For Sale The longest Auction at Pool

[hiOsilver]

One of the reasons I gave in my article in Duke's DNJournal for my supporting WLS is that it will be straightforward and transparent. This is obviously in marked contrast to all of the bidding systems where there are all kinds of strange and suspicious things that happen.

 

[Shaggy]

I just got an email today (11/27/03) from pool that I won Nitrogen.org and it dropped Oct. 13th???? I don't see it in any of my accounts yet. We will see??

 

[actnow]

Here is the big question.

If the person that bid against you was not involved in the auction.
How much would the name really had cost?

For example,

They billed me at $ 400.00

ABC.com

bidder ....... amount

11111........$ 500.00
You..............$400.00
You..............$300.00
You..............$200.00
11111........$100.00
11112..........$80.00
You................$70.00
11112...........$60.00

It appears that they are billing us at the second highest bid.

But, if the person wasn't involved I would have paid $ 90.00

Am I correct?

 

[Digital Address]

Maybe. If # 11111 had not bid, you might have had it for $90.00 assuming that $80.00 was the max. bid that # 11112 was willing to go. (He may not have been interested in topping your $100. or he was watching till it got too high for him.)

 

[Keyworddomains.com]

Something very strange from me to report too:

I lost Shan.org to BD on the 14th of August,
until the 19th of November this name resolved on a typically bd site.
Suddenly i got a mail from pool saying i won the auction for shan.org and charging me $60 ???.
How do you explain this?

 

[Manu]

Well I think the terms of the bidding system on pool need to be looked at - some people get caught in the last min auction rush and bid more - and after they dont win the name some people are relieved to have saved a few bucks - the bid you place should be valid ONLY for the duration of the auction - if the final winner does NOT pay the name should go back into auction and alert the those that had bid on the name.
As right now it doesnt look very good on pools side.

 

[Digital Address]

Originally posted by Logop
Something very strange from me to report too:

I lost Shan.org to BD on the 14th of August,
until the 19th of November this name resolved on a typically bd site.
Suddenly i got a mail from pool saying i won the auction for shan.org and charging me $60 ???.
How do you explain this?

I've had an ominous feeling over the last few days about the possible reason(s) why all of these domain names are coming back to haunt the underbidders. And if it is as I fear and as your post indicates, BuyDomains is either in trouble or they are going after only the better quality drops and telling Pool to return all the others! Because of their purchasing power, they could probably force Pool's hand!

 

[Keyworddomains.com]

Bidding history for shan.org:

Bidder Max Bid Bid Date
11570 $60.00 2003-08-14 14:41:25
11572 $60.00 2003-11-18 16:46:56

 

[actnow]

Wm, I don't think BD is in trouble. I think Pool is trying to clean up
their accounting. And, their cash flow to their registrars.

If you think about the cashflow for a registrar. It probably parallels
Walmart's cashflow. They receive their money before they have to
pay their supplier.

But, since Pool has become the major player in the biz they have a lot
of potential bad debts from fraudalent bidders. And, since a domain
has the potential to be "day old" bread. They need to keep on top
of this.

I bet you will find they probably brought in someone in the past couple
weeks to handle this. And, that is why we are seeing it now.

I also bet we will see a notice come out about rules of bidding and
payment. And, what will happen if the name is not immediately paid for.

 

[clemzonguy]

something needs to be done, and it aint WLS thats gonna solve it.

Liked how you threw that in there to try and avoid championing the only obvious solution for all of this.

One of the reasons I gave in my article in Duke's DNJournal for my supporting WLS is that it will be straightforward and transparent.

Exactly what I was thinking in the back of my mind when reading all of this....

I also bet we will see a notice come out about rules of bidding and payment. And, what will happen if the name is not immediately paid for.

Only to try and silence skeptics. But I don't think people will stop using a system (based on hearsay) which right now is one of the few ways now to get a name. That's like someone living in alaska during the dark months saying "I am going to go off the electrical grid" and then expect to use solar power instead (there would be none available). Buydomains can really have what they want....whether it's private connections or bidding they can pretty much pick and choose what they want and set the stakes. There are not many wild card players out there anymore that can really compete.

But, if the person wasn't involved I would have paid $ 90.00

From the information posted above it would indicate to me that the person might have indeed have got the domain for much less $90 instead of $400, but since Pool threw out one of the bidders they were able to push a person past what they normally would have gotten away paying and milked it for a lot more in the process going with your last highest bid. All they need to prove is that you were willing to pay higher and did indeed place that bid. What are you going to do complain to them about it and loose the domain and bidding priviledges in the future to the few places now to buy dropping names? I think not. :evil:

 

[.com.net.org]

BD has realized they're paying too much. :-D

 

[Bashar]

what i think is Pool have specialized staff for some names and try to outbid you until they feel its the right amount

if they outbid you and you never re-bid they ignore the higher bidder (which they are) and charge for the next higest bidder (which you are) and they win few bids from you

ofcourse since we want the name we keep bidding

thats what i feel sincethey added this 15mins thingie lately!

 

[mole]

Originally posted by clemzonguy
but since Pool threw out one of the bidders they were able to push a person past what they normally would have gotten away paying and milked it for a lot more in the process going with your last highest bid.

I agree. This opens the Pool system to all kinds of fraudulent abuses, imho.

I don't mind paying a little more for a name I like, but if I find out that I've been pulled along by the tail by a shill bidder (see my thread on ghost bidders) like a stupid monkey...

The only solution Pool has when the winning bidder defaults is to reopen the name up to a new auction for everyone until the winning bid pays up.

You can ban an account all you like. The shill bidder will just use false or stolen credit card information and proxies and just do it again, and again, and again.

The domain industry is NOT transparent but full of dangerous undercurrents that can sucker the unsuspecting victim in a moment's breath.

The WLS system is not perfect, but at least it's less open to shenanigans, or god forbid, typo errors.

I think the edeals.com case showed without a shadow of a doubt, how flawed the auction system can be without proper checks and balances in place.

 

[seeker]

I should be really angry at pool...
I got a domain for much more thant I know its worth. yes... Why did I bid too high, I see the iditioc part there.
BUT...
The same person, assigned, the same bid # (yes, bidder # changes apparently, but NOT when the same bidder has enetered on the same day, which, I guess, is a good tip for all of you, since by now, I have wasted over $3000 to find that out, the rest of the money, IMHO went to good use),
was rejected on another name, and I was told I 'won' later , days later, at my highest bid on another domain (same bidder # against me). So that bidder was a scam...
Pool, is loosing credibility fast, and I wish we could do something about it.

P.S.

funny thing, I posted a while back a question asking everyone 'how do we know we are actually bidding against someone' in pool, and not against them...
Now, in certain cases, I dont have much doubt...

So, my anti WLS campaign seems to be taking a wild turn.
It's a shame that VS seems to be doing the right thing here, because of greed of others.
Which of course will result in greed for VS... Which of course is a vicious circle and I am repeating myself...

 

[shaw]

WLS sucks, but it sure beats pool.com. At least you won't have to spend time every day on bidding and pay for fraudulent bids. And no more headaches with all the bogus registrars some of which don't even have a working web site.