Talk:Swoopo

In regards to the most recent edit from 85.181.30.20:

You are clearly trying to put the best spin on Swoopo (and you likely represent them in some way); I am clearly trying to convey the controversial nature of the site. Rather than having an edit war, surely we can come to a compromse. Your changes consist of:

(1) Describe Swoopo as "a hybrid of online auctions and entertainment". I think the "entertainment" label is marketing-speak and vacuous, but I admit it's a gray area, and it doesn't add much harm.

(2) Removed the word "controversial" and the two articles that question Swoopo's legitimacy. I feel strongly that Swoopo is in fact controversial, and that the controversial aspects need to see the light in some form. To me, pretending that Swoopo is not controversial is POV, unless you can convincingly show otherwise.

(3) We disagree on how to present the money that's paid by the non-winning bidders. Phrases such as "such savings are possible" and "the winner's bargain" are clearly marketing-speak, and don't belong in an encyclopedia.

I have made a compromise edit - for example, I removed one of the two references that are skeptical of Swoopo. Hopefully we can reach a middle ground here. Axlrosen (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"a hybrid of online auctions and entertainment" is at best incoherent. No person unfamiliar with the site will have any idea what entertainment means in that context. Also, removing references about controvery is backwards. if it exists more should be added. At the same time reliable source refs that state the company is sound and has a valid business model are welcome too. 2005 (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is Swoopo saying "a hybid of online auctions and entertainment" could we say, "Swoopo has described its service as "a hybrid of online auctions and entertainment"? I definitely agree that Swoopo is at the very least controversial and should probably have a "Controversy" section which should definitely touch on legality in the various countries that it is available in/wants to move into. Hullo exclamation mark (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, quoting them is fine. They can be incoherent if they want... but a quote should be referenced, and also the phrse online auctions needs to remain hyperlinked. 2005 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Is swoopo a lottery?

Jeff atwood says it's probably illegal in the US. [1] 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.97.90 (talk)

Yeah, it would be illegal in most of the US if declared a lottery... Users are spending 75c buying chances to pay a below-retail price for the item. However, the winner isn't "randomly" chosen out of all bids, it is the final bidder. I don't know if it would be considered a lottery or not then. 71.116.175.236 (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It definitely is a lottery! and it should not be called an "auction website" but a lottery in the opening sentence. the term "auction website" is misleading. The overwhelming majority of users never wins an "auction" despite spending a lot of money on "bids". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.82.4 (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a lottery, and who gets the item is a random event. The site assures through the use of bidbutlers that users spend as much as they can on losing bets.

it's more like poker pot, winner takes all, house gets a cut no matter what, and all the rest of the players loose what ever they put in the pot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.195.107 (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Game theory section

I have a few problems with the newly-added section on "game theory". (1) It will really only be interesting to game theorists, and not 99% of to people who came here to read about Swoopo. (2) It's pretty irrelevant, as is noted in the section itself - people don't actually behave that way. (3) It's original research. Axlrosen (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Basic math isn't original research. Basic game theory is not much more complicated than basic math.

A more complicated, realistic, model of Swopo than the one I presented might qualify as original research. (eg. one with agents that (1) differ in their valuations of the item and (2) don't know the other agents valuation of the item.) Just my initial thinking about it is that you would get a complicated, but roughly similar result. In any case, the bidding activity would necessarily be way less than what appears to be taking place. (A rational bidder would never bid if his expected price were above retail)

You can argue whether it's worthwhile for a Wikipedia article, but I think it's interesting that it appears (1) Bidders following game theory would bid WAY less often than appears to be taking place (2) Bidding activity beyond the rational level hurts bidders and gives profits to Swoopo. Swoopo profits from irrational behavior and therefore should be expected to encourage it. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if auctions take longer to end than what is displayed on the screen, but who knows. -- Mgunn (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Game Theory DEFINITELY belongs in here. For one, it is not original research. Two, it's encyclopedic. Furthermore, auctions of this nature are at the heart of game theory and it is likely that Swoopo created its company based on the irrational behavior exhibited in experiments of this nature. Even without proof of that connection, the game theory can be presented in an informative Non-POV way that shows how Swoopo works.TheHammer24 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Auctions like this may be at the heart of game theory, but my point is that the opposite is not true. I think that most people coming to this article won't be interested in (or understand) the game theory aspect. This topic may be encyclopedic, but that doesn't mean it fits in this article. To me, it comes across as eggheadish and irrelevant. The idea of what would happen if the entire world colluded is simply not a real-world issue. Axlrosen (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that even readers with no knowledge of or interest in game theory might find it interesting that economists have already studied the basic auction system that Swoopo uses, and concluded that once bidders enter the auction the only beneficiary tends to be the people running the auction. It's also relevant because it's entirely possible that Swoopo developed their system with knowledge of the dollar auction model. Asdf25 (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Never studied game theory, and I have to say I found this the most interesting part of the page. --195.137.75.44 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

where is this section? is it "mechanics" remnant of it? i know a bit of basic math and basic game theory and i found that section alone highly interesting and enlightening, if not "entertaining" ~ kp

16.7%

"Swoopo receives more than retail for the item from bidders as long as the winning bid is above 16.7% of the retail price. (This is because it costs $0.75 to bid.)" It's not obvious to me how 16.7% follows from $0.75, can you explain? Axlrosen (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a try at explaining it better. 71.178.243.118 (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, a*b means a times b

Let's say an item sells for $0.45 This means there were $0.45 / $0.15 = 3 bids on it. Each bid costs $0.75 so people spent $2.25 bidding. This means Swopo earned $2.25 (from bidding) + $0.45 (from purchase)= $2.70 on the auction. As you can see, $0.45 is 16.7% of $2.70

To generalize, if X is the ending price, there are X / 0.15 bids on it, meaning ppl spent 0.75 * X / 0.15 = 5*X on bidding.

Swoopo also gets the ending auction price..... so 5*X + X = 6*X. Swoopo receives 6 times the ending price in revenue. Therefore, Swoopo sells an item at the retail price then when the auction ends at 1/6 the retail price. 1/6 = 16.7%

The same logic applied to Swoopo Penny Auctions means that Swoopo gets 76 times the ending auction price. If Swoopo sells a $1000 laptop for $100 in a penny auction, it really means Swoopo got $7,600 from bidders and shipped out a $1000 laptop. -- Mgunn (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a web cache that could be used for linking to finished Swoopo auctions?

I suspect the links I added won't exist on the Swoopo site forever. 71.178.243.118 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Actually they still have links to auctions that ended in September, when they launched, so it probably won't be a problem anytime soon. 71.178.243.118 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Game Theory and Swoopo

If you ignore bad Internet links, running out of time etc.... The Swoopo fixed price auctions are mathematically equivalent to the Dollar Auction game. This is a kind of interesting result, and it has some important, practical implications. Should this be included? -- Mgunn (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't imagine that most people coming here are coming for a discussion of game theory, and I think the article is plenty long as it is. But I'd be interested in hearing other peoples' opinions. Axlrosen (talk)

The dollar auction is something they do in business schools to show a seemingly rational, but overall irrational escalation in bidding. The key feature of a dollar auction is that the loser ALSO pays whatever the losing bid was. This changes the auction DRAMATICALLY as the lower bid person has an incentive to outbid the higher bidding person in order to minimize losses, even if the bid is higher than the value of the money being auctioned off. (Eg. if I have bid $100 for a $20 bill and your last bid was $99, you have an incentive to bid $101 so you can pay $81 instead of $99) In a class of business school students in extreme cases, a $20 bill has been auctioned off for thousands of dollars. People get into a dollar auction with overoptimism, and then find themselves in a financial huge hole, and by trying to minimize losses, they just dig deeper. -- Mgunn (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

completely relevant and *Axlrosen* should be banned from this talk page because s/he keeps hammering the same nail which is a highly dubious behavior and i'd bet they may have an interest at heart to do so, like working for swoopo ... judging his IP so we're not "conned" by some con artists ~kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.124.0 (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with it's relevance due to the point that this is relevant to the swoopo article which can be predicted using game theory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so I think that every little thing included should interest the reader, even if *Axlrosen* doesent find it interesting. Do include it ban *Axlrosen* from this page. (JRGregory (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)]]

Is "Auction Site" Even Accurate?

By definition, Swoopo doesn't have auctions. It is essentially a raffle where people purchase chances at winning a prize. Personally, I think "Raffle Site" or "Gambling Site" is far more accurate than "Auction Site." I don't really care about the ethical debate over Swoopo, I just want this article to accurately reflect the subject matter. KyuzoGator (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "auction" is a poor description of what they're doing. It seems especially inaccurate to use "auction" to describe the "100% off" items, in which there's no price at all, purely paying for the chance to win a prize. The normal items are essentially the same, they just obfuscate the issue by having a changing price which superficially resembles an auction.

However they seem to have investigated the legality of it, and raffles, lotteries and gambling are illegal in many places where they do business, including California where they're based, so using those terms seems to be inaccurate in a legal sense, at least for the moment.

And it could be argued that a raffle has to be random, whereas this is determined purely by the participants' actions, which is a pedantic distinction considering no one can practically predict when bidding will stop, but it's the distinction that keeps it legal, and that alone makes it important.

I don't know that there's a term to describe exactly what they're doing, though it certainly resembles a raffle more than an auction. 71.178.243.118 (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just made an attempt at rewriting it to avoid calling it an auction site. Revert if you like. The first sentence is a bit long, but Swoopo is neither an online auction site or a raffle, and I don't know if it can be accurately described any shorter. Maybe gambling could work. Swoopo would emphatically deny it, and it's not legally gambling, but I don't know if those are problems.71.178.243.118 (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

They are running auction in a sense, the only problem is that the basic STRUCTURE of the auction is a so called dollar auction, a structure that NEITHER sells a good for what it's worth NOR sells it to who values it the most. The dollar auction takes advantage of easily made human misperceptions to create an escalating bidding war where people will, in summation, spend FAR FAR more for an item than it's actually worth. It's nearly a mathematically optimal way to fleece the customer. The best response to most dollar auctions is to NOT play. (the exceptions being if you can collude with all game players or if everyone playing is a mathematical genius) -- Mgunn (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If people are sufficiently irrational / overoptimistic, the dollar auction is FAR worse than gambling because with blackjack etc...., you're expected to only lose a few percentage points of the money you bet. Here, you'll lose a lot more. -- Mgunn (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of the term "dollar auction", the word auction is never used to refer to a system where participants other than the winner have to pay money, so I think it's an inaccurate or at least highly misleading description. 71.178.243.118 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok the old first sentence from before was a bit convoluted, I think the change I just made gets the point across in a more straightforward way. Asdf25 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

STOP REVERTING BACK TO "ONLINE AUCTION SITE". Swoopo is NOT an auction site, it is a gambling site where people purchase chances at winning a prize. In a real auction, losers don't have to pay. KyuzoGator (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I found it hard to phrase it in a way that avoids calling it an auction site without seeming convoluted. I think noting in the first sentence that there's a fee for each bid placed gets the point across that it's not really an auction site in the normal sense. Apart from that one (major) difference, it is an auction site, so in the interest of brevity I think it's reasonable to call it an auction site as long as the bid fee is prominently noted as well. As it's currently worded, no one reading it could miss the distinction. Asdf25 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

They call themselves an auction site so that is what it is. 2005 (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Swoopoo is fradulent (easy to verify!)

Quoting http://www.thegoont.com/swoopo-scam-alerts-are-ringing/#comment-8343

It’s a scam. Plain and simple.

Log in to swoopo.com Don't look at the laptops. Then in another browser window go to swoopo.co.uk and look at the laptops. The swoopo gangsters sell a $1200 laptop and a £1200 laptop (which are totally different models and specifications) on each site but they combine the bids. For example see:

http://www.swoopo.co.uk/auction/acer-aspire-8920g-18-4-core-2-duo-notebo/104120.html

and

http://www.swoopo.com/auction/sony-vaio-vgn-fw140e-16-4-core2duo-vista/104120.html

This is TOTALLY FRAUDULENT - AND CRIMINAL!!!

How these guys get away with this is beyond me. I might as well be bidding on an Andy Warhol in NYC and someone else standing in London bidding on a Corvette and the bids being combined.

This site needs shut down, and the german guy that’s running is locked up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.22.53 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is forcing anyone to bid on this site. That said, if you know some game theory and look at the basic mathematics of it..... the whole thing is a complete disaster for the customer. It's a kind of con game where the con artist explains his con accurately and honestly, but people don't understand the math well enough to realize that they're going to be completely fleeced. -- Mgunn (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Swoopo in general may be honest, but this grouping different items together is very questionable and seems noteworthy. It would be good to understand exactly what's going on before adding it to the article though, and see if there's anything in their user agreement which allows them to do this. Asdf25 (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On second look, this is really quite amazing... They've combined two seemingly completely unrelated "auctions"... generating more revenue to Swoopo because they are all-pay auctions. Here they're combining two completely different laptop auctions, but what's the limit? Could they combine a laptop auction and a TV auction? Why not? This whole site seems such a devious use of psychology and game theory to relieve the "customer" of as much $ as possible... ---- Mgunn (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

wow...I thought this couldn't possibly be true so I did what's described above and he's totally right - the auctions on the UK and US sites are totally synchronized, with prices, bids and bidders matching exactly even though the currency is different. I'm not sure its wikipedia's role to report this - at best the site is being extremely misleading here. Its certainly interesting, and I think it deserves a mention in the article. 98.117.120.55 (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This really should be included in the article, I think the combining of bids which are being placed on different items in different currencies is an important aspect that makes the site no longer an online auction site, but an online bidding fee scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiofdoom (talk • contribs) 05:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be pooling bids from every country swoopo has a site.

UK - http://www.swoopo.co.uk/auction/apple-macbook-mb466b-a-13-3-inch-laptop/185129.html

Austria - http://www.swoopo.at/auktion/apple-macbook-13-3-mb466d-a/185129.html

US - http://www.swoopo.com/auction/apple-macbook-mb466ll-a-13-3-inch-laptop/185129.html

Germany - http://www.swoopo.de/auktion/apple-macbook-13-3-mb466d-a/185129.html

Spain - http://www.swoopo.es/subasta/apple-macbook-mb466y-a/185129.html
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.40.9 (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

under section 8 of terms

Should Swoopo not be able to deliver the item ordered, Swoopo shall be entitled to substitute the item with a comparable replacement product with the same or better features, or provide a refund of the auction end price to the user based upon the user’s preference.

so they basically combined bids from all over the world that would defeat any time zone/region based 'strategies' (staying up late wouldn't work) and probably send the winner whatever laptop is the cheapest from local suppliers at the time, and if the winner doesn't like the substitute he can get refund on the price of the item but forfeit the amount he already sunk in bidding, so most people would probably take the replacement no matter how crappy it is. way to generate false sense of bidder population. if the winners are actual legit players and not shell bid that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.195.107 (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research?

I moved the OR banner to the game theory section. I don't know if it should be there, I just didn't want it applied to the whole article, since the rest of it only contains factual information from the Swoopo site and implications that follow from trivial arithmetic. Asdf25 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is simple arithmetic/math as well. The correspondence is exact in the case of two bidders if you make one trivial modification. For more than two players, the game is different, though they are both war of attrition type games).

Case 1 (Dollar Auction)

*Two bidders are bidding on a $100 bill

*First allowable bid is $0.375

*Can only bid in increments of $0.375

*Both the losing bidder and the winning bidder have to pay their maximum bid.

*Highest bidder wins

*(SLIGHT MODIFICATION TO Dollar Auction) We charge the first bidder an extra one time fee of $0.375 to get started.

Case 2 (Swoopo Fixed Price Auction)

*Two bidders are bidding on a $110 TV that they can buy for $10

*A bidder is immediately charged $0.75 whenever he/she clicks the bid button.

*Last person to click the bid button wins.

First, the value in case 1 and case 2 is exactly the same, $100.

Everything is entirely equivalent between case 1 and case 2. Every time someone bids in Case 1, he/she owes $0.75 more (eg. if my last bid was $1, the other person bid $1.375 then my next bid is $1.75). Every time someone bids in case 2, he/she owes $0.75 more. The last person to bid wins in both cases. -- Mgunn (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

65% discount example

Currently in the article:

The Swoopo website claims that "winners save, on average, 65% when compared to the recommended retail price".[2] However, Swoopo also receives money from bidders who did not win.

For example, an item retailing for $200 may be sold at a 65% discount for $70, saving the winner $130. In the process of the price reaching $70 there will have been 465 bids placed, costing bidders a sum of $348.75. With $70 from the winner and $348.75 from bidders, Swoopo received $418.75; bidders, in total, paid $218.75 more than retail for the item.

I believe this is a relevant factual example which gives readers a better understanding of the system, and shouldn't be removed simply because Swoopo (user Swoopouk) would like it to remain unnoticed. Asdf25 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

Does criticism of Swoopo belong in the top section, or should one be added for it?

Also, regarding my edit, the first sentence before I changed it doesn't make any sense. And the refs which were applied to the first sentence didn't make sense as citations for that sentence, as those links are criticism of the site and not relevant to a statement of what Swoopo is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdf25 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Excessive spamming?

This page is now semi-protected for "excessive spamming". Has there been much spamming on this page lately? Pro-Swoopo spamming or anti-Swoopo spamming? I wasn't aware of any recent spamming, esp. by non-logged-in users. Axlrosen (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I showed this version to AN, and an admin decided to semi-protect it because of all the socks/SPAs in the past... so an edit war doesn't start over the new state. NJGW (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the nature of the site and how it involves money etc. - I thought it paid to be a little more cautious. Hence the semiprotection. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems a little pre-emptive to me. You could imagine someone interpreting this as "I made a bunch of changes to this page, and then I got an administrator to semi-protect it to reduce the chance of anyone touching my edits." (I'm not saying that's what happened, only that it could be interepreted this way.) Axlrosen (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybody that read the AN post I left would have a really hard time coming up with that interpretation. If someone does, they may need to worry about their reading comprehension. I'm not worried. NJGW (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

(discussion copied from a user's talk page)

Which blog are you having an issue with? wp:SPS does not say any blog is unreliable, and Ian Ayres's NYT blog seems pretty notable/reliable! This has been hashed out already at the talk page and the article's former AFD. Please have a look at the consensus already built. NJGW (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Show where it's been published previously in a third-party reliable source, as mentioned by that section. Further, given you have been reverting to restore a) a derogatory modification to "auction", b) a decidedly negative quote from the not-terribly-reliable hate-machine that is The Register, and c) a section, without any reliable sources, which is of undue weight and overly-negative in tone, you should consider whether you have a conflict of interest in this. I care a grand total of 0 for the former AfD; I am acting in response to an OTRS ticket, and myself and the OTRS team will evaluate the content on its merits, not on some prior-formed consensus which most likely lacked users who have experience with dealing with such issues. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Register issue is quite secondary. I was more interested in reverting the game theory information that was removed. I placed a reliable source (already used in the article) in the game theory section [2]. Employees of this company were edit warring over this article, so the fact that they were caught makes me not surprised at all that they would wait a bit before trying some other tactic. This is not an auction site. Let me know if you need more info. NJGW (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an auction site, until you can show me a reference which says otherwise. The NYT blog is not a reliable source, period; it lacks editorial oversight and is not a third party published reliable source. The history of the article is irrelevant to the content when I evaluated it, as I said above in reference to the argument that the AfD "consensus" contradicted my action. Sorry, but I think you're wrong here. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, there is some information that you're not aware of as part of the OTRS process, and I cannot share the sensitive details of this with you, unfortunately. In the end, the information (especially that in the "Game theory" section) appears to be factually inaccurate and unsupported by any third-party non trivial sources. If we can get proper sourcing for this section I'd be fine with re-adding it. Until then, lets remember that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So they're threatening to sue. That's their only option, and I have no comeback for that. It's not factually inaccurate though, and we have a PhD in economics[3] saying so. There was a link somewhere that had a Swoopo spokesperson claiming the site wasn't really an auction site... I'm looking for it now. NJGW (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I have right now:

• news24.com "a heady combination of gambling, shopping and auctions - is a piece of moderately evil genius."
• Washington Post ""Entertainment Shopping" With a Hint of Scam"... "The auction is considerably different than other sites - EBay included."
• German press release - They call themselves "entertainment shopping portal" even in German, but not "auction site" or "auction portal"

I have to go out now, but please have a look at these two sources and another look at Ian Ayres, as well as the NYT blog (which has a staff editor--perhaps worth emailing her with questions about this issue)[4]. I think the interview where the spokesperson says something strange about them not being an a regular auction site is in the current refs, but I'll have another look later. NJGW (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the interview I was looking for, but it was actually in reference to their "auctions" for $1000 cash, which the spokesman admitted were a "promotion".[5] So what are the concerns with the reliability of the Ayres piece? I would email them to the editor of the blog myself, but I don't know what exactly to ask. What can we say without causing trouble. Also, what are the specific issues with the game theory section that was removed (so that I know what pay attention to in any redrafts)? NJGW (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjd dealt with the OTRS ticket directly - it's up to him as to what he wants to release with regards to it. Daniel (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The game theory section is just unverified and has no sources. It should be fine if you can add some. I'm going to unprotect the article now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But what are the concerns with the Ayres article. It is a blog in name, but is written by a PhD in Econ on an Econ subject and has editorial oversight. If there are specific concerns about using the Ayres piece, I would like to forward them to the editor to see if they can be resolved. NJGW (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply the fact that it is a blog makes me hesitant to use it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that you're in a tough spot, but if the concerns they've raised about the piece are unfounded then I'm not sure what the problem is. A journalist would be considered a hack compared to Ayres, and there's NYT staff editing the "blog". The only reason they even call it a "blog" instead of a "special economics column" is that it's sexier that way. NJGW (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This blog wasn't linked in the article when we got the complaint, so that is irrelevant. If you think it is reliable then go ahead and use it. I'm sure you understand my concerns with it though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that they will use the term blog as a pejorative. Can you look at the last version I created and tell me the specific problems with it so I don't revert to something absolutely untenable? NJGW (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bidding fee scheme

I have undid the edit changing the description of the site from "Online Auction Site" to "Bidding fee scheme." While I personally believe this site has a lot of gray legality to in many countries that it operates in, this does seem like a clear case of NPOV not being respected. Anyone have any opinions on this edit, I'm not 100% sold (ha) on what we should actually call Swoopo. BaShildy (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We can only say what is sourced. The changes in fact do not represent the sources available. i also am taking out claims that it is 'gambling' as major sources say otherwise. The register[6] says "This is very close to gambling, but the nondeterminism comes directly from the actions of other users, not the randomness of a dice roll or a deck of cards, so while Swoopo hasn't quite crossed the line, they can see it from where they stand." and according to the BBC[7] the gambling commission said that "was not convinced that penny auctions amounted to gambling", other than a single professor, who at this point would represent a fringe view, we have no reliable sources describing them as such. --neon white talk 15:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also the controversy, which there isnt a great deal, only one person and some random community sites, seems to be given undue weight in the article so we need to expand the rest if possible. --neon white talk 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

• Comment The criticism of this company can only be sourced to a small minority, basically two opinions. The company and other writers have expressed different views. In order to maintain a proper neutral bias to the article it is my opinion that it should not be added to the lead. --neon white talk 23:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The criticism of the company extends much farther than two minority opinions and appears to make up the majority of the writings I've seen cited regarding this company. I do agree with you that neutrality wise, it is improper for criticism to be in the top of the article. It should stay as a section with cited references. BaShildy (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable sourced add them to the article. We can only decided on what's available naturally. --neon white talk 09:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If the only press this company gets is criticism, then that's all the RS info we have on it. The lead is a summary of the body. This page was only kept at AFD because of the NYT Freakonomics article. WP is wp:NOTCENSORED, so let's tell it how it is. NJGW (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It isnt. most of the press is neutral and not particularly critical at all. --neon white talk 10:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Essentially agree with everything said by NJGW (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If the only press that the company gets is negative, then there should be ample reliable sources to cite. The use of blogs is insufficient to verify such claims. The inclusion of a "criticism" section would not make the article biased, just so long as it is worded neutrally and is reliably sourced. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note Sorry, but only does not equal ample. This company doesn't really matter in the grand scheme. It's just a scam to make money that I wish I had thought of first (sort of... I would feel bad for fleecing people). Unless they take over a serious chunk of some economy somewhere, it will probably stay out of "real media". Besides that, there's no rule that says we can't have any articles that are only discussed in blogs, as long as those blogs are reliable and verifiable. Have a look at the Freakonomics blog, as it's not really a blog (written by an econ prof for the NYT, and the blog has it's own editor... blog is just the name, expert guest column is what it really is). NJGW (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're personal opinions of the site are neither relevant nor helpful. Admitting to such a bias serious devalues any opinion. The only real criticism is the opinion piece in the new york times (which is essentially criticising the idea of all pay auctions not only this site) and it is an opinion piece so we have to attribute it to the author. I do not think his opinion alone is enough to make the criticism a major point. --neon white talk 10:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neon, there is no policy that says I'm not allowed to have opinions. And again, all the "news" we have on this is "opinion pieces". And again, all the sources (save the Fox "news" fluff pieces that says "Like, OMG! This site is, like, totally cule!") are critical. The NYT source is the reason this article wasn't deleted... if the only source had been the Fox source, it would have failed at AFD. In the end, it seems there's a consensus among sources that there is something to criticize. NJGW (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say you werent allowed opinions, i was offering advice that your opinion isn't going to be taken very seriously in a discussion about neutrality if you admit to having such a strong personal bias. A two month of deletion discussion (close incorrectly imo, multiple reliable sources should have been available, it should have been deleted) is pretty irrelevent, some of the sources are newer than that. Most of the sources are quite neutral not critical only one is strongly critical. We have numerous POVs, all equal. --neon white talk 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! You just said my opinion wouldn't be taken seriously if I admit to having an opinion. I'm pretty sure the good folks here can tell the difference between my full disclosure of position and my arguments about policy issues. The most productive talk pages I've seen have been the ones where participants admit to their personal opinions and provide sources to back their positions. NJGW (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • Sorry! Yes, I meant to say, professional blogs such as the one you mention are fine. Those such as [enscriber.com] and [www.rantrave.com] (which were being added yesterday) are not. There is limited coverage in mainstream media, such as the BBC article [8], and I'm sure based on what the company does that this will increase in future... Nouse4aname (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC article doesnt actually mention swoopo it only covers 'penny auctions' or 'bidding fee schemes' something which this site clearly is but i've struggled to source it as such. It should probably be removed. The other major pieces are the register source which despite the title is quite neutral and refutes claims that it is a scam - "This alone doesn't amount to a hustle, it's simply a slick business plan" and the KTTV piece that is very neutral also. So we have both criticisms and defence of the business plan which according to policy should be represent equally. --neon white talk 10:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The lead should summarize the whole article. Since the article is 1/3 criticism, the criticism should be in the lead. LK (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Content removed

Hi, I've been working on a rewrite of the article, and removed the following from the Mechanics section of the article because it reads like something written by two people in the midst of an arguement and doesn't explain how the site works anyway. Perhaps there could be a section on how the site makes money? --*Kat* (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For example, if an item in a "penny auction" retails for $1,000 and sells for $80, 8,000 bids must have been placed. For these 8000 bids (at $0.75 each), Swoopo earns $6000. If an item sells for $8, then 800 bids have been placed. For these 800 bids (at $0.75 each), Swoopo earns $600 and thus loses money on that specific auction.

In $0.15 auctions, Swoopo receives more than the retail price for the item from bidders as long as the final price is above 16.7% (one-sixth) of the retail price. This is because for each $0.15 of the final price, Swoopo is paid $0.90 total ($0.15 by the winner of the item plus $0.75 by a bidder). Because $0.90 ÷ $0.15 = 6, Swoopo is paid 6 times the final price each item in a $0.15 auction.

In one auction, bidders paid a total of $41.03, including the "fixed price" of $0.54, for a $700 item.

In another auction, bidders paid a total of $27,675.50, including the "fixed price" of $98, for a $1300 item.

References

New Source for crtisicm.

There was recently a great article coverings swoopo washiongton post. [9]. Feel free to add info to the article. --Hq3473 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this Chris Bauman Eric Bauman from ebaum's world?

I searched Chris Bauman (from Washtington post about critism above) on intelius.com, number 16 comes up with Christopher Eric Bauman, this certainly explains the brilliant douchebaggery at ripping people off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.195.107 (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Embedding Google Insights on the Article

I think it would be a good idea to embed what people are searching for when typing "swoopo" (surprisingly the big, big majority is searching for "swoopo scam"). It can be done with Google Trends --> take a look at this link: http://www.google.com/insights/search/?hl=en-US#q=swoopo&cmpt=q. I would like to put the "top search" box (on the left-bottom) on the article. Since this is a javascript box, there would be a need to use SecureHTML to integrate it in Wikipedia --> url: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecureHTML. The result should look something like this: http://lerrymoe.yourfreehosting.net/index.htm. I have spoken with the maker of SecureHTML and he said it is possible to do it, but I am having a hard time. Does anyone have experience with SecureHTML? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerrymoe (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of that is going to happen. And I would quite strongly recommend you to read through WP:Neutral point of view: My personal opinion of the site is probably pretty close to yours, but our articles need to be both verifiable and neutral regardless. Those are two of the pillars this encyclopaedia is built on. If we ignore it, we pretty much lose all of our value.
It's pretty obvious that you have an agenda with the site, so it's probably not a good idea for you to continue to edit this particular article, unless you can start and try to stay in the limits of WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE.
I will have to undo some of your latest changes, in particular the addition of the Google link (per WP:EL), the reordering of the external links, and your classification of the website as a gambling site which isn't supported by any of the sources, not even the msn-money article you referenced it to (which I'm not even sure is a reliable source in the first place).
Regards, Amalthea 21:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please give me some further insights on your explanation to classify this site as "online auction"? You said that it is not gambling, but how can you be so sure it is an online auction (you are linking your explanation at the top to the reference)? Is it because you have an article from Register that says it is an online auction? Or because the company Entertainment Shopping AG self-classifies itself as an online auction platform? If you consider that MSN Money is not a credible source to classify this site as a lottery, could you please explain what are the reasons to take Register's opinion as the right classification for the site? Are you so sure about "neutrality" when using a top-down approach for the classification of the site? Thanks in advance for your reply.

The Register article says that it is an auction site. The MSN Money article you cited also says that it is an auction site. In fact, its title is: "Swoopo: The crack cocaine of auction sites?" So it looks like the sources agree that it is an auction site. Easy, yes? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article or did you just looked at the title? You know, my parents are German, even though my name is Juan.

I even went and read it again. The article does use the word 'lottery,' but it uses the word 'auction' in its title, in its opening paragraph, and even in its conclusion. It doesn't use the word 'lottery' in a way that would support saying that the word 'lottery' is more appropriate than the word 'auction.' It says, essentially, that this is an auction site that is structured to work like a lottery. Sounds like a pretty shady site, but we don't need to misrepresent the sources to explain what the site is and what it does. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(2xec) Well, in my personal opinion, I'd put it somewhere in between, but far closer to auction than to lottery. However, my opinion doesn't matter; only what we can verify in reliable sources does. If I have a look at all the sources currently in the article, The Register, the MSN-Money/Washington Post article (which are the the same, I just noticed, so should be OK), the BBC, the NYT, and Focus all call it an "auction site" or something similar, so that's very simply what we do, too. Calling it a "gambling site" instead wouldn't be supported by any reliable source, not even the very critical ones. Gambling has negative connotations, and would have legal implications for the site if true. It would thus, I believe, be very controversial to call it that, and would need good sources.
Amalthea 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been already discussed before at point 7 above. People just don't get it. This is not an auction website. Period. I understand your concern to be neutral, but whereas as all articles mention the word "auction" (because you have a company that just came up with a new business model that nobody knows how to define it), most of the articles describe how the system works and it is clear to understand that this is NOT an online auction system what these guys are selling. Can you explain how can you loose 1000 bucks in a matter of hours in an auction? You can only loose 1000 bucks or more in a couple of hours by gambling. So lets try to remain neutral indeed, as well as not cynical.Lerrymoe (talk · contribs) 00:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What you're proposing is that we use our logic and our ability to reason, and explain what the company really is, not just what the sources say it is. That's called original research, and Wikipedia has a firm rule against it- we aren't allowed to go beyond what the sources have said, because we're an encyclopedia, and not a first publisher of new ideas. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, I perfectly understand what you are saying. I'll then reason with you and give you a definitive answer to why you should NOT classify this business as online auction. If you can speak German, you will see the source from Dr Damm & Parner, on the very bottom: "Eine Einordnung als rechtswidriges Glücksspiel blieb offen." That means: on the country where this company was created, it is OPEN if this company is a gambling or an auction enterprise. This source is one of the most well known internet law firms in Germany, so please lets take the "online classification" out. This is not personal reasoning - we are here only reflecting one of the most trustworthy sources (lawyers, not journalists).Lerrymoe (talk · contribs) 00:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose the following: no classification for this website. Instead an explanation that it is still to be decided in court if this kind of enterprise constitutes gambling or online auction: I think that more neutral than that is impossible.Lerrymoe (talk · contribs) 01:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's really only your interpretation of what that sentence means. The way I understand it, the question whether the platform is offering an illegal (=unlicensed and probably unlicensable) gambling service was simply not discussed at court, or not subject of the court's discussion. Thus, it wasn't decided upon ("blieb offen").
In any case, I believe you are mixing up a couple of things. First, there are simply many kinds of auctions. Have a look at our article on the subject. The one that's used by the topic is an All-pay auction, which has a pointer to Bidding fee scheme, and that too is discussing it as "a type of auction".
Second, the question whether the version used by them may also have elements of lottery or gambling is unrelated to that. There are enough sources in the article that point out that it's no eBay, nor a traditional "English Auction". In particular, the blnz.com and the focus.de make that clear. Since it's still in operation after four years though even though it already had contact with courts, I'm assuming that it's, legally, not considered one.
From the sources, and secondary information that I've now looked at, I find it rather straightforward to classify it as an "auction platform", or maybe as a "type of auction platform". And, as said above, that's what all sources call it anyway, even the report on the lawyer's site calls the proceedings "auctions".
By the way, that report doesn't mention Swoopo directly, although I don't doubt it's talking about them – can we make that connection explicit, somehow?
Amalthea 11:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it back now. Amalthea 10:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mechanics - Multi Country

I've reworded this to show what actually happens, but I haven't seen any external source for outside blogs etc. It's pretty trivial to verify (goto a US auction, open it in another tab as well changing the .com to .co.uk). This is quite a gray area for me, it's not a direct cite to Swoopo as they don't say it, but it's pretty obvious from that primary source - as WP:NOR states "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." to my mind this is within the bounds of that, I'm sure others will disagree. The two I used were uk and US and the finished auction illustrate an anomoly, on the US site the winner saved up to $0.19 on the UK they lost at least £6.01. Or add Canada into the mix where they saved upto $41.49 CAD (nearly 50% of the items listed "up to" value)--82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do not accept the following sources

This is a response to edit by Quantpole: why do not accept the following sources that state that Swoopo is a "gambling auction" website? Techcrunch is one of the most respected sources for online stuff. Online:clock is also well known, with offices in the US and Europe http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/26/unique-auction-site-swoopo-expands-to-canada-testing-buy-it-now http://www.thealarmclock.com/mt/archives/2009/04/gambling_auctio.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.195.149 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

BidButler

Hello, why have you deleted the bidbutler section? You mentioned it is original research? But in which way does this original research differentiate from the rest of what was written under "mechanics"? I assume most of it is also original research, but was not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.195.149 (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi
There's a difference between describing what can be directly learned from primary sources in a neutral way, and drawing conclusions with a spin as happened in the edit in question. If there were a reliable source drawing the same conclusions we could comment on the usefulness of these things, but we can't draw them ourselves. You'll notice that I also didn't touch your other edits where you provided sources for your additions (even though, as I've said before, the criticisms are probably given undue weight at the moment.
Amalthea 13:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

here is what I wrote:

Bidbutlers can generate a substantial loss to the users employing it; even more so if users start using Bidbutlers simultaniouly, on which case the website will automically bid each user's Bidbutlers until the user who has more Bidbutlers is left as the sole Bidbutler bidder. Since users can always employ new Bidbutlers anytime, there is a potential of high monetary loss if users start with "Bitbutler wars". A Bidbutler bid can always be nullified by a single user bid; therefore Bidbutlers are not a guarantee for winning.

Here is what I suggest:

Users employ a maximum of 50 Bitbutler bids each time. If more than one user employs a Bidbutler at any given time, the site will automatically bid each user's Bidbutlers until the user who has more Bidbutlers is left as the sole Bidbutler bidder. Users can always employ new Bidbutlers anytime, and a Bidbutler bid can always be nullified by a single user bid.

Do you agree with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.195.149 (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know the rules of this thing. For the most part it looks like a neutral description to me, but I'm unsure what "a Bidbutler bid can always be nullified by a single user bid" means. If you can source this using a primary source, i.e. the Swoopo page, then I'm OK with it. Otherwise it looks like a conclusion to me, one that is intended to criticize the system, so I'd rather you left that part out. Amalthea 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is no criticism, it is how it works. You can have a bidbutler, but this bid from this tool can be always be out-bidded by a simple bid. This is not on front-page site, you can see the system working after registering on it and observing any "auction" (it is very easy to see). This is what makes "auction" prices go up; but I will not mention that, since this would be criticism. Regarding the fact that a bidbutler bid can be nullified by a simple bid, it is just how it works, so no criticism there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.195.149 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Nullified" is probably just the wrong word. After reading http://www.swoopo.com/bidbutlerhelp.html, it appears that you can still outbid a BidButler with manual bids. You don't "nullify" it though, it doesn't lose its effect. Amalthea 09:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A single simple bid will nullify a bidbutler bid in the same way that a bidbutler bid nullifies the simple single bid. I dont think inadequate. Nullify expresses the fact that if no one bids again, the last bidder will win. If someone bids again, it nullifies / outbids the last bid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.195.149 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

From Wiktionary: to nullify

1. to make legally invalid; "The contract has been nullified." [syn: terminated]
2. to prevent from happening

None of that is happening. And I don't see the point of the qualification in the first place: It can be outbid by a manual bid, and presumably vice versa. That isn't important, we don't need to give an exhaustive insight into the inner workings of that site for an encyclopedic article. Amalthea 21:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Down Time

As of March 23rd, 2011, swoopo has been down for 7 days with the message: "Dear customer, Due to technical issues, Swoopo is currently not available. We're working as hard as possible to restore the service. When the site is working again, we will add ten minutes to the countdown of live auctions, to allow all bidders the chance to get back on-line and start bidding. Please check back regularly. We're sorry that you're not able to bid at the moment, but we will be back soon. Your Swoopo team To refresh the webpage, press F5 or the refresh button in your browser menu." 75.120.133.247 (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Bankruptcy / Insolvency Procedure > Insolvency Proceedings

Petition for commencement of insolvency Entertainment Shopping AG (Swoopo) Court: München 80333 reference: 1508 IN 1022/11 Date : 23 Mar 2011 Order of protective measures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluidvideo (talk • contribs) 10:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Swoopo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090511192949/http://www.blnz.com:80/news/2009/04/06/Entertainment_E-Com_Webs_Retail_Stage_0796.html to http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/04/06/Entertainment_E-Com_Webs_Retail_Stage_0796.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

curves

more curves than a 39 Plymouth 2601:188:CD80:E5D0:1D60:7373:709A:EF6C (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)