Another NO RESERVE seller ignoring rules on Flippa

[SeaLink]

Just wondering if I'm wrong.....
I saw a "no reserve" auction on Flippa for a .io name with 13 mins left. Rather than do the $1.00 bid thing, I (probably stupidly) bid $21.00. As I always do, I sent a pm to the seller asking that they acknowledge my bid. Of course the auction ended without him approving my bid and 2 mins later I got a pm asking for my bid. I replied that it was $21, as he knew and he said, "hey, I relisted, submit your bid, and btw my reserve is $100. I sid, "kinda slick of you to fail on your NO RESERVE bid." His response was "no way I'm selling for 21 when I paid 40 for the name."

I happen to feel the selective adherence to the rules at FLIPPa is total bs. This has happened to me many times. I've been told the seller has the right to refuse bids based upon the sellers history..... Oddly enough, I have over 100 transactions with a perfect record. I've definitely overpaid in the past and I've also given names away for nothing. I think that selective adherence to rules is bs.....

 

[N-A]

Thanks for all the feedback. Now I'm pretty sure that I'm not crazy.

And as with David, my name here is the same as my name there, Octacage.

I'm sorry, you can't really tell my exact stance since it's not clearly written.

The problem lies in Flippa's rules to allow seller's to control who can and can't bid. I get agitated waiting for bids to be accepted myself. Because after bidding on one name and it go into pending, I choose not to actively participate as a buyer on their platform. That doesn't go to say that it's not worth giving up and refraining to bid all together; there are honest sellers that either accept all bids manually or automatically, and you can get great deals.

Again, this is Flippa overly protecting both seller and buyer. Of this, it's the most bizarre protection, stated above and being posted earlier, that anyone as a seller can refuse to sell a BIN bid by merely not acknowledging it for 72 hours. I can see how it could have been erroneous in that the BIN was mistakenly posted, but then again everyone should do due diligence when selling. This should not open the door for one to have 72 hours to either get an appraisal or to find another buyer with a BIN bid being leverage in other negotiations elsewhere, which Flippa subtly allows by having this rule to begin with.

A BIN/bid should automatically enter a buyer and seller into a (future) sales agreement and seller's shouldn't have the right to choose who to approve.

If the problem lies in nonpaying bidders, this again, is Flippa's problem by not vetting their member base.

 

[Asfas1000]

Please post your Flippa handle so that bidders don't have to bother with your "sales."

I think you misunderstood. I am not the seller.

Hey, it's the truth. If you are selling something as "No Reserve", then morals dictate that you should stick to ethics. If you have no intention of being a stand-up seller then don't list things without a reserve!

I agree it's unethical.

On the other hand, is it ethical if one bids $1 two minutes before the auction end, trying to snatch a domain he knows the seller paid at least $10 to buy ? (OP clearly did not do that, as he bid $20)

Also, I was wondering...did the seller disapprove the bid, or failed to approve it ? If he failed to approve it, perhaps he was not in front of his computer by the auction end ?

 

[Jen-Sin]

As a seller in Flippa, one will not know how much bidders are bidding when bids are placed. Thus sellers can't selectively reject bidders based on the amount of their initial bid. By rejecting or not accepting bids, sellers also reduce their bidders pool.

In future, place bids early, because not all sellers will be online towards the end of the auction to approve bids. Placing an early bid also allows one to strategize in the final hour bidding war, if any.

To the OP, no transaction takes place in the end. Seller has more to lose as he has paid for the listing fee. Maybe just avoid the seller in future.

 

[AndyM]

I think that if the bid comes from a reputable member (100% feedback, joined x months/years ago and good sales track record) then the bid should automatically be accepted. Bids should only pend if the bid comes from members with no feedback or bad feedback or bad track record, and possibly new members.
Just my opinion.

One thing I like about sedo auctions is your bid is accepted straight away and you are also given a reserve guide.

 

[S-B]

I disagree with you guys. Since the seller did not approve the bid, he is in no obligation to sell.

I completely agree with you.

It's like sending a lowball offer via email and complaining when the owner doesn't respond...

Move on.

 

[equity78]

An unsolicited email to a domain owner about a domain that may not even be for sale, is nothing like making a bid on an auction on a public auction platform.

@David Walker said it best:

The problem lies in Flippa's rules to allow seller's to control who can and can't bid. I get agitated waiting for bids to be accepted myself. Because after bidding on one name and it go into pending, I choose not to actively participate as a buyer on their platform. That doesn't go to say that it's not worth giving up and refraining to bid all together; there are honest sellers that either accept all bids manually or automatically, and you can get great deals.

Again, this is Flippa overly protecting both seller and buyer. Of this, it's the most bizarre protection, stated above and being posted earlier, that anyone as a seller can refuse to sell a BIN bid by merely not acknowledging it for 72 hours. I can see how it could have been erroneous in that the BIN was mistakenly posted, but then again everyone should do due diligence when selling. This should not open the door for one to have 72 hours to either get an appraisal or to find another buyer with a BIN bid being leverage in other negotiations elsewhere, which Flippa subtly allows by having this rule to begin with.

A BIN/bid should automatically enter a buyer and seller into a (future) sales agreement and seller's shouldn't have the right to choose who to approve.

If the problem lies in nonpaying bidders, this again, is Flippa's problem by not vetting their member base.

 

[yogiDomain]

I disagree with you guys. Since the seller did not approve the bid, he is in no obligation to sell.

I agree with this comment. Flippa has given the provision to reject a bid if he is not willing to sell it.

Though i have never reject any bids. Sold many domains for 10-20$ no reserve.

 

[DU]

This should be like all those other auctions.

NO RESERVE but when you go to add a bid it has a minimum starting value of $300.

That would solve the issue here.

The problem is that there is no real NO RESERVE when you can simply reject all bids under that value. Of course the seller could just say reserve is $40... or state I will reject all bids under $40 in the terms.

The whole thing at Flippa is messed up... I have been receiving emails on a name that has been listed about 5 times already, each time ending with a private offer. I'm not interested but just wondering how long the event will happen.

I understand the rationale for why this is allowed though. I don't know how many time it needs to be said - Flippa provides only a platform. The auction is run and managed by the seller. The person running the auction should be in charge of the criteria to accept and reject bids; however, it seems at odds with integrity imho and another reason I won't use the platform.

 

[paul79]

for me its about honour and integrity - if you have put something up with no reserve on it , you should keep your word and stick to it. if you are going to do business with people you should do it properly and not use questionable rules to back out of a sale really

 

[Ms Domainer]

With this system, I think it may be a waste of time bidding on Flippa.

Bewildering.

 

[LucidDomains]

I concur with what others have stated already. If the bid was not accepted in time, I personally don't believe you have a case, regardless if it is a no reserve auction or not.

Flippa could change the rules to remove the approve/reject on bids feature for no reserve auctions - that could be an option going forward. Whether that is better or worse for the system, I don't know.

 

[FlippaDomains]

While I love being a part of the discussion, I'm trying to limit my time spent on NamePros, as you could imagine I'm wrapped up in a lot of other things that need tending to. That said, it's important to address all of this, but for future reference

Very surprised that Kevin(?) the Flippa guy has not chimed-in on this one. Always seems very nice and level-headed. Oh well, I'll probably be banned for venting about the abusers of their system.

...I don't know my presence is requested unless you tag me @FlippaDomains! :D Thanks @equity78 for letting me know about this thread.
​

Before I get started, let me just say -- both sides are at least partially right.

"No Reserve" means "Highest Bid Wins."
...but...
Sellers reserve the right to reject bids. Do I agree with this tactic or type of person to do business with? Absolutely not; however, it's not "illegal" -- as such, it needs to be reviewed, as do a few others items I'll address below.

I happen to feel the selective adherence to the rules at FLIPPa is total bs. This has happened to me many times. I've been told the seller has the right to refuse bids based upon the sellers history..... Oddly enough, I have over 100 transactions with a perfect record. I've definitely overpaid in the past and I've also given names away for nothing. I think that selective adherence to rules is bs.....

They just pumped $$$$ into a redesign, I now think they need to sort out this problem.!

The point is that if you have a minimum that you will accept, why not just set that as the starting price if you have no intention of being an honest and respectable seller?

Couple of quick tidbits:

We changed the Sell Flow to default to a $1 opening bid, and also made it harder to default to "accept all bids automatically."

When we kicked things into gear in early 2014, Manually Accepting Bids was a security tool that sellers could use to screen bidders.

Running the risk of getting in trouble with my mates in Melbourne, but most of them already know this -- I've since done a 180 on this "feature" and have pitched the idea of doing away with it altogether (manual screening/acceptance) -- or at least for those with no track record, per @domainivate 's comment. This latter idea is actually one floating about at moment.

I personally believe, from a usability standpoint, and with our increased security measures + Marketplace Integrity team, that most sellers don't even need to screen bidders who have a proven track record.

THE PROBLEM IS that no matter how we slice this, one side of our customer base will inevitably be unhappy. Auto-approving bids is all fun and games until a buyer goes AWOL, and then someone will blame the platform again for not protecting the seller.

Now, THE OTHER PROBLEM is that not every seller WILL toggle this to "auto" accept -- whether they don't see it (it's under the "Advanced" tab when setting up your auction) or don't WANT it -- and as such, it is in their jurisdiction to screen / accept / reject as they see fit.

In the example brought before us, unfortunately the seller did not "not comply" because the seller never accepted the bid in the first place. What he did was fishy and lame, and I personally wouldn't do business with him -- but Flippa in itself can't sanction him in any way.

That said, if there is RAMPANT abuse of this -- like, if multiple buyers report this happening from the same seller, or if you've happened to interact with him twice and had it happen each time, then that's just shady behavior in general (mind games, etc) and none of us need that. Something can be done, so long as it's not an isolated incident -- which follows along the "seller screening" path.
​

I will report it to FLIPPA however it only falls on deaf ears.

Can you flick me documentation of your communication with our CS peeps?​

-The line, and this is cut/pasted from my messages in FLIPPA- his words...... "I paid 40 for each one of those domains.. Sure as hell not going to sell them for 21 " with the smiley face to boot, SHOWS A SELECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF FLIPPA'S RULES which I happen to think is total BS. I tend to adhere to rules, I don't look for ways to use them when they suit me, and for my benefit -AND- AT OTHER PEOPLE'S EXPENSE.

I will ONCE-AGAIN report this to FLIPPA and will once-again hear that the seller had the right to reject the bid because he was having a bad hair day.

Not so fast. See, if you bring us this kind of evidence, then that's way different than a simple "Rejection" of your bid. So, bring it to us, bring it to me...A warning at the very least is in order. People need to know they SHOULD NOT do this, for fear of future sanctions/repercussions, even if the rules are unfortunately grey in this space to prevent them outright from doing so.​

The problem lies in Flippa's rules to allow seller's to control who can and can't bid. I get agitated waiting for bids to be accepted myself. Because after bidding on one name and it go into pending, I choose not to actively participate as a buyer on their platform. That doesn't go to say that it's not worth giving up and refraining to bid all together; there are honest sellers that either accept all bids manually or automatically, and you can get great deals.

Again, this is Flippa overly protecting both seller and buyer. Of this, it's the most bizarre protection, stated above and being posted earlier, that anyone as a seller can refuse to sell a BIN bid by merely not acknowledging it for 72 hours. I can see how it could have been erroneous in that the BIN was mistakenly posted, but then again everyone should do due diligence when selling. This should not open the door for one to have 72 hours to either get an appraisal or to find another buyer with a BIN bid being leverage in other negotiations elsewhere, which Flippa subtly allows by having this rule to begin with.

A BIN/bid should automatically enter a buyer and seller into a (future) sales agreement and seller's shouldn't have the right to choose who to approve.

If the problem lies in nonpaying bidders, this again, is Flippa's problem by not vetting their member base.

Good points. I think the haziness around the 72-hour window could be much improved. It's there right now because a smaller window would mean that more sales would fall through, but as a flip side to all this, the seller still has the ability to 'reject' the BIN at any time, no matter the window.​

I think that if the bid comes from a reputable member (100% feedback, joined x months/years ago and good sales track record) then the bid should automatically be accepted. Bids should only pend if the bid comes from members with no feedback or bad feedback or bad track record, and possibly new members.
Just my opinion.

One thing I like about sedo auctions is your bid is accepted straight away and you are also given a reserve guide.

This idea, as mentioned above, is being discussed.​

This should be like all those other auctions.

NO RESERVE but when you go to add a bid it has a minimum starting value of $300.

That would solve the issue here.

The problem is that there is no real NO RESERVE when you can simply reject all bids under that value. Of course the seller could just say reserve is $40... or state I will reject all bids under $40 in the terms.

I understand the rationale for why this is allowed though. I don't know how many time it needs to be said - Flippa provides only a platform. The auction is run and managed by the seller. The person running the auction should be in charge of the criteria to accept and reject bids; however, it seems at odds with integrity imho and another reason I won't use the platform.

Just having an opening bid / reserve price as the "start bid" is tricky -- but would solve a lot of the BS...Issue is that less bids would occur, as this is how it used to be. I agree we need to find some middle ground here, though.​

I concur with what others have stated already. If the bid was not accepted in time, I personally don't believe you have a case, regardless if it is a no reserve auction or not.

Flippa could change the rules to remove the approve/reject on bids feature for no reserve auctions - that could be an option going forward. Whether that is better or worse for the system, I don't know.

It's all being looked into. I urge any and all of you, when you need our help -- [email protected] -- but if for some reason that's not cutting it, we have a new Customer Success lead who's a total badass and she and I will work to ensure we improve on responses, clarifications, outcomes...Whatever is needed to improve.​

 

[ulterios]

While I love being a part of the discussion, I'm trying to limit my time spent on NamePros, as you could imagine I'm wrapped up in a lot of other things that need tending to. That said, it's important to address all of this, but for future reference

...I don't know my presence is requested unless you tag me @FlippaDomains! :D Thanks @equity78 for letting me know about this thread.
​

Before I get started, let me just say -- both sides are at least partially right.

"No Reserve" means "Highest Bid Wins."
...but...
Sellers reserve the right to reject bids. Do I agree with this tactic or type of person to do business with? Absolutely not; however, it's not "illegal" -- as such, it needs to be reviewed, as do a few others items I'll address below.

Couple of quick tidbits:

We changed the Sell Flow to default to a $1 opening bid, and also made it harder to default to "accept all bids automatically."

When we kicked things into gear in early 2014, Manually Accepting Bids was a security tool that sellers could use to screen bidders.

Running the risk of getting in trouble with my mates in Melbourne, but most of them already know this -- I've since done a 180 on this "feature" and have pitched the idea of doing away with it altogether (manual screening/acceptance) -- or at least for those with no track record, per @domainivate 's comment. This latter idea is actually one floating about at moment.

I personally believe, from a usability standpoint, and with our increased security measures + Marketplace Integrity team, that most sellers don't even need to screen bidders who have a proven track record.

THE PROBLEM IS that no matter how we slice this, one side of our customer base will inevitably be unhappy. Auto-approving bids is all fun and games until a buyer goes AWOL, and then someone will blame the platform again for not protecting the seller.

Now, THE OTHER PROBLEM is that not every seller WILL toggle this to "auto" accept -- whether they don't see it (it's under the "Advanced" tab when setting up your auction) or don't WANT it -- and as such, it is in their jurisdiction to screen / accept / reject as they see fit.

In the example brought before us, unfortunately the seller did not "not comply" because the seller never accepted the bid in the first place. What he did was fishy and lame, and I personally wouldn't do business with him -- but Flippa in itself can't sanction him in any way.

That said, if there is RAMPANT abuse of this -- like, if multiple buyers report this happening from the same seller, or if you've happened to interact with him twice and had it happen each time, then that's just shady behavior in general (mind games, etc) and none of us need that. Something can be done, so long as it's not an isolated incident -- which follows along the "seller screening" path.
​

Can you flick me documentation of your communication with our CS peeps?​

Not so fast. See, if you bring us this kind of evidence, then that's way different than a simple "Rejection" of your bid. So, bring it to us, bring it to me...A warning at the very least is in order. People need to know they SHOULD NOT do this, for fear of future sanctions/repercussions, even if the rules are unfortunately grey in this space to prevent them outright from doing so.​

Good points. I think the haziness around the 72-hour window could be much improved. It's there right now because a smaller window would mean that more sales would fall through, but as a flip side to all this, the seller still has the ability to 'reject' the BIN at any time, no matter the window.​

This idea, as mentioned above, is being discussed.​

Just having an opening bid / reserve price as the "start bid" is tricky -- but would solve a lot of the BS...Issue is that less bids would occur, as this is how it used to be. I agree we need to find some middle ground here, though.​

It's all being looked into. I urge any and all of you, when you need our help -- [email protected] -- but if for some reason that's not cutting it, we have a new Customer Success lead who's a total badass and she and I will work to ensure we improve on responses, clarifications, outcomes...Whatever is needed to improve.​

One thing that would help with a few of the issues is to set it up that if a seller wants to have/claim a "No-Reserve" auction, then bids will be automatically accepted. Having bids set to be manually accepted by sellers on a "No-reserve" auction, is NOT a true "No-Reserve" auction. Rejecting bids because you are not happy with the amount of a bid/winning bid is just weaseling around and using inaccurate claims of "No-Reserve".

Make "No-Reserve" auctions truly "No-Reserve" and make the seller and buyer abide by these rules will gain respect for the seller and Flippa as well. I for one have lost any respect for one seller because he used this so-called "No-Reserve" yet bids must be approved rule, even after the auction ends work around. I didn't even really want the name, it was more to see if he would go through with it so I can see the type of person he is.

"No-Reserve" should mean "No-Reserve", NOT "No-Reserve" as long as I get the amount I want for what I am trying to sell. A seller and platform need to have valuable respect in order to flourish and meet potential.

I am in no way saying this is just an issue with Flippa, it's an issue of integrity for sellers. Each seller has to ask themselves how much integrity they have and do they want to gain and keep the respect of buyers and potential buyers.

Sometimes as a seller, you have to ask yourself, "What's my respect and reputation worth?"!

"Do I abuse a rule on a selling platform to make a few dollars more, or do I show integrity and earn some respect?"

 

[SeaLink]

Thanks @FlippaDomains and @equity78 for your involvement. Kevin (I think that's your name I really appreciate the time and thought you gave to your response. I know you have lots to deal with and this sort of stuff has to be on the bottom of the pile in terms of enjoyment. I will go through this again (hopefully) later tonight and send you some of my past missives to F.

Your timing is perfect as the turd who bailed on the auction finally, last evening, responded to my comment to him from a few days ago. Both sides are listed below-

(me)octacage: -the day after he rejected my bid
Always great when people ignore the rules they agreed to abide-by......

(him)(i deleted this losers name but reserve the right to post it later): -replied to me ~4 days later-
Nothing in the rules that says I have to accept a bid.. Thanks..

I just responded with this-
octacage:
Just personal and business ethics......
Most people, including those who work at FLIPPA, interpret that loophole in the rules as something to use when a bidder has a POOR rating....FYI

You signed-up for a NO RESERVE auction and decided to bail instead.

Anyway, he's a turd and I hope your improving system helps him do a big swirly as someone flushes and he goes down the drain.

Regards & again, thanks for your time.

 

[Ms Domainer]

One thing that would help with a few of the issues is to set it up that if a seller wants to have/claim a "No-Reserve" auction, then bids will be automatically accepted. Having bids set to be manually accepted by sellers on a "No-reserve" auction, is NOT a true "No-Reserve" auction. Rejecting bids because you are not happy with the amount of a bid/winning bid is just weaseling around and using inaccurate claims of "No-Reserve".

Make "No-Reserve" auctions truly "No-Reserve" and make the seller and buyer abide by these rules will gain respect for the seller and Flippa as well. I for one have lost any respect for one seller because he used this so-called "No-Reserve" yet bids must be approved rule, even after the auction ends work around. I didn't even really want the name, it was more to see if he would go through with it so I can see the type of person he is.

"No-Reserve" should mean "No-Reserve", NOT "No-Reserve" as long as I get the amount I want for what I am trying to sell. A seller and platform need to have valuable respect in order to flourish and meet potential.

I am in no way saying this is just an issue with Flippa, it's an issue of integrity for sellers. Each seller has to ask themselves how much integrity they have and do they want to gain and keep the respect of buyers and potential buyers.

Sometimes as a seller, you have to ask yourself, "What's my respect and reputation worth?"!

"Do I abuse a rule on a selling platform to make a few dollars more, or do I show integrity and earn some respect?"

I totally agree here; a no-reserve auction should be unambiguous and not subject to manipulation. Period.

The rest is game-playing and BS, which has no place in a business.

 

[SeaLink]

Thanks @ulterios for you thoughtful & cogent feedback!

 

[ulterios]

Thanks @ulterios for you thoughtful & cogent feedback!

You are most welcome, and thank you as well.

Sellers & selling platforms improving the way business is done in the domain world will help us all. The good thing is that some of the platforms, like Flippa, are trying to improve the way business is done.

Now, if only we can get the sellers do try to improve their business practices as well !

 

[Paully]

I think this case is a little different from the usual "seller didn't honour no reserve auction" threads because the bid was not accepted which right or wrong morally is his right under Flippa's rules.

I have had a few late small bids ignored. It's par for the course when you bid on auctions with very little time left.

The Seller had put the domain up for auction with a $1 start because he thought he would see action, but he didn't until 13 minutes to go. Obviously worried that if he approved the bid, it would be the only bidder and he would be forced to sell at a loss, he declined to accept and chose to take advantage of the immediate free re-list instead - which good that it is as a safety net, does in my opinion contribute to the problem of deals not getting done.

 

[Paul123]

Make "No-Reserve" auctions truly "No-Reserve" and make the seller and buyer abide by these rules

I agree entirely. No if's or but's. You pay your money and you take your choice. eBay have this cracked. Three strikes and your out.

Best,
Paul

 

[Domain Lead Finder]

Auto-approving bids is all fun and games until a buyer goes AWOL, and then someone will blame the platform again for not protecting the seller.

If the seller does not have a crystal ball then his approval of a bid means nothing at all and does not deter the buyer from going AWOL in any way shape or form.

 

[Jen-Sin]

"No Reserve" means "Highest Bid Wins."
...but...
Sellers reserve the right to reject bids.

Couple of quick tidbits:

I personally believe, from a usability standpoint, and with our increased security measures + Marketplace Integrity team, that most sellers don't even need to screen bidders who have a proven track record.

THE PROBLEM IS that no matter how we slice this, one side of our customer base will inevitably be unhappy. Auto-approving bids is all fun and games until a buyer goes AWOL, and then someone will blame the platform again for not protecting the seller.

Now, THE OTHER PROBLEM is that not every seller WILL toggle this to "auto" accept -- whether they don't see it (it's under the "Advanced" tab when setting up your auction) or don't WANT it -- and as such, it is in their jurisdiction to screen / accept / reject as they see fit.​

When we experience no paying buyers, we will then appreciate the option to screen bidders.

There're pros and cons to this feature, and I believe it can tweaked slightly further, but we have to keep in mind that the intent is to protect the seller. The system works both ways too; with the feature, a seller may miss higher bids if they are not online to accept last minute bidders towards the end of the auction.

 

[SeaLink]

and, as I have found countless times, new, last-minute interest, often brings other buyers out of the woodwork. Another point to note is that I did not swoop-in with 13 mins remaining with a $1.00 bid, hoping to rob the guy. I saw the auction when I looked @ Flippa and made an initial bid of $21.00.

 

[Raymond C]

Sounds like a bad place to list auction in Flippa....all bad for sellers and buyers....

 

[ulterios]

Sounds like a bad place to list auction in Flippa....all bad for sellers and buyers....

No, it's not all bad sellers and buyers. It's just that the ones that are there abusing the rules/system are giving it a bad name. There are many good sellers and buyers, you just have to use whatever caution you can in deciding if you want to deal with one.

Unfortunately there are good and bad sellers and buyers everywhere. Awareness and research on buyers and sellers can help a bit sometimes, but you never know who's going to turn out to have poor character and mess up a deal.

 

[Haider]

Bids From Reputable Members Should Be Accepted Automatically .