pwcc

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tschock

I think one of the things that many agree with is that numerous bid retractions could a sign of shilling. If nothing else, they are definitely a sign of a "suspect buyer".

So.... it's time to put the myth to bed on how "time intensive" or "expensive" it is to monitor and act on possible shill bidders on ebay. Submitted for your approval...

Since my last post (less than 2 hours ago), I downloaded a FREE web crawler and configured it to show me a list of all the PWCC ebay auctions that completed in the last 7 days, view ALL the bidders on those auctions, and extract the number of bid retractions EACH bidder had for the past 6 months. This is under the Bid Extract column at the bottom. Each line in the bottom section is a list of the bid retractions in the last 6 months and the URL to a SPECIFIC buyer. There could be duplicates, but this could be filtered out.

This was a a POC (proof of concept) approach from myself, and while having some background working with computers, I have NO experience with web crawlers. That is why the output is somewhat "dirty" but could be beefed up and made pretty with probably a little more effort. Obviously from my lousy jpg I'm not one to be doing scan enhancements.

However the point is this: It is NOT difficult NOR expensive for someone selling on ebay to monitor and trace back bid retractions.

Note: I am NOT saying that PWCC knows about this or is involved with this or doesn't care. It was simply an exercise to point out how simple and cheap this is to do, if one has the desire to do so.

Ok, I wasn't aware that could be done that way.

I'll consider myself proven wrong about a major portion of the costs.

Someone would still have to check out those bidders, but with the largest part of the job done it's a much quicker task.

Even as a quick proof of concept this should be made available to sellers. If I was still selling and doing large volume I'd want it.


Steve B

[tschock]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ok, I wasn't aware that could be done that way.

I'll consider myself proven wrong about a major portion of the costs.

Someone would still have to check out those bidders, but with the largest part of the job done it's a much quicker task.

Even as a quick proof of concept this should be made available to sellers. If I was still selling and doing large volume I'd want it.


Steve B

Steve,

Just to clarify. My comment wasn't directed at you (or anyone in particular).

And you are correct about needing to follow up with specific items/bidders. My "sample" shows 8 retractions as the highest, but my sample only grabbed 150 bidders (and I didn't filter out which completed items, so it could have been grabbing $20 sales as well, meaning there are other things that can be tweaked). When you start grabbing more, you only need to start at the highest # and work down. I think there were those here that "found" bidders in the 50s for retractions. But even double digit retractions alone should start to give one pause. That is, if the seller actually wants to deal with this.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tschock

Steve,

Just to clarify. My comment wasn't directed at you (or anyone in particular).

And you are correct about needing to follow up with specific items/bidders. My "sample" shows 8 retractions as the highest, but my sample only grabbed 150 bidders (and I didn't filter out which completed items, so it could have been grabbing $20 sales as well, meaning there are other things that can be tweaked). When you start grabbing more, you only need to start at the highest # and work down. I think there were those here that "found" bidders in the 50s for retractions. But even double digit retractions alone should start to give one pause. That is, if the seller actually wants to deal with this.

I didn't take it as anything personal.

I'm not all that shy about putting my opinions out there on technical issues.
But part of that is that if I get it wrong I'm ok with admitting it.
I don't like being wrong and try to avoid it, but it happens.

Steve B

[steve B]

For what it's worth my scanner - Epson perfection 2400, with the updated version of the twain driver/scanning software - Auto corrects brightness depending on the object and background. It usually comes out accurate to what I see. The only thing I adjust is the DPI, but using different settings like document or and I'm probably off on the numbers, 16 or 24 bit color will produce slightly different results.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

For what it's worth my scanner - Epson perfection 2400, with the updated version of the twain driver/scanning software - Auto corrects brightness depending on the object and background. It usually comes out accurate to what I see. The only thing I adjust is the DPI, but using different settings like document or and I'm probably off on the numbers, 16 or 24 bit color will produce slightly different results.

Steve B

Steve, some people don't seem to understand technology. If you take a photo and it doesn't look like what you saw, you 'fix' it to be more accurate - you are trying to capture an image of real life, not of what the technology thinks it looks like. Scanners can be the same way. If the resulting contrast or color is not representative of what the item actually looks like, then you should change it.

I've heard people state that an item "looks even better than it did in the auction scan". My thinking is that the auction scan should have been modified to more accurately reflect the item's image.

The answer is not to say that a seller must deal with the technology he is given, without using it's settings - the answer is for sellers to be honest.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

[1880nonsports]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Steve, some people don't seem to understand technology. If you take a photo and it doesn't look like what you saw, you 'fix' it to be more accurate - you are trying to capture an image of real life, not of what the technology thinks it looks like. Scanners can be the same way. If the resulting contrast or color is not representative of what the item actually looks like, then you should change it.

I've heard people state that an item "looks even better than it did in the auction scan". My thinking is that the auction scan should have been modified to more accurately reflect the item's image.

The answer is not to say that a seller must deal with the technology he is given, without using it's settings - the answer is for sellers to be honest.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. BTW I wanted to note my appreciation for your postings - they are always well written (well unless you haven't had your coffee or beer) and I most often find them to be on point or interesting........

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The answer is not to say that a seller must deal with the technology he is given, without using it's settings - the answer is for sellers to be honest.

But what about those who have a financial interest in the seller or his fraud -- how will they manage to eat?

[cyseymour]

Personally, I really don't like the idea of changing the scanner settings. A photograph is a work of art - the photographer is the artist and entitled to fix it however they wish. But a scan is really something that is a matter of record in the sense that it is representing something else, which itself is a work of art (or memorabilia). It's a subtle difference, but it's a major difference. Auctioneers aren't artists whom ought to be figuring their own interpretation of a card.

Sometimes cards do look better in real life than in a scan, but if an auction house is having that issue, they really ought to replace their scanner. Scanners these days do extraordinary work at capturing an image, especially with the new technology available. Anyone with a strong knowledge of technology will realize that there is no need to adjust the scanner settings at all.

Look at Just Collect, for instance. They have very nice scans of their OJ's on ebay right now, and you can tell that the hue is not adjusted, because if you look at the sgc flips, they show as a rich, dark green that they are in real life. That's one barometer for telling that the scanner settings have not been adjusted to enhance the image of the card. In some other auction houses, those very same flips would show up a light, bright green.

So it doesn't really have to do with any attempt realism - it has to do with enhancing an image to make a bidder believe that the card is brighter, cleaner, and more attractive than it is in real life in order to proffer a better price on the card.