Why pool has OFFICIALLY lost my business.

[stock_post]

The non paying bidder may be an employee.
They may be scamming all the people all along.

[katherine]

Other auction houses like Snap & NJ will run the auction again if the highest bidder fails to pay. That's the right thing to do.
On the one hand they condemn shill bidding but at the same time they attempt to take advantage of deadbeat bids that effectively are null and avoid.
It's not the first time I'm disappointed at their attitude.

[petrosc]

I totally agree with theinvestor... the non-paying bidder bumped the price with no intention to buy the name and now the second bidder has to pay for that? Like Onward said, his bids should be erased and final price recalculated to what it would have been if he wasn't taking part of the auction at all.

[Gerry]

I dumped pool and quit my business with them quite sometime ago. I won a domain and never received notice of which registrar they sent it to. When I called 2 weeks after I paid and had no idea where the domain was (WHOIS was never updated) they told me it was not their problem - they simply purchased the domain and had fullfilled their end of the contract obligation. They reminded me that they were not a registrar. It was only after I contacted Amercian Express to dispute the charges did someone at pool and the gaining registrar contact me.

Anyways, the issue of shill bidding or someone being on the inside has concerned me for quite sometime. We saw evidence come to light with the .asia auctions - the auctioneer won most of the better ones. Imagine that - he knew exactly what he had to bid to win. And he claimed there was nothing wrong with that. Gee, reassured the hell out of me, eh?

Lately, I have noticed that auctions I have bid I am getting beat by the last bid.
And it is only auctions that I have entered multiple bids on. It has not been on auctions that I have only entered one bid on.

This may not make make sense, but it is a pattern that is quite peculiar.
It appears to be an enticement tactic.

So I stopped entering anything more than one bid.
I have one price I will pay and enter one bid.

I get an email earlier this week from pool, telling me about two ".ca" names that i was in an auction in. Pool was not specific but told me that because i was second highest bidder, they would give me the price based on my last bid on auction.

Guess what? TDNAM has started doing this.

The odd part?

Both notices I had received I got in less than 48 hours (one being less than 24 hours).

[Banned: theinvestor]

I'm not sure which is worse....being told right away or being told 3 months later that the high bidder didn't pay.

I guess pool may be a little lenient and possibly gives people a few months to gather funds if they haven't paid. I don't see how you can let someone bid two weeks in a row without paying for previous domains.

[Gerry]

I'm not sure which is worse....being told right away or being told 3 months later that the high bidder didn't pay.

Both are wrong...and suspicious.

How can someone determine almost immediately that the buyer defaulted? Especially in an auction?

You scenario with Pool has been played out and mentioned several times on here. Pool's support has had very little to say except that all of this sounds like a bunch of sour grapes on the domainers' part.

As for the sequencing of bids, I agree 100% that the failed bidder has ALL the bids removed. Problem is, that makes too much sense and means less money for Pool, TDnam, and all the others.

I am not going to "BUY INTO" an auction because the high bidder renegged.

[victornumber]

"I'm not sure which is worse....being told right away or being told 3 months later that the high bidder didn't pay."

You're doing better than me. They actually automatically charged me as I was the second highest bidder 3 days after auction. Price was $30 more than it should have been.

[Ilze]

"I'm not sure which is worse....being told right away or being told 3 months later that the high bidder didn't pay."

You're doing better than me. They actually automatically charged me as I was the second highest bidder 3 days after auction. Price was $30 more than it should have been.

How does someone NOT Pay? Pool has my Visa number, and I would have to do a chargeback, not to pay.

[Banned: theinvestor]

This is not something i am proud of ...but i can admit at times i spent so much at pool that my card maxed out. So, pool would give me a few days in order to just clear my balance in order for them to recharge my card.

On that note...

The only thing i can think of is that bidder filing a charge back...or having a card with such a low minimum that the transactions would go over his/her limit.

[Banned: theinvestor]

sar.ca


NameRD - 2009-04-06 16:38:35
You $660 USD 2009-04-06 16:37:58
NameRD $635 USD 2009-04-06 16:36:38
You $595 USD 2009-04-06 16:35:57
NameRD $575 USD 2009-04-06 16:35:05
You $535 USD 2009-04-06 16:30:43
NameRD $525 USD 2009-04-06 16:26:39
You $495 USD 2009-04-06 16:22:02
NameRD $475 USD 2009-04-06 16:26:32
NameRD $425 USD 2009-04-06 16:22:32
NameRD $401 USD 2009-04-06 16:21:44
You $395 USD 2009-04-06 16:21:29
NameRD $375 USD 2009-04-06 16:21:40
NameRD $301 USD 2009-04-06 16:20:47
You $295 USD 2009-04-06 16:20:38
NameRD $251 USD 2009-04-06 16:20:45
StewKat $211 USD 2009-04-06 16:20:14
NameRD $201 USD 2009-04-06 16:19:42
StewKat $200 USD 2009-04-06 16:20:07
StewKat $165 USD 2009-04-06 16:19:21
You $151 USD 2009-04-06 16:19:10
NameRD $150 USD 2009-04-06 16:14:55
StewKat $131 USD 2009-04-06 16:13:28
bidder_36821 $120 USD 2009-04-06 15:54:02
wzhxvy $110 USD 2009-04-03 03:20:33
jjweqr $100 USD 2009-04-03 03:02:29
wzhxvy $90 USD 2009-04-02 14:29:01
StewKat $80 USD 2009-04-01 21:25:37
JenYoung $70 USD 2009-04-01 21:24:01
wzhxvy $60 USD 2009-04-01 20:00:29

Since pool has no guts to post a reply on this forum..I will be starting to post the auctions of the non-paying bidder. You tell me ...is it fair i have to pay $660?

[valeria]

Based on this log. You should be paying maximum of $251.

[Domainx09]

It is completely normal to offer you the opportunity to purchase as the second bidder before reinitiating the auction at the original reserve price due to no sale...unless I missed something too. I have never used pool...I never see them recommended on any domaining site. I saw a similar scenario about a sedo auction too...I figure this is the regular way they handle the situation when there is a non paying bidder in a domain auction.

[Banned: dn-101]

The non-paying bidder is the POOL itself.
Few years back they installed a simple program written by the psychologists & game theorists which mimics the actions of the real bidder. They take into account the number of bidders and response times. Somewhat similar programs are pricing the car rentals and the airfares.

[Raider]

Exactly Kate. I'm a little upset because they offered for me to buy ONLY if it's at the amount which was one bid lower than the non paying bidder.

If they had told me they would just re-auction i wouldn't have been as upset. They are trying to profit off the non paying bidder though by trying to offer me the domain at a price which was overpriced by the non paying bidder.

This has been Pool's practice for what now? 7 years? and your just now realizing it?.... The bottom line here is; You bid on a domain for x amount and Pool is offering it to you for the same x amount, So what are you crying about?

I can understand your point about the non-paying bidder inflating the price, however YOU and YOU alone chose to bid up to that price, As much as you want to blame the non-paying bidder, YOU participated in driving up the price yourself, Pool didn't do that, YOU did. The price was OK with you at the time, but now it's not OK because the bidder didn't pay?... LMAO!!!

Your not getting your way with Pool coming down on the price, so your upset... That's really what this all about right?. Of course it is.

[Gerry]

Based on this log. You should be paying maximum of $251.

This is how I see it as well.

You negate every bid by the winner and then see who else you would have been bidding against.

No question about it. The auction is then between you and StewCat.

And if pool wanted to remove any doubt of suspicion then this is precisely what they would do.

[Raider]

And if pool wanted to remove any doubt of suspicion then this is precisely what they would do.

Yeah, maybe they should do that, But it wasn't their policy at the time of the auction and it's not their policy now. If you want to advocate for changing Pool's rules, Go for it.... But to post here and trash Pool because one bidder doesn't like the rules HE AGREED to before being allowed to bid, That's just tough.

You tell me ...is it fair i have to pay $660?

If that's the bid amount you placed, YES.

[RatherGood]

why not just watch how the next auction pans out?

[Banned: theinvestor]

Yeah, maybe they should do that, But it wasn't their policy at the time of the auction and it's not their policy now. If you want to advocate for changing Pool's rules, Go for it.... But to post here and trash Pool because one bidder doesn't like the rules HE AGREED to before being allowed to bid, That's just tough.



If that's the bid amount you placed, YES.

Explain how it's fair that i pay $660 in a rigged auction. The dropped auctions that entire week were rigged by the same bidder that didn't pay. This is not one isolated incident. There were multiple auctions. When we participate in an auction we assume that auction is run fairly and that all bidders are paying. If that changes, the auction itself is no longer valid.

Pool is trying to sucker people into paying inflated price from an auction that they know was invalid.

Based on this log. You should be paying maximum of $251.

I offered them to pay $295. They declined.

[Raider]

Explain how it's fair that i pay $660 in a rigged auction. The dropped auctions that entire week were rigged by the same bidder that didn't pay. This is not one isolated incident. There were multiple auctions. When we participate in an auction we assume that auction is run fairly and that all bidders are paying. If that changes, the auction itself is no longer valid.

Pool is trying to sucker people into paying inflated price from an auction that they know was invalid.

First off, nobody is forcing you to pay the $660, it's a choice Pool is giving you.

Second, your claim that it was rigged, If you can prove it was Pool that bid on these auctions, then I'd agree with you, but I doubt you can do that and I also doubt Pool would risk their reputation by doing such a thing.

And since Pool allows the winning bidder a grace period to pay, I could see where it would take an entire week to close the bidders account down.

I went through the very same thing your going through right now, and on the surface it does seem unfair, But when you think about the notice Pool sent to you, try to look at it as a opportunity rather than a demand or what's right or wrong. If they resubmit it to auction, you may very well get it for a lower price, so why not do that?...

I offered them to pay $295. They declined.

I'm not surprised, They declined me as well 6+ years ago on some Yahoo Directory domains, which I'm glad they did, because Yahoo pulled those names from their directory soon after.. Which made them almost worthless.

Maybe this is a sign for you.

[Gerry]

It the other bidder had no intentions of paying and simply running up the bids, then you ended up bidding against your self.