For Sale Enom encourages auction fraud

[cambler]

I can tell you, categorically, that eNom is not shill bidding to increase bids, and I somewhat resent the implication. That's a reckless accusation, at best.

The identification issue should help, and should allow for the banning of bidders who make clearly fake bids. Disclosing their identity not only does no good, but might open up a liability issue. Preventing bids over $200 without identification should go a long way, I believe.

I have advocated for a deposit that can be forfeited, but that opens up its own problems. Let me ask you all - if you were required to place a deposit of $500 for any bid over $500, and if you won and did not pay your deposit would be lost, would you agree to that? Is that solution one in which the problem it solves is more important than having to have $500 locked up on every high-value name?

What's your opinion?

 

[seeker]

ya sou re Chris!
I knew you would answer here.
Your question and answer is great, because here, you will get the right answer.
Chris, you are a levendis, your Greek heritage would be proud of you.


for private bids:
have them deposit $200 for an up to X5 that with the option of paying or losing the deposit.
from there, take it upwards.

Also, you really should get those drop catchers to work with Enom's whois.

 

[hifi]

Of all the drop auction houses, I think Snapnames has the best system, and it's mainly because of their transparency. Maybe eNom should consider something similar - a bidding history and a unique alias for each bidder. The same has worked for eBay for years and I believe there must be a reason.

 

[Sharpy]

I can tell you, categorically, that eNom is not shill bidding to increase bids, and I somewhat resent the implication. That's a reckless accusation, at best.

I doubt that eNom is doing this as well Chris. But that will always be an issue with internet bidding. The other problem is, there is no way to police it. So the auction house, has to be as transparent as possible.

When your product is absolutley "one of a kind" not only must you be ethical, you must have the apperance of being ethical. Allowing idiots to bid any ammount, with out verification is questionable. It goes against common sence. But you are not accountable to any client as is the case with most auction houses, you already own the product(name). So greed drives your bidder criteria, not common sence. If you get burned, so what? You just move it to public, get paid what it's worth and grab more names.

 

[cambler]

What if all high-value names went public automatically, and all bids were completely public as they came in?

Mind you, I don't speak for eNom in this decision-making process - this is just me, trying to get a better idea of what works.

In this case, everyone would win in that there would be 100% transparency, and since the high-value name went immediately public, it would maximize eNom's revenue. But it would also be against the best interests of the better players, as a public auction removes any advantage they get for bidding ahead-of-time and getting into a private auction.

Ultimately, however, is there ever a high-value name that does NOT get everyone bidding on it?

So what are the pros and cons of just doing that, and then saying "any private auction requires a deposit of 10% of your bid. If you want to bid $1000, you must have $100 on deposit. If you want to bid $5000, you must have $500 on deposit. If you win the auction and fail to pay, your deposit is forfeited, and things proceed as they have."

Again, just thinking out loud and respecting the experience that you guys have in soliciting your opinions.

 

[seeker]

Chris....
I'll email you.

 

[nitronet]

I can tell you, categorically, that eNom is not shill bidding to increase bids, and I somewhat resent the implication. That's a reckless accusation, at best.

The identification issue should help, and should allow for the banning of bidders who make clearly fake bids. Disclosing their identity not only does no good, but might open up a liability issue. Preventing bids over $200 without identification should go a long way, I believe.

I have advocated for a deposit that can be forfeited, but that opens up its own problems. Let me ask you all - if you were required to place a deposit of $500 for any bid over $500, and if you won and did not pay your deposit would be lost, would you agree to that? Is that solution one in which the problem it solves is more important than having to have $500 locked up on every high-value name?

What's your opinion?

Why is ENOM breaking all of VISA, MASTERCARD, and AMERICAN EXPRESS merchant rules by charging a 3% service fee, and actually profiting because your fees are no more than 2%?

Why doesn't ENOM simply remove all bids of a non paying bidder and award the domain to the next highest legitimate bidder in line?

Why are you posting here and wasting everyone's time when you aren't a decision maker at ENOM?

 

[seeker]

Why are you posting here and wasting everyone's time when you aren't a decision maker at ENOM?

why do you exist?
What kind of Idiotic statement is that???
Someone can help us because he *happens* to work there, and you ask why?
So If I worked for MS you would blame me for your dumb OS??

 

[Sharpy]

Ultimately, however, is there ever a high-value name that does NOT get everyone bidding on it?

Eactly. But eNom still needs to know which lesser quality names to go after.

So maybe this?

If there is 5 or less pre-drop bidders, the name goes private if caught.

More than 5 pre-drop bidders, the name goes public if caught.

Why are you posting here and wasting everyone's time when you aren't a decision maker at ENOM?

Dude , easy. He's not wasting my time. PM these kind of hostile remarks, please

 

[Mr Webname]

Why are you posting here and wasting everyone's time when you aren't a decision maker at ENOM?

That comment is unacceptable - cambler has already stated what he does for Enom and as such everyone must know his area of activity.
However as a representative of Enom we welcome his input and viewpoint and do not expect our members to be discourteous.

 

[seeker]

good moderators.
an oxymoron on almost all forums. Except DNF...
The mods make this forum 'the' place to be.
If ever need be, I would happily get a kick in the arse by these mods, because they are true mods, and they know what they do and what they reperesent.

 

[cambler]

Why doesn't ENOM simply remove all bids of a non paying bidder and award the domain to the next highest legitimate bidder in line?

We've been over this. Doing this creates the opportunity for bid fraud.

Consider, party A bids $100, and then party B, his associate, bids $50,000. Nobody else bids. Party B now fails to pay (or was using a stolen credit card). In your scenario, party A now gets the name for $100. If this were a name that was nominally worth $5000, party A just got a $4900 discount, to the detriment of everyone else.

As to your other two points, first, I know very little about credit cards, so I'm nowhere near qualified to answer. And second, I will ignore and just presume that you're having a bad day. I do hope it improves.

Lest there be any doubt, let me be perfectly clear. When it comes to how eNom gets the names in the drop (and I mean the strategy and software that actually does the job), the responsibility and decisions rest with me. With respect to how auctions work, payments, allocations and other business issues, that's not what I do. And while those in charge listen and consider my input, the decision is, ultimately, theirs. So I can consider the issues and make recommendations that are heard, but I do not (nor would I want to) decide. When I hear of problems, I take them to the appropriate person. When I see something that needs fixing, I'll be an advocate for change. I truly enjoy engaging on the issues and, I'll admit, I relish a good argument (not a fight, mind you, an argument - know the difference). I love my position at eNom in that I can make a difference, and it gives me a lot of satisfaction when I do. If that's not good enough for you, sir, I'm truly sorry.

I hope I've made it clear for you. And again, I hope your day improves.

 

[Fearless]

We've been over this. Doing this creates the opportunity for bid fraud.

Consider, party A bids $100, and then party B, his associate, bids $50,000. Nobody else bids. Party B now fails to pay (or was using a stolen credit card). In your scenario, party A now gets the name for $100. If this were a name that was nominally worth $5000, party A just got a $4900 discount, to the detriment of everyone else.

Your thinking there is flawed. It presumes there are only 2 bidders, a fraudulent bidder and a real bidder. I think there were like 87 bidders for birdie.com. I assure you if a name is worth $5,000 it will have a lot of bidders. So in your example the guy wouldn't get a $5,000 name for $100 ever.


* Edit I see you must be assuming an auction without proxy bidding. Enom has proxy bidding. In your example with 2 bids of $100 and $50,000, the result would be a $110 winner.

 

[cambler]

Your thinking there is flawed. It presumes there are only 2 bidders, a fraudulent bidder and a real bidder. I think there were like 87 bidders for birdie.com. I assure you if a name is worth $5,000 it will have a lot of bidders. So in your example the guy wouldn't get a $5,000 name for $100 ever.


* Edit I see you must be assuming an auction without proxy bidding. Enom has proxy bidding. In your example with 2 bids of $100 and $50,000, the result would be a $110 winner.

While this is true, if the fraudulent bidder put in his fake $50,000 bid immediately, it would severely limit the number of bidders who bothered to put in proxies in the first place.

 

[Josh]

I spoke to Matt Stearn, Vice President of Enom, several weeks ago about this very issue of not restarting auctions after a bidder defaults. He did not respond, until I emailed him again asking why he ignored my email. He said he had been on vacation and he would look into it and address my concerns. He never did.

Everything Greg says is absolutely correct.

Josh

 

[cambler]

I spoke to Matt Stearn, Vice President of Enom, several weeks ago about this very issue of not restarting auctions after a bidder defaults. He did not respond, until I emailed him again asking why he ignored my email. He said he had been on vacation and he would look into it and address my concerns. He never did.

Everything Greg says is absolutely correct.

Josh

I should point out that Matt receives on the order of HUNDREDS of emails like yours every week. If Matt spent the time to respond to each and every one, he would have very little time left to do anything else. Not an excuse as much as just pointing out the reality of things.

One of the reasons I'm trying to discuss this here is to synthesize a summary and present some recommendations.

So how about articulating your plan to resolve these kinds of issues? I'd love to hear it.

 

[Fearless]

While this is true, if the fraudulent bidder put in his fake $50,000 bid immediately, it would severely limit the number of bidders who bothered to put in proxies in the first place.

You are apparently not familiar with the Enom auction system. I can't see other bidders proxy bids or even if there are any proxy bids.

 

[Josh]

I should point out that Matt receives on the order of HUNDREDS of emails like yours every week. If Matt spent the time to respond to each and every one, he would have very little time left to do anything else. Not an excuse as much as just pointing out the reality of things.

One of the reasons I'm trying to discuss this here is to synthesize a summary and present some recommendations.

So how about articulating your plan to resolve these kinds of issues? I'd love to hear it.

It's not that my email was lost among hundreds of emails. He received it and responded. He just did not address the issue of fraudulent bidding, just as Enom failed to address Greg's issue of fraudlent bidding. Really, it's in Enom's best financial interest not to address it in the short term, since in the short term they can earn more money.

As for a long term plan, common sense would apply. Penalize bidders who do not pay and either restart auctions when bidders default on their winning bid, or revert the auction to that bidder's entry point into the auction. Nothing magical about this--just common sense that real-life auctions utilize. I think Matt at Enom does a goob job. They just need to address this issue.

Josh

 

[cambler]

You are apparently not familiar with the Enom auction system. I can't see other bidders proxy bids or even if there are any proxy bids.

You are apparently not thinking outside the box.

In this case, party A puts in a bid for $100, and parties B and C, fraudulent bidders, put in proxies of $49,900 and $50,000, respectively. They do this as quickly as possible, thereby discouraging other bidders.

The solution is to require B and C to have a deposit that would be forfeited. Party B would be irrelevant in this case, and party C would forfeit their deposit, and, nominally, the auction would restart with Party C's bid removed.

Party B would then be on the hook, and would find their deposit forfeited in the next round.

Then, in the third round, presumably, all would be normal.

Now can you see why Party B would be contacted by eNom? And can you also see that these fraudulent bids would slow things down considerably?

All we lack right now is the non-refundable deposit. So I ask again - would you be okay with that?

 

[seeker]

No one is ok with that.
Chris, what do the folks at Enom, AFTER hearing all this have to say?