Subject:
|
Re: why eBay proxy bidding is broken
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 18:39:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
427 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> James Brown wrote:
> >
> > That is how eBay does it, I believe. However, Larry (among others, myself
> > included) feels that you should be required to exceed the proxy by the • minimum
> > bid, not just the current bid. I'll let Larry explain the reasoning behind
> > this, he's better at it than I am.(1)
>
> I was going to chime in with an explanation like Eric's but now I don't
> have to. I would be keen to hear an explanation of why one proxy should
> have to beat another by a full increment.
>
> Say I'm selling my car and the current bid is $5,000 and the bid step is
> $500 (example step, not the ones eBay uses). If two bidders place proxy
> bids of $6,000 and $6,300 which one should get it?
>
> My opinion is that the one willing to pay more should, but it sounds
> like you and Larry think that the one who placed the bid first
> (regardless of being lower) should. Do you think that because of some
> innate fairness issue or because of the verbiage used by eBay in
> discussing how it works?
>
> --Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: why eBay proxy bidding is broken
|
| (...) I was going to chime in with an explanation like Eric's but now I don't have to. I would be keen to hear an explanation of why one proxy should have to beat another by a full increment. Say I'm selling my car and the current bid is $5,000 and (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
