Talk:Auction sniping: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 33: Line 33:


:Isn't that the same thing? [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
:Isn't that the same thing? [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

== Roth and Ockenfels ==

The (Roth and Ockenfels, 2000) NBER paper is still a working paper rather than published. It would be good to find an alternate, published source.[[User:Cretog8|Cretog8]] ([[User talk:Cretog8|talk]]) 00:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:46, 25 June 2008

The Merge

Well sniper bid was a poor and obscure name and this is better. Both articles are rarely edited so I merged them myself. I also kept all information. The articles--okay now just one article--needs to be cleaned up, though. DyslexicEditor 08:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sellers generally object to bid sniping

Source? Kat, Queen of Typos 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy Bidding as Antidote to Sniping

I would like to see someone address the following point in the article. I'm not an expert so I don't feel comfortable adding this information myself.

Properly used, proxy bidding is an antidote to sniping. If I am willing to pay up to $10 for an item, I'll bid that much. If someone snipes and pays $11, then I think they've overpaid.

If I thought it was OK to pay $11 for an item, then I would bid that much to start with. Using this approach there is no value in sniping and no need to worry about being outbid or sniped. The sniper has overpaid in my opinion if they take my item away.

If you have an abundance mentality, then there is no problem with going on to the next auction for the same item and bidding $10 there. Eventually I'll get the item at my price, (unless I'm wrong about its true value in which case I'll bid higher next time.) Erik 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link deleted JudyJohn 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, you are almost correct. The problem here is that our sense of worth of an item is never a hard line, in fact it's often quite fuzzy. Therefore if the item is relatively rare, it probably isn't overpriced at an extra 10%. But then what about another 10%, and then another 10%?... you see the problem. If someone is bid sniping, you won't get a chance to reconsider whether it's worth that extra 10%. However, you could imagine hypothetical 'nibbles' by another bidder and compare them to your estimated maximum before finalising your maximum bid. Dreadpirate Roberts 08:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auction Sniper, a subsidiary of eBay?

I had always heard that Auction Sniper themselves were a small part of eBay. I have no proof of course, just rumours but maybe someone knows of a source? The one thing I can say for fact is that if you snipe something at say $20.02 and the person has a proxy bid in for $20.01 YOU will win, unlike using your own bid at eBay which makes you go their next price choice.Hilljayne 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hilljayne (talkcontribs) 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC). Your bidding scenario is incorrect. If the proxy bid is $20.01 and you happened to b id $20.02 you will be the high bidder for $20.02. Of course anyone looking at the bidding history will be able to tell that you will be out bid next time someone enters any bid.[reply]

Sniping software and services

For those who came here looking for auction sniping programs, there are plenty of them if you look in the old versions of this article. I dont want to get in the whole debate of why they were taken out. Just look around and you will be enlightened. --Chrisdab 03:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sniping converts English auction to sealed bid auction

It appears to me that if sniping is practiced universally, the effect is to change eBay's English ('normal) auction with proxy bidding into a sealed bid auction where the winner pays slightly more than the second placed bid. 128.232.250.254 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the same thing? Maproom (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roth and Ockenfels

The (Roth and Ockenfels, 2000) NBER paper is still a working paper rather than published. It would be good to find an alternate, published source.Cretog8 (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]