Philip Cohen

Top 10 Online Automotive Destinations: July 2009

And what about the comparison with last year?

CyberSource: King of Online Payments

eBay acquire it? You want to kill it so young?

eBay Is Finally Stabilizing

<b>Shill Bidding on eBay: a Case Study</b>

For eBay “watchers”, a detailed case study of the crime of “shill” bidding and the abuse of eBay’s proxy bidding system—all exacerbated by eBay’s introduction of “hidden bidders”—plus a detailed general criticism of eBay’s “clunky” auction platform, and policies, at

<url>www.auctionbytes.com/f...;/url>

A synopsis thereof:

 very little of the auction system security, that eBay claims to offer buyers, exists in fact;

 contrary to their claims, it can be demonstrated that eBay has no “proactive” nor “sophisticated” system in place for the detection of undisclosed vendor (“shill”) bidding, and indeed eBay appears to do nothing about such criminal activity except as a reaction to users’ reports of suspicious bidding activity;

 eBay appears to have no effective matter-of-course verification of users: unscrupulous users can apparently have as many user IDs as they may have email addresses;

 many of eBay’s “rules”, concerning the retraction of bids, cancellation of auctions, etc, are nominal only and are no bar to the machinations of the unscrupulous seller;

 as a result, eBay’s “proxy” bidding system is so open to abuse by such unscrupulous sellers that to use it, as eBay intends it to be used, can be an invitation to pay your maximum;

 by the lack of any effectual system to proactively detect shill bidding, eBay has ever effectively, and knowingly, “aided and abetted” unscrupulous shill-bidding sellers to defraud naïve buyers;

 the masking of bidding IDs with non-unique, absolutely anonymous aliases serves no purpose other than to obscure all but the most blatant of shill bidding, and defeats any attempt at comprehensive analysis of individual bidding patterns to expose such activity;

 the quarterly changing of even these non-unique, absolutely anonymous, bidding aliases serves <i>absolutely<... no other purpose than to stop even experienced eBay users from attempting to manually track suspicious bidding activity over time;

 the anonymous, individual bidder Bid History Details pages, supposedly supplied to offset the absolute masking of bidding IDs, although better than nothing, usually present an ambiguous view and, in such circumstances, are of dubious value;

 anyone naïve enough to “nibble” bid on a seller-elected “private” auction (ie, “User ID kept private”), on the balance of probability, is going to be defrauded;

 when suspected fraud <i>is</i> reported, and is found by eBay to be proved to their satisfaction, eBay will conceal that fact from the victim of the fraud; this then is the concealing of a crime after the fact, surely, a crime in itself;

 eBay will never acknowledge to a victim that a fraud has been perpetrated, nor indeed will eBay acknowledge that such fraud is even a problem on eBay auctions; eBay therefore sees no reason to provide any mechanism to aid in the recovery of any monies so defrauded;

 if eBay did have any proactive and truly sophisticated system in place for the detection and control of shill bidding, we would not now be having this debate; and

 for those buyers (and honest sellers) who embrace eBay believing that eBay acts as an “honest broker” between buyer and seller, I can only say that you may as well believe that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden too; and

 the ugliest aspect of this matter is that we would quite rightly be upset if our local auctioneer, from whom we were buying, was found to be facilitating and concealing such criminal activity—and here is eBay, knowingly, doing this to the whole world!

The Perils of Ignoring Goodwill on Balance Sheets

Goodwill? eBay does not need "goodwill". Donahoe's got an MBA. That's all one needs to misplace all those lovely performance bonuses. (Have the boys yet asked for an increase in salary in lieu?)

"Fortunately for eBay shareholders, new management has ..." Can I please have some of the stuff that this author is smoking?

Once again, eBay's "core" marketplaces problems are explained at
www.auctionbytes.com/f...

U.S. Retail E-Commerce Sales Stay Stagnant

I don't know what this article has to do with eBay but no doubt Donahoe would like to be only "down 1% vs. the same period a year ago."

And, “The marginally negative growth in Q2, on the heels of flat growth in Q1, ..." Again, Donahoe would be wishing, "if only ..."

Still, Donahoe and some analysts claim that eBay "is stabilising"; others have put it more accurately: going backwards slightly less quickly.

All that spinning makes me feel quite giddy. Is it any wonder that no one at eBay can make a sensible decision about anything ...

For eBay “watchers”, a detailed case study of shill bidding and the abuse of eBay’s proxy bidding system—all exacerbated by eBay’s introduction of “hidden bidders”—plus a detailed general criticism of eBay’s “clunky” auction platform, and policies, at

www.auctionbytes.com/f...

A synopsis thereof:

 very little of the auction system security, that eBay claims to offer buyers, exists in fact;

 contrary to their claims, it can be demonstrated that eBay has no “proactive” nor “sophisticated” system in place for the detection of undisclosed vendor (“shill”) bidding, and indeed eBay appears to do nothing about such criminal activity except as a reaction to users’ reports of suspicious bidding activity;

 eBay appears to have no effective matter-of-course verification of users: unscrupulous users can apparently have as many user IDs as they may have email addresses;

 many of eBay’s “rules”, concerning the retraction of bids, cancellation of auctions, etc, are nominal only and are no bar to the machinations of the unscrupulous seller;

 as a result, eBay’s “proxy” bidding system is so open to abuse by such unscrupulous sellers that to use it, as eBay intends it to be used, can be an invitation to pay your maximum;

 by the lack of any effectual system to proactively detect shill bidding, eBay has ever effectively, and knowingly, “aided and abetted” unscrupulous shill-bidding sellers to defraud naïve buyers;

 the masking of bidding IDs with non-unique, absolutely anonymous aliases serves no purpose other than to obscure all but the most blatant of shill bidding, and defeats any attempt at comprehensive analysis of individual bidding patterns to expose such activity;

 the quarterly changing of even these non-unique, absolutely anonymous, bidding aliases serves [i]absolutely[/i] no other purpose than to stop even experienced eBay users from attempting to manually track suspicious bidding activity over time;

 the anonymous, individual bidder Bid History Details pages, supposedly supplied to offset the absolute masking of bidding IDs, although better than nothing, usually present an ambiguous view and, in such circumstances, are of dubious value;

 anyone naïve enough to “nibble” bid on a seller-elected “private” auction (ie, “User ID kept private”), on the balance of probability, is going to be defrauded;

 when suspected fraud [i]is[/i] reported, and is found by eBay to be proved to their satisfaction, eBay will conceal that fact from the victim of the fraud; this then is the concealing of a crime after the fact, surely, a crime in itself;

 eBay will never acknowledge to a victim that a fraud has been perpetrated, nor indeed will eBay acknowledge that such fraud is even a problem on eBay auctions; eBay therefore sees no reason to provide any mechanism to aid in the recovery of any monies so defrauded;

 if eBay did have any proactive and truly sophisticated system in place for the detection and control of shill bidding, we would not now be having this debate; and

 for those buyers (and honest sellers) who embrace eBay believing that eBay acts as an “honest broker” between buyer and seller, I can only say that you may as well believe that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden too.

Can eBay Reduce GM's Inventory?

I hope they aren't going to English auction them, for if so, who is going to protect the buyers from the shill bidders? eBay? Not likely.
www.auctionbytes.com/f...

Cisco: Perfect Home for eBay's Skype?

"Current CEO John Donahoe has been clear that eBay is returning to its roots"

It's roots are "auctions" and that system has always been "clunky" in the extreme, and cheating buyers.

For eBay “watchers”, a detailed case study of shill bidding and the abuse of eBay’s proxy bidding system—all exacerbated by eBay’s introduction of “hidden bidders”—plus a detailed general criticism of eBay’s “clunky” auction platform and policies, at

<url>www.auctionbytes.com/f...;/url>

Buyers, and honest sellers, should read this case study so that they can become aware, if they are not already so aware, of just how primitive and open to abuse is the eBay auction system.

A synopsis thereof:

 very little of the auction system security, that eBay claims to offer buyers, exists in fact;

 contrary to their claim, it can be demonstrated that eBay has no “sophisticated” nor “proactive” system in place for the detection of undisclosed vendor (“shill”) bidding and indeed appears to do nothing about such criminal activity except as a reaction to a user’s report of suspicious bidding activity;

 eBay appears to have no effective matter-of-course verification of users; unscrupulous users can apparently have as many user IDs as they may have email addresses;

 many of eBay’s “rules”, concerning the retraction of bids, cancellation of auctions, etc, are nominal only and are no bar to the machinations of the unscrupulous seller;

 as a result, eBay’s “proxy” bidding system is so open to abuse by such unscrupulous sellers that to use it, as eBay intends it to be used, can be an invitation to pay your maximum;

 by the lack of any such effectual security, eBay effectively, and knowingly, “aids and abets” unscrupulous shill-bidding sellers to defraud naïve buyers;

 the masking of bidding IDs with non-unique, absolutely anonymous aliases serves little other purpose than to obscure such shill bidding, and defeat any attempt at comprehensive analysis of individual bidding patterns to expose such activity;

 the quarterly changing of even these non-unique, absolutely anonymous, bidding aliases serves absolutely no other purpose than to stop even experienced eBay users from attempting to track suspicious bidding activity over time;

 the anonymous, individual bidder Bid History Detail pages, supposedly supplied to offset the absolute masking of bidding IDs, although better than nothing, can present an ambiguous view and, in such circumstances, are of dubious value;

 anyone naïve enough to “nibble” bid on a seller-elected “private” auction (ie, “User ID kept private”), on the balance of probability, is going to be defrauded;

 when suspected fraud [i]is[/i] reported, and is found by eBay to be proved to their satisfaction, eBay will conceal that fact from the victim of the fraud; this then is the concealing of a crime after the fact, surely, a crime in itself;

 eBay will never acknowledge to a victim that a fraud has been perpetrated, nor indeed will they acknowledge that such fraud is even a problem on eBay; eBay therefore sees no reason to provide any mechanism to aid in the recovery of any monies so defrauded;

 if eBay did have any truly sophisticated and proactive system in place for the detection and control of shill bidding, we would not now be having this debate; and

 for those buyers (and honest sellers) who do embrace eBay believing that eBay acts as an “honest broker” between buyer and seller, I can only say that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden too.

Is Apple Going to Compete with PayPal?

Quote: "The only big internet name missing from this list is Microsoft/Yahoo!. With their new marriage and focus on ecommerce, a deeper partnership with Paypal or a competing system seems like an interesting option to pursue."

What about Mastercard and Visa?

“Noise” Donahoe and some market analysts seem to believe that PayPal’s manning of the pumps will keep the steadily sinking ship “eBay” afloat. I certainly would not put my money on the “clunky” PayPal for the long term. Assuming that the parties don’t have some agreement to not compete, I have no doubt that eventually those other well known “loan sharks”, the major credit card companies, will get off their butts and introduce a similar universal card/terminal-less on-line payments system that the participating banks can incorporate into their internet banking systems—and they, at least, will do it properly—and that, my friends, will undoubtedly be the end of PayPal outside of the Donahoe-dwarfed eBay marketplace ...

I recall that Donahoe has been quoted somewhere as saying that the door is slightly ajar for a potential spinoff of his company’s online payments unit. If this is correct it will be the first logical thought that this guy has ever had; he otherwise clearly has no idea of what he is doing at eBay. If that MBA taught him anything then he should be using whatever skills he does possess to negotiate with the banks to take PayPal and integrate it into their online payments system—in exchange for an appropriate interest in the consolidated business, of course. Because, the more successful PayPal is, the more likely it is that the banks will finally get off their butts and introduce a like system; if and when that happens the banks will do the job properly and will exterminate PayPal for being the “irritating insect” that it is.

For eBay “watchers”, a detailed case study of shill bidding and the abuse of eBay’s proxy bidding system—all exacerbated by eBay’s introduction of “hidden bidders”—plus a detailed general criticism of eBay’s “clunky” auction platform and policies, at

<url>www.auctionbytes.com/f...;/url>

Buyers, and honest sellers, should read this case study so that they can be made aware, if they are not already so aware, of just how primitive and open to abuse is the eBay auction system.

A synopsis thereof:

 very little of the auction system security, that eBay claims to offer buyers, exists in fact;

 contrary to their claim, it can be demonstrated that eBay has no “sophisticated” nor “proactive” system in place for the detection of undisclosed vendor (“shill”) bidding and indeed appears to do nothing about such criminal activity except as a reaction to a user’s report of suspicious bidding activity;

 eBay appears to have no effective matter-of-course verification of users; unscrupulous users can apparently have as many user IDs as they may have email addresses;

 many of eBay’s “rules”, concerning the retraction of bids, cancellation of auctions, etc, are nominal only and are no bar to the machinations of the unscrupulous seller;

 as a result, eBay’s “proxy” bidding system is so open to abuse by such unscrupulous sellers that to use it, as eBay intends it to be used, can be an invitation to pay your maximum;

 by the lack of any such effectual security, eBay effectively, and knowingly, “aids and abets” unscrupulous shill-bidding sellers to defraud naïve buyers;

 the masking of bidding IDs with non-unique, absolutely anonymous aliases serves little other purpose than to obscure such shill bidding, and defeat any attempt at comprehensive analysis of individual bidding patterns to expose such activity;

 the quarterly changing of even these non-unique, absolutely anonymous, bidding aliases serves absolutely no other purpose than to stop even experienced eBay users from attempting to track suspicious bidding activity over time;

 the anonymous, individual bidder Bid History Detail pages, supposedly supplied to offset the absolute masking of bidding IDs, although better than nothing, can present an ambiguous view and, in such circumstances, are of dubious value;

 anyone naïve enough to “nibble” bid on a seller-elected “private” auction (ie, “User ID kept private”), on the balance of probability, is going to be defrauded;

 when suspected fraud [i]is[/i] reported, and is found by eBay to be proved to their satisfaction, eBay will conceal that fact from the victim of the fraud; this then is the concealing of a crime after the fact, surely, a crime in itself;

 eBay will never acknowledge to a victim that a fraud has been perpetrated, nor indeed will they acknowledge that such fraud is even a problem on eBay; eBay therefore sees no reason to provide any mechanism to aid in the recovery of any monies so defrauded;

 if eBay did have any truly sophisticated and proactive system in place for the detection and control of shill bidding, we would not now be having this debate; and

 for those buyers (and honest sellers) who do embrace eBay believing that eBay acts as an “honest broker” between buyer and seller, I can only say that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden too.

Amazon vs. eBay: 2 Charts Say It All

Sellers unhappy? What about the buyers?

For anyone with an interest in watching eBay, a detailed case study of shill bidding and the abuse of eBay’s proxy bidding system—all exacerbated by eBay’s introduction of “hidden bidders”—plus a detailed general criticism of eBay’s “clunky” auction platform and policies, at
www.auctionbytes.com/f...

A synopsis thereof:

 very little of the auction system security, that eBay claims to offer buyers, exists in fact;

 contrary to their claim, it can be demonstrated that eBay has no “sophisticated” nor “proactive” system in place for the detection of undisclosed vendor (“shill”) bidding and indeed appears to do nothing about such criminal activity except as a reaction to a user’s report of suspicious bidding activity;

 eBay appears to have no effective matter-of-course verification of users; unscrupulous users can apparently have as many user IDs as they may have email addresses;

 many of eBay’s “rules”, concerning the retraction of bids, cancellation of auctions, etc, are nominal only and are no bar to the machinations of the unscrupulous seller;

 as a result, eBay’s “proxy” bidding system is so open to abuse by such unscrupulous sellers that to use it, as eBay intends it to be used, can be an invitation to pay your maximum;

 the lack of any such effectual security effectively “aids and abets” unscrupulous shill-bidding sellers to defraud naïve buyers;

 the masking of user IDs with non-unique, absolutely anonymous, bidding aliases serves little other purpose than to obscure such shill bidding;

 the quarterly changing of even these non-unique, absolutely anonymous, bidding aliases serves absolutely no other purpose than to stop experienced eBay users from tracking suspicious bidding activity over time;

 the anonymous, individual bidder Bid History Detail pages, supposedly supplied to offset the absolute masking of bidding IDs, can present an ambiguous view and are therefore of dubious value;

 anyone naïve enough to “nibble” bid on a seller-elected “private” auction (ie, “User ID kept private”), on the balance of probability, is going to be defrauded;

 when suspected fraud is reported, and is found by eBay to be proved to their satisfaction, eBay will conceal that fact from the victim of the fraud; this then is the concealing of a crime after the fact, surely, a crime in itself;

 eBay will never acknowledge to a victim that a fraud has been perpetrated, nor indeed will they acknowledge that such fraud is even a problem on eBay; eBay therefore sees no reason to provide any mechanism to aid in the recovery of any monies so defrauded;

 if eBay did have any truly sophisticated and proactive system in place for the detection and control of shill bidding, we undoubtedly would not now be having this debate; and

 for those buyers (and honest sellers) who embrace eBay believing that eBay acts as an “honest broker” between buyer and seller, I can only say that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden too.

Skype's Hold Up Problem

There definitely is blood in the water, and the sharks are circling!
The full story at www.auctionbytes.com/f...

eBay's Skype Fiasco: What Were They Thinking?

Of course, if you are not aware that you are being, or have been, defrauded, then there is really no harm, is there? And eBay gets a higher FVF.

I carefully watch my area of interest, and I can assure you that there are unscrupulous sellers defrauding naive buyers every day. And I don't use the term "naive" in any derogatory sense; simply that if you don't watch those Bid Histories very critically, you will get taken to the cleaners. Is it any less criminal that some are not aware that they been cheated?

Then, some say that "ignorance is bliss".

eBay Is a Winning Bid - Barron's

I look forward to the September quarter results; and then the December results will be even more interesting; undoubtedly, they will bring more spectacularly "improved" results as did the June quarter. But, seriously, can this turkey, Donahoe, possibly survive another Xmas?

Hey, "eBay+++", eBay actually read my "dribble" and responded to it, and I have recorded their responses is an appendix to my dribble. Of course, their several responses are nonsensical and an insult to any readers' intelligence; but you undoubtedly would appreciate their "spin" on the facts that were presented to them. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you aren't interested in facts; you prefer to look past those for the fairies at the bottom of the garden ...

eBay's Skype Fiasco: What Were They Thinking?

The eBay Marketplace is clearly going down the toilet.

“Noise” Donahoe and some market analysts seem to believe that PayPal’s manning of the pumps will keep the good ship “eBay” afloat. I certainly would not put my money on the “clunky” PayPal for the long term. Assuming that the parties don’t have some agreement to not compete, I have no doubt that eventually those other well known “loan sharks”, the major credit card companies, will get off their butts and introduce a similar universal card/terminal-less on-line payments system that the participating banks can incorporate into their internet banking systems—and they, at least, will do it properly—and that, my friends, will undoubtedly be the end of PayPal outside of the Donahoe-dwarfed eBay marketplace ...

I recall that Donahoe has been quoted somewhere as saying that the door is slightly ajar for a potential spinoff of his company’s online payments unit. If this is correct it will be the first logical thought that this guy has ever had; he otherwise clearly has no idea of what he is doing at eBay. If that MBA taught him anything then he should be using whatever skills he does possess to negotiate with the banks to take PayPal and integrate it into their online payments system—in exchange for an appropriate interest in the consolidated business, of course. Because, the more successful PayPal is, the more likely it is that the banks will finally get off their butts and introduce a like system; if and when that happens the banks will do the job properly and will exterminate PayPal for being the “irritating insect” that it is.

Is that blood that I can see in the water? And are those sharks that I can see circling?

For anyone with an interest in watching eBay, a detailed case study of shill bidding and the abuse of eBay’s proxy bidding system—all exacerbated by eBay’s introduction of “hidden bidders”—plus a detailed general criticism of eBay’s “clunky” auction platform and policies, at
www.auctionbytes.com/f...

Synopsis:

 very little of the auction system security, that eBay claims to offer buyers, exists in fact;

 contrary to their claim, it can be demonstrated that eBay has no “sophisticated” nor “proactive” system in place for the detection of undisclosed vendor (“shill”) bidding and indeed appears to do nothing about such criminal activity except as a reaction to a user’s report of suspicious bidding activity;

 eBay appears to have no effective matter-of-course verification of users; unscrupulous users can apparently have as many user IDs as they may have email addresses;

 many of eBay’s “rules”, concerning the retraction of bids, cancellation of auctions, etc, are nominal only and are no bar to the machinations of the unscrupulous seller;

 as a result, eBay’s “proxy” bidding system is so open to abuse by such unscrupulous sellers that to use it, as eBay intends it to be used, can be an invitation to pay your maximum;

 the lack of any such effectual security effectively “aids and abets” unscrupulous shill-bidding sellers to defraud naïve buyers;

 the masking of user IDs with non-unique, absolutely anonymous, bidding aliases serves little other purpose than to obscure such shill bidding;

 the quarterly changing of even these non-unique, absolutely anonymous, bidding aliases serves absolutely no other purpose than to stop experienced eBay users from tracking suspicious bidding activity over time;

 the anonymous, individual bidder Bid History Detail pages, supposedly supplied to offset the absolute masking of bidding IDs, can present an ambiguous view and are therefore of dubious value;

 anyone naïve enough to “nibble” bid on a seller-elected “private” auction (ie, “User ID kept private”), on the balance of probability, is going to be defrauded;

 when suspected fraud is reported, and is found by eBay to be proved to their satisfaction, eBay will conceal that fact from the victim of the fraud; this then is the concealing of a crime after the fact, surely, a crime in itself;

 eBay will never acknowledge to a victim that a fraud has been perpetrated, nor indeed will they acknowledge that such fraud is even a problem on eBay; eBay therefore sees no reason to provide any mechanism to aid in the recovery of any monies so defrauded;

 if eBay did have any truly sophisticated and proactive system in place for the detection and control of shill bidding, we undoubtedly would not now be having this debate; and

 for those buyers (and honest sellers) who embrace eBay believing that eBay acts as an “honest broker” between buyer and seller, I can only say that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden too.

eBay Is a Winning Bid - Barron's

@eBay+++: your pseudonym says it all!

In case you missed the synopsis of my lengthy detailed criticism of eBay at
www.auctionbytes.com/f...
here it is, and if you would like to respond to any of the facts that I present or the conclusions that I draw therefrom, feel free:

 very little of the auction system security, that eBay claims to offer buyers, exists in fact;

 contrary to their claim, it can be demonstrated that eBay has no “sophisticated” nor “proactive” system in place for the detection of undisclosed vendor (“shill”) bidding and indeed appears to do nothing about such criminal activity except as a reaction to a user’s report of suspicious bidding activity;

 eBay appears to have no effective matter-of-course verification of users; unscrupulous users can apparently have as many user IDs as they may have email addresses;

 many of eBay’s “rules”, concerning the retraction of bids, cancellation of auctions, etc, are nominal only and are no bar to the machinations of the unscrupulous seller;

 as a result, eBay’s “proxy” bidding system is so open to abuse by such unscrupulous sellers that to use it, as eBay intends it to be used, can be an invitation to pay your maximum;

 the lack of any such effectual security effectively “aids and abets” unscrupulous shill-bidding sellers to defraud naïve buyers;

 the masking of user IDs with non-unique, absolutely anonymous, bidding aliases serves little other purpose than to obscure such shill bidding;

 the quarterly changing of even these non-unique, absolutely anonymous, bidding aliases serves absolutely no other purpose than to stop experienced eBay users from tracking suspicious bidding activity over time;

 the anonymous, individual bidder Bid History Detail pages, supposedly supplied to offset the absolute masking of bidding IDs, can present an ambiguous view and are therefore of dubious value;

 anyone naïve enough to “nibble” bid on a seller-elected “private” auction (ie, “User ID kept private”), on the balance of probability, is going to be defrauded;

 when suspected fraud is reported, and is found by eBay to be proved to their satisfaction, eBay will conceal that fact from the victim of the fraud; this then is the concealing of a crime after the fact, surely, a crime in itself;

 eBay will never acknowledge to a victim that a fraud has been perpetrated, nor indeed will they acknowledge that such fraud is even a problem on eBay; eBay therefore sees no reason to provide any mechanism to aid in the recovery of any monies so defrauded;

 if eBay did have any truly sophisticated and proactive system in place for the detection and control of shill bidding, we undoubtedly would not now be having this debate; and

 for those buyers (and honest sellers) who embrace eBay believing that eBay acts as an “honest broker” between buyer and seller, I can only say that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden too.

eBay Is a Winning Bid - Barron's

This load of crap from Barron's Santoli has come straight from eBay's "Department of Spin". Santoli is obviously a "made man" in the employ of the "eBafia". Where is his disclosure that they are paying him for his (nonsensical) opinion?

The people running eBay are a lot of unscrupulous, disingenuous, incompetent buffoons. For anyone with an interest in watching eBay, a detailed case study of shill bidding and the abuse of eBay’s proxy bidding system—all exacerbated by eBay’s recent introduction of “hidden bidders”—plus a detailed general criticism of eBay’s “clunky” auction platform and policies, at
www.auctionbytes.com/f...