (the meanings of the various colours of which I can never remember). Why does Australia, unlike the US, now use only the vague feedback symbols and not the actual feedback count for describing bidders—particularly in lists? At least Australia does not—yet—use the Australian form of alias for the winning bidder (we still get the actual ID which gives us a chance of spotting shills after but not before the event)—such absolute anonymity for the winning bidder would, once again, bring certain joy to the shill bidders. Nor do I understand the use, outside of Australia, of the feedback count in combination with the vague feedback symbols; it’s the count surely that counts. I don’t understand the logic of having so many variations in the information supplied between the various eBay sites.

   With respect to the “Bids to unique sellers” count that appears in the Australian “30-Day Bid Summary”, this statistic represents only the number of unique sellers with whom the bidder has placed bids (and the “30-Day Bid History” listing also indicates this statistic), and does not represent feedback (ie, completed transactions) and it is therefore a pointless statistic except, possibly, if this bid count appears to be way out of proportion to any feedback count (by their nature shill bidder’s are going to nibble, not snipe), it could indicate that someone may have been placing small bids on other sellers’ auctions in an attempt to create the appearance of genuineness when shill bidding may be the ultimate intent (for example, see item 300194283130; Bidder 7: a new eBay member, less than 30 days; 22 unique items bid on; 18 bids to unique sellers; but still zero feedback: 0/22—that can’t be much fun!).

   Previously, when anonymity was not activated until USD180/AUD250 (whatever) it was still possible to watch for suspicious bidding activity early in the auction. Now, after observing a number of auctions since total anonymity has been introduced for the whole of the auction, I have formed the opinion, that such total anonymity, particularly that with the absolutely anonymous form of alias used in Australia (“Bidder n”), is nothing more than an outrageously effective hide for shill bidders. I challenge anyone (eBay-programmed robots excluded) to make the same observations of bidder activity and the bidder information now supplied and argue otherwise.

   And then there is the situation where bidders apparently can choose to keep their “feedback” private (ie, “alias (private)”). What is the point of having feedback if a bidder can choose to hide it? What is the point of having feedback if an anonymous bidder can choose to hide it? Presumably it is not hidden from the seller, only from other bidders. What possible purpose can there be for the hiding of feedback at any time—except for the possible concealing of shill bidding?

   Then there is the “User ID kept private”: It should be borne in mind that it is the seller—not the bidder—who may choose to use “User ID kept private” (what I call the “shill bidder’s paradise tool”). If they desire it, why is it not the individual bidder who may choose such anonymity on a high-value item? Of course, the obvious answer to that is that the shill bidder, individually, could then choose such anonymity—but then it’s better for the seller employing shill bidding to have this choice as he can better hide his shill bids amongst the genuine bids—if there are indeed any genuine bids—when all bids are kept private (see below). If, as is claimed by eBay, this facility is to protect the identity of bidders on high-priced items then there should at least be a substantial minimum starting value qualification ($1000?). Frankly, I think this classic “shill bidder’s hide facility” should be done away with completely!

   I am afraid the decision-makers at eBay (particularly in Australia) use a different form of logic to that which I instinctively use; the whole premise that absolute anonymity of bidders is the only, or even the best, way to protect buyers from fake second chance offers is a nonsense. There is none of this absolute anonymity—yet—on the U.S. or European sites, and with the form of alias currently being used—still only for the “higher-valued” bids in Europe and the U.S.—being a contraction of the actual bidder ID [ie, “a***b (nnn I)”]—a potential buyer has still got some chance of noticing if another bidder is, or has been, active in a questionable manner on a particular seller’s auctions. This observation cannot be made with aliases that are neither unique nor consistent—as is the case with the aliases currently being used in Australia (ie, “Bidder n I”). And the use of such totally anonymous aliases will undoubtedly further “aid and abet” shill bidders—anyone who thinks otherwise is being disingenuous or is a fool. Do I then believe that, in lieu, eBay will now, of its own volition, step up to the plate and better detect and act against such shill bidders? Not on your Nelly! And the rest of this boiler-plate answer is simply more meaningless words seeking some form of purpose.

   And on the same workshop venue danieloz@ebay.com responded to a questioner asking if there is 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 >$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.
   “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.
   “Once again, this initiative has no impact on shill bidding. There is no correlation between hidden IDs and shill bidding.”

   The content of this statement expresses the similar “we see no problem” attitude to that of other initial boiler-plate responses invariably received from eBay Customer Support. If this grossly absurd statement (“… this initiative has no impact on shill bidding. There is no correlation between hidden IDs and shill bidding.”) truly reflects what eBay believes, one can only say that this is simply one more example of just how naïve (or disingenuous) and how far out of touch with the real world are the decision makers at eBay!

   And again on the same eBay workshop danieloz@ebay.com responded to another question about eBay’s data on fraudulent Second Chance Offers with:

   “eBay saw a dramatic drop in the number of reports received of fake second chance offers for items above $250 after introducing hidden IDs.
   “However, what followed was that criminals started to target items below $250. So it only made sense to extend hidden IDs to $0.
   “Fake second chance offers are one of the ugliest types of fraud experienced by buyers because they believe they are operating under eBay’s watchful eye, when in fact they are not. Any action to reduce eBay members falling victim to this type of fraud will benefit sellers by increasing confidence among buyers by ensuring less of them get into strife.”

   No specific data—just more of the same meaningless words searching for a purpose. The simple fact is that underbidders can protect themselves from fake email “second chance offers” simply by ignoring them unless such offers are also received via the eBay website.

   And another gem from another of eBay Customer Support’s boiler-plate statements on the matter:

   “… a high percentage of members have registered an email address that is close or identical to their eBay User ID so it is easy for them [the fraudsters] to guess their email address based on their User ID,”

   Surely, this is a absurd statement; and smells more like some sort of “red herring.” If eBay truly wanted to protect buyers from such activity then the obvious option, that has always been available, was to do away with the “second chance offer”; I would hypothesise, anyway, that most second chance offers are the result of the underbidder having been outbid by the seller’s shill. That indeed was the case with a genuine, and the only, “second chance offer” that I have ever received: the particular auction was for an artwork; when I then looked more closely at the supposedly non-paying winner there was a symbol indication that the winner had recently changed their User ID; on further investigation I noticed that the previous ID happened to be made up of the same uncommon name as that of the artist of the artwork item on which I had bid. To me then it was obvious, beyond any doubt, that this was a case of shill bidding, but not so to eBay when I reported it; eBay even disingenuously suggested that the offer was fraudulent.

   One particular seller I have noticed is auctioning a constant stream of identical items, with a starting value at 1.00, sometimes with a “Reserve not met”, sometimes with the addition of a “Buy It Now” at USD49.99, and using “User ID kept private” to hide totally any vestige of bidder ID (search eBay for “bmw scan tool”). What possible purpose can be served by eBay allowing the use of “User ID kept private” by sellers of such petty items. What possible purpose could such a seller have for choosing to use “User ID kept private” for such petty items. Some cynics may think that the only purpose could be to ensure, by the means of shill bids, that any successful bidder pays at least USD49.99. So, I would again ask, where are those “sophisticated” shill-detecting tools that eBay claims to have?

   I think eBay should reverse this latest decision on anonymity; indeed I think eBay should do away with all absolute anonymity of bidding, and eBay should, in particular, do away with the “User ID kept private” facility (or at least apply a substantial minimum starting value qualification) as all this anonymity—particularly “User ID kept private” and the alias style “Bidder n”—serves too effectively as a hide for shill bidders, and anyone who argues otherwise is either being disingenuous or is a fool. In lieu of such a reversal I think we can predict an eventual downturn in buyer activity. Certainly, this is one “white fella” who will undoubtedly be doing less buying on eBay.

   In lieu of receiving eBay’s prompt advice that eBay intends to do away with all absolute anonymity in bidding and/or in the case of “User ID kept private” severely qualify its use, one has to consider reporting this situation to the Office of Fair Trading and to the media and anybody else who will listen. I can see the television “Current Affair” show promo now: “eBay not concerned about shill-bidding sellers ripping off buyers,” or possibly, “eBay Australia introduces absolute bidder anonymity to protect shill bidders.”

   And another crazy eBay idea: the looming proposal to bar sellers from lodging any negative feedback against buyers simply because some unscrupulous sellers have used such negative feedback in retaliation. As predominantly a buyer I have received three negative feedbacks from sellers (3/134); 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. Unfortunately, eBay uses a totally different form of logic to me; I would have thought that, instead of barring sellers from posting negative feedback, if and when such feedback was truly deserved, the simple answer would have been to require sellers to lodge feedback first, before there can be any request for a buyer to lodge feedback, as surely the transaction is satisfactorily completed for the seller when they receive their consideration for the goods (credit card purchases from Nigeria always excepted). You can very quickly identify the possibly less scrupulous sellers as those who habitually delay lodging feedback until the buyer has done so; not that that sort of detail is available to potential bidders: maybe eBay should consider publishing that statistic (ie, how many of the seller’s supposed sales have not had any feedback lodged for them by the seller) on the Seller’ Feedback Profile page; better still, on the primary auction page. A large enough number of “sales” sans feedback could also indicate the possibility of shill bidding.

   What say you eBay?

3. Tony

   July 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am

   3

   The recent shake up of the feedback system at eBay has been long overdue imo. Too many dodgy sellers were getting away with shoddy goods and service by withholding their feedback with the result that disgruntled buyers would be unwilling to leave negatives for fear of retaliation.

   Anyway, just my opinion. Keep up the good work!

4. wholesalediy

   September 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

   4

   this tips may help to new ebayer, thanks, Keep up the good work!

5. Spy Devices

   February 19th, 2009 at 2:46 am

   5

   were getting away with shoddy goods and service by withholding their feedback with the result that disgruntled buyers would be

6. Laptop Batteries

   April 20th, 2010 at 4:24 am

   6

   great post, it is very useful, thanks for your sharing , dear mark.