Official SGH Petition For Standardising eBay Videogame Auctions

I disagree with this and think it's a waste of time.

You forget that eBay is about more than selling sealed games. If they were to follow through with your request, then every single type of collector would be entitled to similar. Coin collectors would want options for year, coin coloration, scratches. Comic books collectors the same.

Even if eBay did follow through with your request, it doesn't mean that sellers would follow through and go through the effort of posting those details, and I'm sure eBay is too busy to actually monitor all video games posted to see if they are following your rules.

Also, your rules are good for classic games, but think of the uproar you would get from big box resellers selling current gen games like smash bros etc. They would have to inspect every game for cellophane damage and take individual pics? Not happening.

Even if it did all work out, I still wouldn't be happy. Some of my greatest steals on eBay have been through poorly listed items. If everything was listed properly, you wouldn't ever be able to collect anything w/o costing an arm and a leg. Half of the fun is in the hunting for hidden treasures.

So while I respect your initiative with this, I would have to wholeheartedly disagree.

but if there was one thing I truly wish eBay would fix, it is listing shipping prices to Canada!

how many times I've missed auctions because of sellers not listing a price to ship Canadian......

Hello,

Sorry to say, I also think it's a waste of time.

I agree with striker that eBay themselves don't care much, and that individual sellers don't care (if they did, they'd do it anyway).

On the plus side, it *does* mean that you can identify sellers who are selling the games as though they were collectibles, because they do all of these things. Also, it means that ridiculously rare items can be dismissed out-of-hand if they have a stock photo and .

Basically, if the *seller* thinks their target audience will care, and the item is authentic, then they will bother because they know that it'll get them more. Cheats will cheat, no getting around that no matter what eBay policy you insist on.

I *do* agree with the stock photo business, though. I think that anyone who is not an eBay Store, and also selling items under the category of "New", should be required to include a unique photo of the actual item (without a disclaimer indicating that it is not), or else include no photo at all. Of course, if it is in the category "New", then that should implicitly indicate to the buyer that it is Factory Sealed, because "New" is supposed to mean "Exactly as if I went into a shop and bought it". They excised that element from their FAQ recently, though, which means that "New" technically means almost nothing now.

See, the idea is, that because you don't have an opportunity to physically inspect the item, you should be protected from misinformation by being able to assume certain things ("New" is "New", the item looks like what its picture looks like, it is in the condition the seller says it is in, etc.). But sellers are (mostly) salespeople, which means they like to sell and damn concepts such as "honesty" or "integrity"; since they are the ones who pay eBay, they're the ones who eBay listens to (it wasn't always this bad, but there's been a stead decline for years).

You know what *would* be a good idea? Some kind of SGH Service Mark that sellers are invited to embed in their page, if and only if they follow the points that you mentioned, as some sort of Ten Commandments thing. There could be a page on the SGH website listing the logo and requirements, and instructions on how to include it in your eBay auction. Buyers could search for auctions including a text string, even without eBay changing anything.

On second thoughts, though, it sounds like it would be really hard to police. I guess you could make it a graphic banner, and then catch the referer headers of the people downloading it; then, send an automatic email to a volunteer team who checks out the auctions and reports only the violations. Done properly, you could report the violations directly to eBay, and get *them* to remove the auction (Service Mark Misappropriation under VeRO) rather than argue with a crooked seller. I'm rusty on the eBay API, but you might even eventually be able to derive the seller ID from the auction number, and compare it with a database of banned sellers - and then automatically issue a takedown if they try to use the logo without following the rules.

It's be like a kind of Guild sign. Still, it's got all sorts of problems. And you'd probably have to talk with actual lawyers. Hmm.

Pascal, what do you think?

I agree with getting rid of Stock Photos. My number one rediculous pet peve is sellers not knowing the difference between original release and Million Seller / Players Choice / Platinum Hits etc etc.

Resident Evil REmake for Gamecube is my prime example. The seller litterally lists the auctions as New, Original Release, First Edition in the auction but shows a stock photo and only after badgering, in tiny print at the bottom of the description does it say Players Choice.

So f'n annoying.

I hate the big dealers who state something along the lines of "Stock photo: Item received may not be identical to that shown" - Which in other words means they will send a Platinum / Player's Choice version and not a black label copy as shown

It annoys me when sellers don't respond to your questions about the games in the auction.

Case and point: Super Mario Bros NES auction last night. I asked the seller 3 times for pictures, condition and shipping throughout the entire week and did not get a response. I would never buy a game that ends for over $600 with the seller disregarding my emails. Maybe he does not like more money?