My EBAY Nightmare

[rjrjr]

Sure, there aren't site wide outages lasting 24 hours anymore (and there used to be)...but that doesn't mean eBay is glitch free.

 

 

Interestingly I remember one site wide outage that lasted for quite a few hours (24 hours or more?) years ago while I worked at Sun Microsystems. Myself and other Sun employees were dispatched to E-Bay because E-Bay was badmouthing Sun in the press. In the end, it turned out to be a problem with the database software (Oracle) and E-Bay came out and told the press Sun Microsystems was the best technology partner they could have. (It was a very cool time to be working in Silicon valley ...)

 

This was at least 10 years ago, if not longer.

 

Sites like E-Bay, Amazon, and Google have caused hardware and software companies to really up their game with regards to highly available, highly scalable solutions. When these companies were maturing in the late 90s, no hardware or software vendor had solutions that could meet the demands that the customer (E-Bay and Amazon) were asking for. It stands to reason there were growing pains. Knowing what it takes to roll out large site changes to a site as large as E-Bay's, I suspect they are susceptible to glitches during those periods as well. But I also know they take great precautions to ensure the actual bidding process (the core of their business) is as glitch free as possible.

 

With that said, I'm not saying 100% there was no glitch involved. But so far, I've heard about a Spyware program and a policy for auctions whose price goes over $15,000. What was the glitch in this auction's case?

[RockMyAmadeus]

What was the glitch in this auction's case?

 

 

That the people who had already been verified (to bid over $15,000) were still being blocked.

[Thomas Nielsen]

I'm wondering...

Anyone know how long that whole >$10k-15k verification is good for. I mean just because your credit was good in 2008 it don't mean mess in 2010

 

Could it be some of these supposed bidders had to re-verify

[skypinkblu]

 

 

 

You haven't blocked me....yet....

 

 

(by the by...the original winner of the auction in question..? carsonjj? Blocked.)

 

If you notice, the bidder only gave a negative yesterday, so they actually waited...and...what IS your newest eBay ID?

[rjrjr]

One thing I was wandering you said people e-mailed you and said they were trying to bid on the book but it wouldn't let them. Did e-bay show anything to prove this in there system.

 

This whole story sounds very fishy to me.

 

It sounds more than likely that the people saw the book go for less than they realized and wanted you to know they would have bid more. If they waited until the last minute to bid and failed to place a bid because E-Bay required additional information due to the amount of the bid, oh well, they should have placed a bid earlier and not tried to snipe. E-Bay's auction system is not some manual process, but automatic. It doesn't just "fail" on high priced books.

 

This is absolutely not E-Bay's problem. In the future, you should have used a Buy It Now! or placed a minimum limit on the auction you would have been happy to sell the book at.

 

I feel sorry for the person who didn't get the book he won in auction because you didn't get the price you wanted for the book.

 

 

I just finished reading this thread and am convinced this was not E-Bay's problem. It turns out E-Bay did not even block the bids waiting for additional information, if any bids were blocked at all. There was a posting about a potential Spyware problem, but that would have been on a bidder's PC, not on E-Bay's website.

 

 

I'm sympathetic to the buyer in this case because this is a very similar situation to an auction I won a few years ago. I had won a $0.35 Star Wars #4. I got it for a great price too. (Sub $75.) Sure enough, the seller (a large New York dealer) didn't honor the sale. In this case, he "lost" this rare book so he had to refund my money. Uh huh. I'm always misplacing my rare books. I'd be willing to bet someone e-mailed him a higher offer after the auction ended and that is why I didn't get the comic.

 

Proof...?

 

I'm sure the seller (original poster) is a honest person. I think his view of the auction's results have been tainted by the e-mails he received after the auction on supposed "phantom" bids unfortunately. It would make me wonder about E-Bay too, but I'm having a hard time believe there were any glitches on E-Bay's part.

 

 

You've apparently not used eBay for very long. "Glitches on eBay's part" used to be SOP. Now, they've finally been relegated to "infrequent."

 

(thumbs u

 

 

I'm an E-Bay user since October 1, 1998 with over 3300 verifiable transactions (probably more as this is the number of feedbacks I have), both as a seller and a buyer. I've never experience a glitch with the auction process. Now, I've had problems with their policies and agreements and during a couple of stretches of time didn't like the search capabilities, but the actual auction process has always been solid. It would have to be since it is the core of their business.

 

You've been an eBay user since 1998...in fact, 29 DAYS before I joined...and you've NEVER experienced a glitch with the auction process...?

 

NEVER...?

 

Come on. eBay used to have serious problems on a WEEKLY basis in 1998, 1999, and 2000. It was so bad, they had to make outage policies! And you're saying you NEVER experienced...or even heard of...a glitch...?

 

Now you're just making it up out of whole cloth.

 

 

I'm pretty sure I would have remembered serious problems weekly, seeing as I was occasionally onsite in E-Bay's data center/co-location site during those years.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Sure, there aren't site wide outages lasting 24 hours anymore (and there used to be)...but that doesn't mean eBay is glitch free.

 

 

Interestingly I remember one site wide outage that lasted for quite a few hours (24 hours or more?) years ago while I worked at Sun Microsystems. Myself and other Sun employees were dispatched to E-Bay because E-Bay was badmouthing Sun in the press. In the end, it turned out to be a problem with the database software (Oracle) and E-Bay came out and told the press Sun Microsystems was the best technology partner they could have. (It was a very cool time to be working in Silicon valley ...)

 

I remember that...it was big news at the time. This was probably March or April of 1999. Thousands and thousands of people were sitting in abject frustration, knowing that their auctions were ending, and no one was able to access the site. It was a huge disaster, and made the tech press all over the world.

 

And it wasn't the only time, but it was probably the worst. It's why they implemented the outage policies to begin with, because people all over the site were refusing to sell their items for the prices they got.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I'm pretty sure I would have remembered serious problems weekly, seeing as I was occasionally onsite in E-Bay's data center/co-location site during those years.

 

And yet, there were, quite often, 10 minute to 2 hour outages on a weekly basis.

 

Don't believe me, ask any of the other folks who were around at the time.

 

Any outage that affects functionality (the word eBay liked to use the most) is a serious problem.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Here's one:

 

http://news.cnet.com/eBay-online-again-after-14-hour-outage/2100-1017_3-229518.html

 

It was just one of the many articles referencing eBay's constant problems in 1999.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Sure, there aren't site wide outages lasting 24 hours anymore (and there used to be)...but that doesn't mean eBay is glitch free.

 

 

Interestingly I remember one site wide outage that lasted for quite a few hours (24 hours or more?) years ago while I worked at Sun Microsystems. Myself and other Sun employees were dispatched to E-Bay because E-Bay was badmouthing Sun in the press. In the end, it turned out to be a problem with the database software (Oracle) and E-Bay came out and told the press Sun Microsystems was the best technology partner they could have. (It was a very cool time to be working in Silicon valley ...)

 

I remember that...it was big news at the time. This was probably March or April of 1999.

 

I was wrong, it was June, and 22 hours. The article above references it. Close enough. Not bad for something I haven't thought about for 11 years.

[Foolkiller]

Guys,

 

I didn't want to go round and round with RMA (there's just no point because it never ends and nobody ever wins) and so while it's very interesting mental masturbation, it's not particularly productive.

 

However, I'm starting to see a lot of, how do we know this is real etc. type stuff.

 

If you aren't familiar with the OP, I can tell you that John, is an extremely forthright, first rate guy. He isn't making this up or trying to lie. It's of course possible there's a miscommunication, but there's no way John set out to fabricate this story -- I have an enormous amount of respect for him

 

If the position is being rolled out in the context of a hypothetical with RMA, okay, but there's no reason at all to directly question John's integrity on whether this actually happened.

[skypinkblu]

Here's one:

 

http://news.cnet.com/eBay-online-again-after-14-hour-outage/2100-1017_3-229518.html

 

Yes, but that was 10 years ago...and it was frustrating, but I don't see it happening now.

 

I think there may have been a combination here, causing some confusion. They do have a policy about verification for bids over $15k, and there appears to be a spyware/malware problem.

 

I'm just guessing that most people bidding over $15k, have done so before, and are verified, although certainly one might slip through.

 

In any case, the lesson to be learned is, if you are concerned about getting a specific amount as a minimum, it would seem that you shouldn't list books starting at 99-cents.

 

Has anyone thought about the similarities with the shilling threads? In both cases, people listed books at 99 cents to maximize their potential profits, but really didn't accept the risks involved.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

 

You haven't blocked me....yet....

 

 

(by the by...the original winner of the auction in question..? carsonjj? Blocked.)

 

If you notice, the bidder only gave a negative yesterday, so they actually waited...and...what IS your newest eBay ID?

 

Pffft...I've had my "newest" since 2005. Apparently, much like Stu, they gave up trying to boot me.

 

 

You wouldn't REALLY block me...would you? We go back 10 years!

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Guys,

 

I didn't want to go round and round with RMA (there's just no point because it never ends and nobody ever wins) and so while it's very interesting mental masturbation, it's not particularly productive.

 

Hey, look, we're back to ad hominem attacks. Sweet!

 

Something people like Foolkiller have never understood is that there are always more people reading a thread than posting in it, and those people may not have made up their minds one way or the other...and contrary to Foolkiller's denigrating (and false) assertion, there are a few people who respect me and my opinions and enjoy reading what I have to say.

 

I have never...other than colossal ego...understood why someone has to try to denigrate someone else into silence, simply because they don't like what they have to say, or how they say it, or even how much they say. If you don't like what someone has to say...don't respond. It's not difficult.

 

And you want to know the funniest thing? Foolkiller has me on ignore, so he doesn't even see the body of my posts unless he CHOOSES to...sad, no?

 

(For the record, I also have him on ignore, but then, I've never tried to persuade people to not dialogue with him.)

 

No, no, we must silence those we do not agree with or like, right...?

 

Don't let Foolkiller and his ilk speak for you. They'll try...but that doesn't mean you should let them.

 

(thumbs u

 

However, I'm starting to see a lot of, how do we know this is real etc. type stuff.

 

If you aren't familiar with the OP, I can tell you that John, is an extremely forthright, first rate guy. He isn't making this up or trying to lie. It's of course possible there's a miscommunication, but there's no way John set out to fabricate this story -- I have an enormous amount of respect for him

 

If the position is being rolled out in the context of a hypothetical with RMA, okay, but there's no reason at all to directly question John's integrity on whether this actually happened.

 

The saddest part...?

 

I've been saying the exact same thing the whole time.

 

If it weren't so pathetic, I'd laugh.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

In any case, the lesson to be learned is, if you are concerned about getting a specific amount as a minimum, it would seem that you shouldn't list books starting at 99-cents.

 

Argh.

 

If I may speak for the seller...and I apologize if I'm out of line, TF, but I don't believe I am....

 

I think he would have been perfectly satisfied with the ending bid, had it been the legitimate winning bid.

 

Has anyone thought about the similarities with the shilling threads? In both cases, people listed books at 99 cents to maximize their potential profits, but really didn't accept the risks involved.

 

They're not the same. In this case, eBay's problem caused legitimate bids to fail. In the shiller's case, there are no more legitimate bids coming.

 

They're really not the same thing at all.

 

The risk that an item sells for lower than you think it should is a legitimate risk that should be accepted by all sellers. The risk that the process itself might fail is not a legitimate risk that should be placed on the seller. Again...if it had ended at $23.17, would you still be saying the same thing?

 

Or...it is a risk that the IRS may incorrectly enter some data, and show you owe $2 million in back taxes. Is that a risk that you should bear, simply because it's possible?

[zuckuss2003]

I do need to apologize, I was tired last night and probably should not have wrote that last post in that manner. It did probably come off as if I feel the OP made this up but that isn't why I posted. I was trying to get across that if I was the bidder who won, I would probably have to see more than just an email saying there was a glitch and I really didn't win like I thought I had.

[hockey&comicsguy]

I do need to apologize, I was tired last night and probably should not have wrote that last post in that manner. It did probably come off as if I feel the OP made this up but that isn't why I posted. I was trying to get across that if I was the bidder who won, I would probably have to see more than just an email saying there was a glitch and I really didn't win like I thought I had.

 

I'll take that. (thumbs u That's a step in the right direction as far as i'm concerned. As I mentioned before, show me the evidence, prove to me that something screwy went on and i'll gladly walk away from the book.

[Pmack-migration]

As has already been explained, the OP contends that bidders who were already verified through this process were nonetheless blocked, and the OP further contends that eBay confirmed this problem.

Is this the same representative that 'confirmed' that bidders bidding over $10,000 had to have a credit card on file?

 

Because, you know, that representative was wrong. As is evidenced by the publicly viewable bidding page that states the magic number is $15,000.

 

Your whole argument through these 20+ pages is that "an ebay representative said", and we're supposed to take everything this ebay representative said as Gospel Truth, when it's pretty clear the ebay rep is just a a low-level Indian call center rep who doesn't know or care what he or she says.

 

What you have in this case are facts: The auction competed successfully, and there was a winner for $14,000.

 

Then you have speculation: Some bidders, absent of any actual PROOF, claim to have tried to bid higher than the winner. It is understood that these last-second snipers got hung up on an ebay rule of which they were unaware. Some claimed, absent of any actual PROOF, that they ran through ebay's gauntlet and were still denied.

 

The truth is the seller saw dollar signs, and instead of taking the $14,000 on the table, believed that he could get more "if only". So he asked the legitimate winner of the auction to give up his win because the seller didn't make as much as he thought he should or could have, "if only".

 

Anyone here who says that if they were in the position of the bidder they would give up the auction is a liar. We are not talking about a $14,000 book going for $200. We are talking about a $14-16,000 book going for the low end of the average. Perfectly reasonable to everyone except the seller.

 

And I sympathize with the seller to an extent. I would have a hard time leaving a potential $3k on the table. But that's the risk you take when you list a no-reserve auction.

[Foolkiller]

Guys,

 

I didn't want to go round and round with RMA (there's just no point because it never ends and nobody ever wins) and so while it's very interesting mental masturbation, it's not particularly productive.

 

Hey, look, we're back to ad hominem attacks. Sweet!

 

Something people like Foolkiller have never understood is that there are always more people reading a thread than posting in it, and those people may not have made up their minds one way or the other...and contrary to Foolkiller's denigrating (and false) assertion, there are a few people who respect me and my opinions and enjoy reading what I have to say.

 

I have never...other than colossal ego...understood why someone has to try to denigrate someone else into silence, simply because they don't like what they have to say, or how they say it, or even how much they say. If you don't like what someone has to say...don't respond. It's not difficult.

 

And you want to know the funniest thing? Foolkiller has me on ignore, so he doesn't even see the body of my posts unless he CHOOSES to...sad, no?

 

(For the record, I also have him on ignore, but then, I've never tried to persuade people to not dialogue with him.)

 

No, no, we must silence those we do not agree with or like, right...?

 

Don't let Foolkiller and his ilk speak for you. They'll try...but that doesn't mean you should let them.

 

(thumbs u

 

However, I'm starting to see a lot of, how do we know this is real etc. type stuff.

 

If you aren't familiar with the OP, I can tell you that John, is an extremely forthright, first rate guy. He isn't making this up or trying to lie. It's of course possible there's a miscommunication, but there's no way John set out to fabricate this story -- I have an enormous amount of respect for him

 

If the position is being rolled out in the context of a hypothetical with RMA, okay, but there's no reason at all to directly question John's integrity on whether this actually happened.

 

The saddest part...?

 

I've been saying the exact same thing the whole time.

 

If it weren't so pathetic, I'd laugh.

 

RMA,

 

I do have you on ignore, but I think you misinterpreted my statement above. I'm not encouraging anybody to do anything. There are plenty of times I find what you have to say interesting, but the manner in which you drag things to these just long nonsensical diatribes where you go on and on and on just seems pointless to me. There are then times when I think what you have to say very relevant.

 

My point wasn't to say people ought not to respond to you, but rather simply to say, I don't want to respond because I just get sucked into an endless loop that is a waste of time for me, because we don't really go anywhere.

 

The statement regarding John has nothing to do with you or whether you've been saying it one way or another.

 

I think you're grossly over reacting -- but I really don't care other than the fact that it's inaccurate. There have been times where I do think people are better off not bothering to continue to respond to you. But this wasn't one of them, it's simply to say, for me, responding to you on some of the technical points etc and debating them is a waste of time, when the underlying posts should really be about John.

 

So to be clear, I'm not telling anyone to ignore you or not respond or not waste their time, etc. What's funny is that you're pointing out that we probably agree on some level on this issue as well, and then assume I'm trying to silence you, which isn't the case at all. As I said, i actually think you do add something valuable here, but I don't want to scroll through everything you have to say, but would rather pick and choose what I am seeing or not seeing.

 

At any rate, back to the actual problem at hand...

[Pmack-migration]

I'm wondering...

Anyone know how long that whole >$10k-15k verification is good for. I mean just because your credit was good in 2008 it don't mean mess in 2010

 

Could it be some of these supposed bidders had to re-verify

No, the purpose of the verification is just to verify you are a legitimate person. It's possible to create an account using all fake information.

 

The verify proccess (which can be a credit card, or their ID Verify, which I believe uses your SS number) is just to verify you are who you say you are. It does not assess your ability to pay for an auction, just that you are who you say you are in the event someone (seller, ebay, law enforcement) can find you if they need to.

[Thomas Nielsen]

The verify proccess (which can be a credit card, or their ID Verify, which I believe uses your SS number) is just to verify you are who you say you are. It does not assess your ability to pay for an auction, just that you are who you say you are in the event someone (seller, ebay, law enforcement) can find you if they need to.

 

Ok, thank's for the clarification