About Unfair Bidding Privileages in the Marketplace

Do you think Sellers can Cancel/Reject bids after they have started or expired?

Yes, Sellers rules!!!	32.1%	[ 42 ]
No, Bidders are exploited!	30.5%	[ 40 ]
I don't care; the admin will do something about it someday, I guess.	37.4%	[ 49 ]
Total Votes:			[ 131 ]

[TheWaveSurfer]

I've been lingering in the Marketplace lately, and I've been confused about the reasons for the existence of the following features for the Seller in any Bidding deal:

- The Seller can cancel the bid anything he wants, regardless if anyone has bidded for the item; and

- The Seller can choose to reject the bid even though after the bid has been expired.

These two features provide sellers to have a great potential for misuse. Just imagine, interested bidders are wasting their time trying to bid for their favourite items till the very last second, and even though one bidder has successfully beaten the others in the bid, he might still NOT get the item, simply because the Seller choose to reject it.

There are many other scenerios that illustrate how Sellers can abuse this Bidding system to play around with the market, checking out the market responses, or even simply having fun 'torturing' the bidders.

Do you think this is fair?

[Dark Celerity]

I think this is fair because if the bid is way under the price the seller wants, they should have the right to reject it.

[Jasette]

Yes, actually, I think it is fair.

The seller may figure they don't want to sell the item after all, may need to use it in a trade, or, possibly, the bid is quite low and not what the seller is looking for. There are many, many different reasons why such things (cancel sale, reject bid) are useful.

Sure, being rejected hurts, but hey, get used to it, life's full of rejections my dear. P:

[Agent Thomas]

Well, if they don't want the item under a certain price, they simply have to set it as high as they want it and no lower. And they should be sure that they want to sell before they put it up in the market place. So I think it is unfair as well...

[TheWaveSurfer]

Night4ce

I think this is fair because if the bid is way under the price the seller wants, they should have the right to reject it.

Jasette

Yes, actually, I think it is fair.

The seller may figure they don't want to sell the item after all, may need to use it in a trade, or, possibly, the bid is quite low and not what the seller is looking for. There are many, many different reasons why such things (cancel sale, reject bid) are useful.

Sure, being rejected hurts, but hey, get used to it, life's full of rejections my dear. P:

I disagree.

If the Seller feels that the final bidding price is too low, he should have set it to his minimum acceptable lowest bid price right from the start. It is the responsibility of the seller to make sure whatever bid is made is acceptable to him. Otherwise, what's the use for the Marketplace to provide the Lowest Bid Price and Minimum Bid Increment fields for the Sellers?

[CheckD3]

Tell me, if an item you were selling was being bid on 5-10k less than you wanted, would you sell it at that price

Because the features are made, it allows the seller to have control over their item till they accept a bid or the item is sold away, or if no one is bidding on their item, or they decide to keep it, it allows them to cancel the selling and keep their item, it so the seller chooses how much their item is sold for and if they make a mistake or change their mind, they are able too, but I don't bid on crap since I never win sad

[TheWaveSurfer]

Agent Thomas

Well, if they don't want the item under a certain price, they simply have to set it as high as they want it and no lower. And they should be sure that they want to sell before they put it up in the market place. So I think it is unfair as well...

Precisely.

[Kunai Jones]

I personally am not ok with the fact that sellers can reject bids after the auction has expired. If they wanted to control the result of the auction, they should have watched it at its end and removed the item from the vend if it didn't reach the price they were looking for.

Or, I don't know, started the bidding at the bare minimum price that they'd accept the item for, instead of generating false enthusiasm for it by starting the bidding ridiculously low.

I think if sellers were more responsible, a feature that allows them to abuse the system wouldn't be necessary.

[Jasette]

TheWaveSurfer

I disagree.

If the Seller feels that the final bidding price is too low, he should have set it to his minimum acceptable lowest bid price right from the start. It is the responsibility of the seller to make sure whatever bid is made is acceptable to him. Otherwise, what's the use for the Marketplace to provide the Lowest Bid Price and Minimum Bid Increment for the Sellers?

I don't know, for shits and giggles?

What if the seller finds an offer in the exchange that is better than what his lowest sell price is?

I'm personally a buy-it-now girl, I hardly ever bid on things and always sell my items, via buy it now, at my lowest sell price. Because I'm nice like that. :3

Anywho, I'm off to ride space mountain. <3 Much love.

[Dorg Endo]

(This is why I have buy only options >> wink

That aside the Market Place was made for people to have solid confirmed sales of their items if they like the offer. One of the major complaints of the exchange is that you could spend hours bumping your thread to sell something, then spend time trying to negociate a price only to have the prospect buyer decide to not buy the item. The Market Place gives item Sellers power and makes people who bid or buy items to be honest with their intent to buy.

That is the glory of the Market Place. pirate

[TheWaveSurfer]

checkd3

Tell me, if an item you were selling was being bid on 5-10k less than you wanted, would you sell it at that price

Because the features are made, it allows the seller to have control over their item till they accept a bid or the item is sold away, or if no one is bidding on their item, or they decide to keep it, it allows them to cancel the selling and keep their item, it so the seller chooses how much their item is sold for and if they make a mistake or change their mind, they are able too, but I don't bid on crap since I never win sad

In response to your scenerios:

If no one is bidding => Seller has to wait till his item expires to retrieve back his item (that's what EXPIRY TIME is for).

Item selling was being bid on 5-10k less than you wanted => Seller should start the bid at his lowest accept price in the first place.

If they decide to keep it => Seller shouldn't start the bid in the first place at all.

If they make a mistake => A confirmation page is always available before you click OK to start your bid.

If they change their mind => Seller shouldn't start the bid in the first place at all.

[Mr. Zip(Pants Technician)]

TheWaveSurfer

I've been lingering in the Marketplace lately, and I've been confused about the reasons for the existence of the following features for the Seller in any Bidding deal:

- The Seller can cancel the bid anything he wants, regardless if anyone has bidded for the item; and

- The Seller can choose to reject the bid even though after the bid has been expired.

These two features provide sellers to have a great potential for misuse. Just imagine, interested bidders are wasting their time trying to bid for their favourite items till the very last second, and even though one bidder has successfully beaten the others in the bid, he might still NOT get the item, simply because the Seller choose to reject it.

There are many other scenerios that illustrate how Sellers can abuse this Bidding system to play around with the market, checking out the market responses, or even simply having fun 'torturing' the bidders.

Do you think this is fair?

Buddy, it works that way on Ebay. If the seller doesn't get the price he wants, it's his right to reject it.

[Little_Baby_Boy]

bah doesnt really count to me

[Kunai Jones]

Dorg Endo

(This is why I have buy only options >> wink

That aside the Market Place was made for people to have solid confirmed sales of their items if they like the offer. One of the major complaints of the exchange is that you could spend hours bumping your thread to sell something, then spend time trying to negociate a price only to have the prospect buyer decide to not buy the item. The Market Place gives item Sellers power and makes people who bid or buy items to be honest with their intent to buy.

That is the glory of the Market Place. pirate

Isn't the same assurance owed to the buyer, though? Shouldn't they feel confident in the thought that the seller won't bail on their completely adequate offer? So the Marketplace empowers Sellers, but people can still flake out on buyers in the Exchange, and in the marketplace.

The problem with a lot of people's mentality is that they think the Sellers are the superior members of the relationship, but really it's completely equal. Without Buyers, Sellers are meaningless. And each party, in a fair trade, gets the same benefit and satisfaction from the transaction. I don't think the Sellers should have unfair advantages.

Now I'm fine with the idea that Sellers can remove an item in mid-auction. Even if that's seconds before the end, that's still ok with me. But what I'm not ok with is the idea that they can deny the winner of the bid AFTER the auction has ended. That's unprofessional and silly, and it just doesn't make sense. It's no different from flaking out on somebody in the Exchange when they have the high bid at the end of your pre-determined auction time.

[Zabchan]

this is fair because the seller should have right to reject a low price.