15 replies to this topic

[optimusdrizzt]

I am a bit confused as to an auction I just had. I am selling Rock Band and it is used and they generally go for $50-100 and with the new game release coming out I thought I would sell mine. I put it on ebay for a reasonable 50 start with free shipping.

For some reason two bozos get on there and on the last day bid it up to $355? I doubt the zero rated guy is going to pay, but I don't understand why a 1400 rated person would help him bid it up. Any ideas? here is the listing:

http://www.ebay.com/...t-/331530489064


Just thought I would get some outside perspective. I contacted the high rated bidder and asked her why and she said some lame thing like I was trying to win it but the bid got too high. I wrote back why would you bid $350 for a product that is listed over 50 times with a $150 buy now option for a brand new one. No response yet.

Anyhow just seeing what you guys do in this situation as I only have sold like 4 things on eBay and they have all been flawless up until now.

Ebay item: 331530489064

[cassel87]

maybe they wanted to lick your sweat off the controllers

[FANtomCore]

Ever considered stating zero feedback bidders need to contact you first before bidding otherwise you will cancel their bids, or simply not allow their bids and cancel all of them on sight. That is usually how some experience sellers handle these type of situations.

[TMAN]

I had this happen to me before. Very likely the two bidders have been out biding each other on this item when listed by other sellers. They reconise each other and bid the item out of each other's range just so the other can't buy it.

[steverotters]

Was there an initial bidder (first bidder) before the two bozos (second and third bidders) got into the apparent bid war? 

 

Edit:  I clicked your link and see what happened.  This is an example of Bid Shielding.  When you look it up, you will see most warnings of this scam described as one buyer with two accounts.  One he uses to bid low and one very very high, then retracts the bid at the last second, thus winning the item at the very low price.   More sophisticated examples use three accounts.  One bids low, then the other two seem to create a bid war until it gets very very high.  The account with zero feedback is the apparent winner (of course it has to be to protect the reputation of the second place account).  He never intends to pay with the first account and a negative strike does not matter.  Accounts are created in seconds and do not have to be backed with paypal or anything. He does not plan to pay with the second account either. This one has substantial feedback, but is unaffected because it is the second place bidder who has no obligation to pay for your item anyway. The third place down is most likely the same person as the first two.  $62 I think in your case.  This is what he/she will actually pay as you try to collect payment from the third place account holder. The apparent bid war with the other two accounts going up to $355 or whatever was just to prevent someone else getting a legitimate bid in at $63. 

 

As you can see, there were two other legitimate bids between $50 and $62.  This person prevented any legitimate bids above $62 with the two fake or complicit accounts. 

 

You are probably fine with $62, but as you said, you expected that it might go up to about $100.  Well, he/she prevented that.  From what I am reading the only way to prevent bid shielding is to set a reserve price.

 

That's how I read the situation. 

Edited by steverotters, 19 April 2015 - 09:32 PM.

[Grencats]

Maybe they thought it included an X-Box 360 in the listing? You can open a case for non paying bidders after a few days. They will be notified of the case as a warning against their account. You close the case 5 days later to get your listing fees back. The non paying bidder gets a point on their account, and sellers can decide to have their listings not show up for accounts with a certain amount of points. Just re-list the item when they are not responsive to paying.

[TheRiddler]

Was there an initial bidder (first bidder) before the two bozos (second and third bidders) got into the apparent bid war? 

 

Edit:  I clicked your link and see what happened.  This is an example of Bid Shielding.  When you look it up, you will see most warnings of this scam described as one buyer with two accounts.  One he uses to bid low and one very very high, then retracts the bid at the last second, thus winning the item at the very low price.   More sophisticated examples use three accounts.  One bids low, then the other two seem to create a bid war until it gets very very high.  The one with zero feedback is the apparent winner.  Of course he never intends to pay with the account (or this amount) and a negative strike does not matter.  Accounts are created in seconds and do not have to be backed with paypal or anything. The one with substantial feedback is unaffected because it is the second place bidder and has no obligation to pay for your item.  The third place down is most likely the same person.  $62 I think in your case.  This is what he/she will actually pay as you try to collect payment from the third place person. The apparent bid war with the other two accounts going up to $355 or whatever was to prevent someone else getting a legitimate bid in at $63. 

 

That's how I read the situation. 

Not sure if this is what's going on, but that is interesting!

[jkaris]

Isn't it still the case where you can't retract a bid the last 12 hours of an auction? Or did that change?

[steverotters]

Isn't it still the case where you can't retract a bid the last 12 hours of an auction? Or did that change?

 

Yes, I think that is why bid shielding seems to require 3 accounts now -- no retraction needed. (Looking up "bid shielding" still returns bid-retraction examples from before that 12-hour rule was put in place.)

 

A lot of the examples I am finding in researching this are from a bidder's perspective where he places a bid and then is outbid and watches the price climb higher and higher far beyond what he was willing to pay.  He assumes it is shill bidding and the seller is using one shill account to get some sucker to go higher and higher.  So that potential buyer is left behind, and he is certain that shill bidding is going on. 

 

It seems, that in some cases it is this bid shielding. Account one effectively snipes the bid.  Accounts two and three take it higher and higher to prevent any more legitimate bids.  The winning account always has zero feedback.  The second place account has plenty of feedback but does not pay.  The seller, attempting to collect something, contacts the third place account for whatever low amount. 

 

You can report it, but from what I am reading, ebay will only penalize the winning account which has zero feedback and was intended as a throw-away for the scam anyway.

Edited by steverotters, 19 April 2015 - 09:58 PM.

[steverotters]

I just noticed that the 3rd place winner has the high bid ($69) on the same item (also with free shipping):

 

http://www.ebay.com/...sd=331530489064

 

I wonder if the other two accounts will show up on this auction three days from now. 

 

Also concerning the original poster, it might be interesting to do the following:  Do not contact the third highest bidder.  Do not contact ebay about a potential scam.  Just relist the item.  Do not add a reserve price; just list it like before.  See if the same thing happens again.  See if the same two or even three accounts show up.

Edited by steverotters, 19 April 2015 - 10:11 PM.

[Jesse]

Was there an initial bidder (first bidder) before the two bozos (second and third bidders) got into the apparent bid war? 
 
Edit:  I clicked your link and see what happened.  This is an example of Bid Shielding.  When you look it up, you will see most warnings of this scam described as one buyer with two accounts.  One he uses to bid low and one very very high, then retracts the bid at the last second, thus winning the item at the very low price.   More sophisticated examples use three accounts.  One bids low, then the other two seem to create a bid war until it gets very very high.  The account with zero feedback is the apparent winner (of course it has to be to protect the reputation of the second place account).  He never intends to pay with the first account and a negative strike does not matter.  Accounts are created in seconds and do not have to be backed with paypal or anything. He does not plan to pay with the second account either. This one has substantial feedback, but is unaffected because it is the second place bidder who has no obligation to pay for your item anyway. The third place down is most likely the same person as the first two.  $62 I think in your case.  This is what he/she will actually pay as you try to collect payment from the third place account holder. The apparent bid war with the other two accounts going up to $355 or whatever was just to prevent someone else getting a legitimate bid in at $63. 
 
As you can see, there were two other legitimate bids between $50 and $62.  This person prevented any legitimate bids above $62 with the two fake or complicit accounts. 
 
You are probably fine with $62, but as you said, you expected that it might go up to about $100.  Well, he/she prevented that.  From what I am reading the only way to prevent bid shielding is to set a reserve price.
 
That's how I read the situation.

Believe it or not this actually makes sense to me haha(cheers for not using too long words) Very hard tactic but really helps them win no reserve items on pretty cheap cost. Something fishy obviously in this case and yeah the 62$ guy/chick might be in on it... Actually thats quite genious and more thought of than usual scams but thats what it still is, a Scam...

[steverotters]

Well, it fits the description perfectly. 

 

1. The high bidder has low or no feedback.

2. The high bidder is unresponsive and unwilling to pay.

3. The second highest bidder is also unwilling to pay their high bid. You could even suggest lowering the price a bit for them, and they still will not pay.

 

It is all a set-up to get you to accept the third highest bidder's bid, which is quite possibly substantially lower.  No retraction is needed, and only the junk account takes a hit if/when you file an unpaid item claim.

[80schild]

Very interesting, I've been put off bidding thinking the seller is trying to bid up their items and in fact they might be innocent.

[plasticfiend]

Lol... I've never heard of people bidding up auctions just to be jerks, but I HAVE heard of people doing what Steve is trying to do.  I've never had it happen to me though.  Seems awfully complicated to do... or maybe I'm just making it more complicated.  And I could understand the lengths that someone might got to on a much higher ticket item, but this one just doesn't seem worth it.

 

PF

[optimusdrizzt]

Yeah that makes sense and to be honest I thought about offering it to the third person, but knew I'd get more so I am going to relist once I report that account. Seems so much work to save the 20$. I must be too lazy to scam that hard for $20.

[Beastformers]

WTF..........

 

Think Steve might be on the correct lead here and his story makes sense as well but anyone ever considered which other party has benefits from a higher price...... Ebay

So if there´s indeed a new account, maybe even specifically created to bid on this item and thus 0 feedback and Ebay notices this and they place a shadow-bidder in line who´ll also benefit a certain percentage from the eventual fees Ebay will charge..... They´ll obviously get much more fees for an item selling for $350 rather than $65. The new bidder is completely unknown and probably set a max bid or whatever which is known by Ebay so the only thing they´ve to do is to put one of their shadow-bidders in line in order to push it to the limit. Probably a pretty paranoid perspective to the whole thing but who´s able to notice/control this? Let´s hope for all of us Steve´s story is the correct one even though it s#cks as well but in that case Ebay wont loose even more of their credibility.