Clink auction is live right now 0

[Ironmandrd]

18 hours ago, comix4fun said:

$4700 for that Layton finished/Bright laid out Iron Man 225 page!

 

 

 

18 hours ago, buyatari said:

Armor Wars part 1 splash page. 

 

17 hours ago, comix4fun said:

Love the page but no Iron Man, not first run Layton, not Romita/Layton, etc. etc. 

It is a nice splash and from a good storyline but it didn't have any Iron Man in it.   So I was somewhat surprised at this result--it almost tripled in the last minute.  Clearly two or three people who really wanted it. 

[Bronty]

I like that piece.  Great rogue's gallery piece from a classic issue.    

[SquareChaos]

2 hours ago, Ironmandrd said:

I'm a bit surprised to read that several people have an issue with ComicLink re-opening these few auction lots that were clearly affected by a type of "force majeure."

Some posts seem to be saying re-opening only is in the interest of the sellers and catering to them--but it also favors all the bidders who wanted to bid and who couldn't.  What about fairness to them?  The only person it directly hurts is each "winning" buyer, who a seller (and the other bidders who couldn't bid) could argue basically won on the equivalent of a technicality since their winning bid would otherwise not have won.  Weighing that against the interests of the sellers and the prospective bidders, I think fairness favors re-opening up those few lots. 

 

*Edit - By the way, I'm not affected--I didn't sell any of those lots or bid on any of those lots.

I have no skin in this game, but come on. People had plenty of time to bid, but what they wanted to do was snipe.

I can't be certain of it, but I would guess that everyone that wanted to bid on any of those pieces didn't just become aware that they were available and up for auction within the few minute window during which technical difficulties were taking place.

The reality is that the only person harmed by the outage was the original "winner" (thanks to the action CLINK is taking). What the seller was at risk of being harmed by is a strong reliance on sniping auctions moments before they close.

[jjonahjameson11]

23 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

I have no skin in this game, but come on. People had plenty of time to bid, but what they wanted to do was snipe.

I can't be certain of it, but I would guess that everyone that wanted to bid on any of those pieces didn't just become aware that they were available and up for auction within the few minute window during which technical difficulties were taking place.

The reality is that the only person harmed by the outage was the original "winner" (thanks to the action CLINK is taking). What the seller was at risk of being harmed by is a strong reliance on sniping auctions moments before they close.

Clink is doing the right thing.

[SquareChaos]

2 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

Clink is doing the right thing.

[comix4fun]

33 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

I have no skin in this game, but come on. People had plenty of time to bid, but what they wanted to do was snipe.

I can't be certain of it, but I would guess that everyone that wanted to bid on any of those pieces didn't just become aware that they were available and up for auction within the few minute window during which technical difficulties were taking place.

The reality is that the only person harmed by the outage was the original "winner" (thanks to the action CLINK is taking). What the seller was at risk of being harmed by is a strong reliance on sniping auctions moments before they close.

Look at this another way.

 

The consignors were promised their pieces would get the full benefit of a posted starting and ending time where bidding would be available to any and all interested.

Bidders were promised posted starting and ending times for each and every piece with the express ability to bid at any time within that starting and ending window without risk or threat that they would not be able to do so. 

Everyone, consignors and bidders, were operating under the exact same set of parameters. These parameters set a level and even playing field for all bids to be entered. This includes the bidding format that allows for bids to be taken up until the last second before the closing bell. 

It is uniformly inequitable to allow for computer error, network outage, or other "act of God" to alter those set terms and parameters for consignors and bidders when there is a reasonable alternative which allows for that same level playing field and promised full time span bidding to continue to its promised fruition. 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by comix4fun

[jjonahjameson11]

2 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

Clink's auction format lends itself the sniping approach so it only makes sense that people will wait until the last 5 or 10 seconds to bid their max.

i think a lot of money was left on the table by inaccessibility to the site for some auctions and I'm certain several bidders were just waiting to snipe so clink is doing the right thing by re-opening these auctions

[UnboxingTreasures]

Thought the Turner Wizard cover might go for around 7.5K -- pleasantly surprised to see it commanded 5 figures.   

[SquareChaos]

Please note that I absolutely believe this is the right thing for Clink to do for the good of their business. From an ethical perspective it is hard to make the same argument due to the reasoning I previously laid out.

Also, be aware that some 'Random Act of Internet' preventing a potential bidder from making said bid could absolutely be called tough luck - you should have put your bid in at an earlier date. How widespread does the problem need to be for Clink to roll something back in the future?

[Panelfan1]

8 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

Clink's auction format lends itself the sniping approach so it only makes sense that people will wait until the last 5 or 10 seconds to bid their max.

i think a lot of money was left on the table by inaccessibility to the site for some auctions and I'm certain several bidders were just waiting to snipe so clink is doing the right thing by re-opening these auctions

I agree with this line of thinking.  Sniping is not a bad thing. Its just the way things are.  The power problem interrupted  normal bidding expectations

 While I didnt bid on these items, if they were on my list I would have been pissed by the lack of ability to bid.  This has happened to me with cell phone reception - but in instances like that , I put the blame on myself.  Ita great for all parties that these opened up again.

[SquareChaos]

Just now, Panelfan1 said:

I agree with this line of thinking.  Sniping is not a bad thing. Its just the way things are.  The power problem interrupted  normal bidding expectations

 While I didnt bid on these items, if they were on my list I would have been pissed by the lack of ability to bid.  This has happened to me with cell phone reception - but in instances like that , I put the blame on myself.  Ita great for all parties that these opened up again.

This is a new business model opportunity - 1 minute auctions, the best innovation since 7 minute abs!

[comix4fun]

7 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

Please note that I absolutely believe this is the right thing for Clink to do for the good of their business. From an ethical perspective it is hard to make the same argument due to the reasoning I previously laid out.

Also, be aware that some 'Random Act of Internet' preventing a potential bidder from making said bid could absolutely be called tough luck - you should have put your bid in at an earlier date. How widespread does the problem need to be for Clink to roll something back in the future?

Have you ever seen another auction house slam the gavel down and yell "SOLD".....only to reopen the lot 10 seconds later saying a bid came in late due to lag on internet or bad phone connection, etc?  Happens all the time. 

Auction houses set up the ground rules and, as I said, in this instance made a promise to consignor and bidder alike that they will have the full time to bid from start to end. From an ethical perspective it's hard for me to find fault with them keeping their promises to those parties. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by comix4fun

[robert frey]

true, but how about the people who specifically cleared their calendars to be available last night and now find they can't tonight?

[SquareChaos]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

Have you ever seen another auction house slam the gavel down and yell "SOLD".....only to reopen the lot 10 seconds later saying a bid came in late due to lag on internet or bad phone connection, etc?  Happens all the time. 

Auction houses set up the ground rules and, as I said, in this instance made a promise to consignor and bidder alike that they will have the full time to bid from start to end. From an ethical perspective it's hard for me to find fault with them keeping their promises to those parties. 

There is a fundamental difference between what this is, and your example of an online auctioneer yelling "SOLD" only to allow another bid... they reopen only because the software used to govern the auction states that the person making the bid was not late in doing so - just because there is network lag with regards to the message making it's way to the auctioneer does not mean the bidder was late.

[comix4fun]

1 minute ago, SquareChaos said:

There is a fundamental difference between what this is, and your example of an online auctioneer yelling "SOLD" only to allow another bid... they reopen only because the software used to govern the auction states that the person making the bid was not late in doing so - just because there is network lag with regards to the message making it's way to the auctioneer does not mean the bidder was late.

So, when the auction house gives consignor and bidders a start and end time frame with a promise of bidding any time within that time frame, and then cannot deliver on that promise what would you consider the proper mitigation?

There's a solution that benefits one person...the person with the high bid when the system failed.

There's a solution that benefits the consignor and all the other bidders by allowing the promised full allotment of time to pass for bidding.

Hard to advocate for the former when the latter gets everyone as close to the full allotment of bidding time as promised and posted, don't you think?

[SquareChaos]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

So, when the auction house gives consignor and bidders a start and end time frame with a promise of bidding any time within that time frame, and then cannot deliver on that promise what would you consider the proper mitigation?

There's a solution that benefits one person...the person with the high bid when the system failed.

There's a solution that benefits the consignor and all the other bidders by allowing the promised full allotment of time to pass for bidding.

Hard to advocate for the former when the latter gets everyone as close to the full allotment of bidding time as promised and posted, don't you think?

There is no easy answer. Clearly, Clink and other businesses making similar promises are not in control of keeping those promises. Now, people that did bid within that initial, originally published window of time - and perhaps 'won' - are being told the window must move. Why must it move? Because some parts of the window are vastly more important than all other parts combined apparently.

I would prefer companies that run these type of auctions employ some algorithm to extend the auction's remaining time whenever a bid is made within a few minutes of closing. Perhaps it would get rid of the currently ridiculous behavior where 99% of the auction is a bit of a waste of everyone's time.

[ThothAmon]

26 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

This is a new business model opportunity - 1 minute auctions, the best innovation since 7 minute abs!

Funny.  Given the facts laid out I think comiclink definitely handled the situation appropriately.  Obviously they didn't seek the advice of any of my state's politicians.

Edited June 8, 2017 by ThothAmon

[comix4fun]

Just now, SquareChaos said:

There is no easy answer. Clearly, Clink and other businesses making similar promises are not in control of keeping those promises. Now, people that did bid within that initial, originally published window of time - and perhaps 'won' - are being told the window must move. Why must it move? Because some parts of the window are vastly more important than all other parts combined apparently.

I would prefer companies that run these type of auctions employ some algorithm to extend the auction's remaining time whenever a bid is made within a few minutes of closing. Perhaps it would get rid of the currently ridiculous behavior where 99% of the auction is a bit of a waste of everyone's time.

I think it's the best of a bad situation, frankly.

I agree that if they ran auction software or parameters that extended the bidding time automatically if a bid is placed in the last hour (just for example) then the snipe or last second bidding is eliminated and you don't have this issue come into play. However, this set up, with everyone going into it knowing that the snipe is not only in play buy encouraged and expected.

You've got competing interests of "set ending time" against the consignor getting the full length of bidding without interruption and bidders getting the same. When it breaks down into a logical conundrum I can't argue against the thing that helps everyone but the one bidder who "won" as opposed to the reverse. The inequity hurts my logic sensors.  

Hakes runs the type of auction ending you're talking about. It eliminates sniping entirely but auction endings can stretch out for hours, even longer in some instances, as bidders are outbid and then given several hours notice, then they bid back and it goes out several more hours. It becomes its own kind of grind. 

[cloud cloddie]

5 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

There is no easy answer. Clearly, Clink and other businesses making similar promises are not in control of keeping those promises. Now, people that did bid within that initial, originally published window of time - and perhaps 'won' - are being told the window must move. Why must it move? Because some parts of the window are vastly more important than all other parts combined apparently.

I would prefer companies that run these type of auctions employ some algorithm to extend the auction's remaining time whenever a bid is made within a few minutes of closing. Perhaps it would get rid of the currently ridiculous behavior where 99% of the auction is a bit of a waste of everyone's time.

There is an easy answer. Open the auctions back up. Which is what Clink is doing. 

it seems clear your issue is with sniping, not with Clink. It is the nature of set auctions. To rail at Clink for fixing a problem on their end the best they can, regardless of the habits of bidders, seems pointless. 

[SquareChaos]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

I think it's the best of a bad situation, frankly.

I agree that if they ran auction software or parameters that extended the bidding time automatically if a bid is placed in the last hour (just for example) then the snipe or last second bidding is eliminated and you don't have this issue come into play. However, this set up, with everyone going into it knowing that the snipe is not only in play buy encouraged and expected.

You've got competing interests of "set ending time" against the consignor getting the full length of bidding without interruption and bidders getting the same. When it breaks down into a logical conundrum I can't argue against the thing that helps everyone but the one bidder who "won" as opposed to the reverse. The inequity hurts my logic sensors.  

Hakes runs the type of auction ending you're talking about. It eliminates sniping entirely but auction endings can stretch out for hours, even longer in some instances, as bidders are outbid and then given several hours notice, then they bid back and it goes out several more hours. It becomes its own kind of grind. 

I agree it is a bad situation, empowered by a flawed system to begin with.

I don't necessarily disagree that putting the items back up again "only" hurts the "winners", my argument centers around the fact that the availability issue only hurt people that choose to snipe, thereby making this decision by Clink a wholehearted official endorsement of what is supposed to be an inherently risky practice to begin with.