Talk:Unique bid auction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Legal classification[edit]

I am trying to find out about the comment in the topic: "They are legally classified as skill-based prize competitions." Can someone clarify on what grounds a Lowest Unique Bid Auction is classified as a skill based competition and by who? Pbroido (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Peter

The reason for the comment you mentioned is not straight forward; it depends on the information a participant has while bidding. If the plaform gives the user enough data to strategically calculate his future bids, then it is defined as a skill-based competition. There are many sites, however, that provide too little data to the participant, causing the aution to be more chance-based competition than skill-based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DR mosan (talkcontribs) 11:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal reference to the status of Unique Bid Auctions as games of SKILL can be found in a number of Govt legislations. Within Australia for example the State Departments for FAIR TRADE and the judiciary there after hearing a series of reports submitted by a broad range of providers and Ombudsman found in their decision that Unique Auction sites are CLASSIFIED as a GAME OF SKILL and as such not GAMBLING. To confuse the a Unique Auction (regardless whether high or low) with Lottery, Gambling, Bingo is ignorant on the basis that one relies solely on chance (GAMBLING) with tiered payout ratio. Unique Auction provide feedback to participants to identify their status and to inform them of the chance of success.

The only people claiming this is GAMBLING are those people ignorant to definitions of Gambling or Unique Auctions. Guess it is always easier to be critical of things that people do not understand - GOOGLE LEGAL GUIDELINES for Unique Auction sites and you will find plenty of clearly identified points separating it from GAMBLING legitimately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.57.54 (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Unique Bid Auctions are two seperate (if related) topics. It doesn't make sense to merge them.

I agree. Bidding fees are an unrelated topic, which are sometimes applied to unique bid auctions but can also be applied to other types of auctions. If anything, the bidding fee article needs to be rewritten. Tim 17:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Are these comments about the proposed merge with Mobile reverse auction, or a different possible merge? I'm a bit fuzzy, but I don't see a significant difference between Mobile reverse auction and Unique bid auction. Cretog8 (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture needs changing[edit]

We should not be using images which advertise websites. The image page claims that the image is PD, and if that checks out then someone should slice off the top bit with the website name, and the bottom bit with the URL. Neither bit is needed to illustrate the idea. If the PD assertion doesn't check out, of course, we shouldn't be using the image at all! 217.33.74.204 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks probable that the uploader owned the picture. If you check out their few contributions: Special:Contributions/EFFXDesign, it looks like they were doing a little promotion. Cretog8 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced it. Original's still in commons, of course, if someone thinks we should revert. Cretog8 (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Page Revamped[edit]

I have been monitoring the development of this page for just under two years and in a fit of frustration I've revamped it...

This subject seems to be ideal for opportunistic advertising and strange prejudice.

I've tried to be as factual as possible and I got rid of the image that someone had placed as an ad.

There are no company names or links to auction sites.

No doubt, people with agendas will come along and gradually mold this page to their own purpose again... just tried to help.
Monsi786 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies EFFXDesign (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2008 (GMT)

Other names[edit]

The term "unique bid auction" is not the common one yet. Terms like "single bid" or "unmatched bid" are also in use. Terms "least unmatched price auctions" or "lowest unique price auctions" are also in use, which is more in line with the classification of auctions in the auctions theory according to the price paid for the auctionned item: e.g. first-price auctions, second-price auctions, etc. Reference suggestion: http://www.awi.uni-heidelberg.de/with2/Discussion%20papers/papers/dp471.pdf TimWDS (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the notability of the entire "auction" format is questionable, since it's essentially a gimmick. (It's effectively not an auction in any meaningful sense that I can see.) Regardless, I get 6 ghits for "lowest unique price auction", 7 for "Least Unmatched Price", 157 for "unmatched bid", 460 for "Unique bid auction" and "single bid" is so generic as to be almost meaningless... Debate 12:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a new online unique bid auction and what they call an xpress auction, which has some common characteristics with a reverse auction [Remove advertising URL]. Specifically with the unique bid auction it cost 80 cents to see if a bid is the lowest unique bid. You can burn through a lot of money quickly but the payoff can be high. [Unwarranted advertising] . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.79.218 (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)