SnapNames Flaw

[majestique]

I once bid on a domain with about 3 other fellows. 2 of them above me on the queue. The auction ended without any bids, but I ended up having to buy the domain. The other 2 I was told, couldn't pay for the domain.

Problem: Had I go on the bidding war w/ these 2 other "bidders" and won, I would have to pay a premium for the domain name when I shouldn't have.

Solution: Have everyone deposit $60 to SnapNames, if they can't pay for the domain name, they lose the deposit, and they can't bid unless there's a $60 deposit.

[GoPC]

Sounds fair.

Here's another example... for some reason a domain that was won for $1900 was reduced to $1500 before it was paid. I had a bid in at $1500 but that was my budget... two others battled out further until the domain was ultimately won at just over $1900 USD.

It say there, unpaid for several days, all the while showing a pending payment of $1900. Then, it dropped to $1500 and sat for another couple of days before it was paid and removed from the pending list.

So what happened? Sounded like the 2nd place bidder couldn't pay and his bumps were removed. However, that should have out it back to he and I, both having bids at $1500.

Anyone have any idea why this was?

GoPC

[zzz]

Would make sense that it goes to the next highest bidder if the top bidders can't pay.

What do they do with people who can't pay? Do they stop them from bidding on future auctions? What if they were just running the price up with no real intention of buying?

[GoPC]

I think so. It's called "spite".

GoPC

[zzz]

If they were related to the seller somehow (for public auctions) wouldn't that be illegal? Or is this a technique used to get domains they want?

[Onward]

I have had this happen...I was bidding against someone and I stopped at $1250...They won the name at what ever the next amount was ...I believe $1300...that bidder failed to pay and I won the auction...however I did not pay $1250...I paid $505, because the next closest bidder was at $500.

The original high bidder was deleted as if he never bid.

I hope this experience I had helps.

[denny007]

I told here already many times: the only fair solution would be to start the auction again without the non-payer. Also Snapnames would get more money this way. Clubdrop does another extreme - they start new auction but PUBLIC, that means even those who wasn't in that auction before can bid now.

[actnow]

Originally Posted by Onward

The original high bidder was deleted as if he never bid.

There is no fair way of handling it.

However, the way they are doing it now is the best alternative.

Snapnames works very hard to monitor bidders. And, to elliminate the "bad apples".

Where it gets unfair is when there are 3 bidders. And, one of them is a "bad apple".

a = you
b = bad apple
c = competitor

$ 1,000 = b
$ 950 = a
$ 900 = c
$ 800 = b
$ 700 = a
$ 600 = b
$ 500 = a
$ 400 = b
$ 300 = a
$ 200 = b
$ 100 = a

[myst woman]

So is namewinner dead now?

[majestique]

Like I stated in the solution: Make everyone pay a deposit, say $60-200 to participate in auctions, if they win and can't pay, they lose the deposit.

This way, it also verifies that snapnames can charge someone's account to an extent.

Another problem with this is, let's say the bidder can't pay up to $500 and the auction goes $4000 and you won? You wouldn't even know you're bidding against a bidder who simply can't pay and you had to spend probably 900% more than you had to.

At any rate, the $60-$200 deposit requirement will at least remove some of the problem.

[Acro]

What exactly is the "can't pay" part? You're required to have a valid CC on file. The only time they can't pay would be if the CC was stolen.

[Onward]

Originally Posted by majestique

Like I stated in the solution: Make everyone pay a deposit, say $60-200 to participate in auctions, if they win and can't pay, they lose the deposit.

This way, it also verifies that snapnames can charge someone's account to an extent.

Another problem with this is, let's say the bidder can't pay up to $500 and the auction goes $4000 and you won? You wouldn't even know you're bidding against a bidder who simply can't pay and you had to spend probably 900% more than you had to.

At any rate, the $60-$200 deposit requirement will at least remove some of the problem.

I do not like this idea at all...The point of having a valid credit card should take care of this problem.

Snap names should make sure bidders have a valid credit card with available room on the card...If the bidder does not they should be banned from a credit card transaction and then have to give a cach deposit, before bidding...and only be able to bid up to their deposit amount.

My 2 cents...

[majestique]

did you guys read my post at all? the ppl that were on the auction were able to bid.. that means they've verified the CC, but when it was time to pay for the auction, they couldn't pay at all.. solution? make a refundable deposit! not hard! if you can't make a deposit.. get lost!
the auction was under $100.. and they couldn't pay for it!

Here's what they said

I'm afraid you have misunderstood me. The account in question was not suspended before the auction, but afterwards because of the inability to pay for the domain ordered. Suspened accounts are not able to participate in our auctions. The name went to you because we were able to receive payment for it.

what other solution do you suggest if these accounts can't even pay for a domain under $100?

[stu]

Originally Posted by Onward

I have had this happen...I was bidding against someone and I stopped at $1250...They won the name at what ever the next amount was ...I believe $1300...that bidder failed to pay and I won the auction...however I did not pay $1250...I paid $505, because the next closest bidder was at $500.

The original high bidder was deleted as if he never bid.

I hope this experience I had helps.

This was my experience also. I think this is fairer for the eventual winner than restarting an auction. After all, you were the genuine highest bidder for the domain, excluding all those bids by these bidders who couldn't pay.