Username
Password
Login is SSL protected. By clicking on "Log in Now" you agree to gixen.com terms of usage.


   SearchSearch     

suggestion-- setting different bid amts - combined shipping

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Gixen.com Forum Index -> Suggestions and Ideas
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
skee
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:20 pm    Post subject: suggestion-- setting different bid amts - combined shipping Reply with quote

Here's a feature that I would use all the time:

My proposal-- I would love to set 2 different bid amounts, one if I have already won something from a seller, one if I haven't.

When I am bidding on multiple items from a seller who combines shipping-- as soon as I win the first item, I know I can bid more on the following items, since I'm already paying the shipping cost (or most of it). The 'contingent bidding' option does not always work for this, since I still want to bid on the later items, even if I don't win the first one; I don't want the following bids cancelled, just adjusted.

Don't know how complicated that would be, or if other people would also find this useful. I find that combined shipping comes into play all the time on eBay; sometimes the only reason I buy from a seller is because I can bundle a few things together. Thanks!
Back to top
Cupid



Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 7986
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for your suggestion skee,

I do not know how complicated it would be to implement.

I am sure it would confuse a few, but that is just a support/documentation issue not a reason to disregard this workable suggestion.

I can confirm that I would also use such a feature, if it were available, perhaps once or twice a week on average. I am reasonably heavy user at about 10 to 20 snipes per day.

If others also like your suggestion then here is the place to show support. It is unlikely that Mario would be able to justify any change or extension without at least a few people supporting the idea.

Another thought, when making, or supporting, suggestions an indication as to how much you would realistically use the feature might be helpful to Mario in prioritising the many requests that he gets.
_________________
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skee
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the feedback Mark. I would use it probably like you, once or twice a week.

I don't think it would confuse people if it is kind of 'hidden'... ie the 2 bid option only appears (sort of like with contingent / group bidding) when you check the option, then 2 boxes would appear. Or something like that.

I might mention an example where it really comes into play for me-- when a comic book seller has a shipping amount of $4 for a single comic OR for any number of comics (some do that) and a comic starts at 99 cents-- well I might still want one for $5 (minimum bid + shipping) even if it's the only thing I get. But if I have already won a comic from the seller, now I can take my bid up to $5 instead of 99 cents. (I figured it might be good to mention an example in case people didn't get my first explanation).
Back to top
mario
Site Admin


Joined: 03 Oct 2006
Posts: 7275

PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skee, this would be useful to some, no doubt, but how many? I need to see a little more demand for this than just you and Mark.

One other thing that I am afraid of is that this feature would make it really important to extract the seller name properly. So far, I have always treated this as 'nice-to-have'/convenience thing, but this feature would make it a must, and a must to fix it immediately if things break.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gixen
Advertisements





PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:50 pm    Post subject:

Back to top
Cupid



Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 7986
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I absolutely agree that much more support for the idea is required before it could be even considered further.

I see your point regarding the seller name, I don't think it is necessary to make the algorithm dependant on the seller name being the same within the Group though... I regard that aspect as being the primary example of how it would be used, but not necessarily exclusively... I would leave it to the user to ensure that all items in the Group were with the same seller if that was necessary to make the figures work...

The primary element of this algorithm, for me, and please, anyone, correct me if I am wrong, should be that for everything other than the first item in the Group there are two bid amounts, the first to be used if nothing previous in the Group had been won, and the second to be used if anything in that Group has already been won (or vice versa the function being effectively the same, of course).
_________________
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skee
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe the idea could be useful if it was combined with some of the other suggestions I have seen on this forum; in general, it'd be great if there was some kind of 'conditional bidding'. I don't if this sounds like a coding nightmare Mario! Thanks for your attention to this forum by the way, it is much appreciated. Maybe there is a flexible system for conditional bidding that could be used in many different ways.

I thought of another example that I would use a lot, related to my first suggestion, and related to the fact that combined shipping is such a big influence on my purchases-- there are some items where I would love to say, ONLY bid on this item if I have won something from this seller (or as Mark suggested, within a certain group). The contingent bidding that is there now unfortunately relies on making later bids contingent on just one particular item. Often there are a few items I particularly want, and I will only add more to the order if I get one of those items. This is kind of the same as my first suggestion, but instead of setting a different bid amount, it will sometimes not bid at all. I know there have been other times where I've thought of 'conditional bids' that I'd like to make, can't think of them at the moment! But maybe there could be one system for conditional bids that could be used in many ways?....
Back to top
Cupid



Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 7986
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If your first suggestion were implemented then your second would also be effectively available since for the items you don't want to bid on you could just have a value of 0.0 for the bid if you have not already won something.

Having a programmable/configurable interface to create your own algorithms has been suggested in the past, it was considered much too complicated to produce such an method of controlling the actions of the sniping engine.
_________________
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
j62Prablem
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2025 7:28 am    Post subject: Revised contingent bidding Reply with quote

I came into the forum today to look to see if this exact situation was an option.

In my scenario, I have a seller charging $12 for shipping, but 50 cents for each additional item. If it's a small vendor with only 2 items I want, it's easy as is. Assuming there are 2 items I want for $20 all-in each, I bid $8 for the first one ($8 win + $12 shipping) and $8 for the second one ($8 win + $12 shipping), and then I bid $8 again for the first item and put it into Contingent Group 1 and then I bid $19.50 for the second item and put it into Contingent Group 1. Not too cumbersome.

But in the same scenario, if it's a larger seller and I want a larger number of their items (say 40), you can immediately see how this doesn't work logistically. What I really want to do is bid my max including shipping (i.e. $Cool on each item, but as soon as I win one item, I would want all subsequest bids to increase to my max with the lower shipping (i.e. $19.50). But after I win one item, any other item lost should not cancel the group... I want to keep bidding on everything in the group at the higher bid amount (due to the lower shipping), with losses NOT ending the program. From a programming standpoint, I would assume the bids would be grouped together, the first win of the group at the lower bid amount automatically causes all of the remaining items in the group to be bid using the higher bid amount.

I would use this weekly, for sure, and as mentioned, it would be incredibly helpful when bidding on multiple items from larger sellers (i.e. Probstein) who have literally 1,000's of items listed per week.

It looks like this Forum for this topic isn't used much any longer, but I really don't think that means that users would not find this useful - I think it just means that very few users both want to take the time to search and write out a long response and are capable of expressing exactly what it is that they would find useful.

Thank you for the consideration.
Back to top
Cupid



Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 7986
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2025 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you're correct j62Prablem.

The current implementation of Contingency bidding isn't used much because it isn't actually useful for many scenarios... and that has caused Mario to regret having put the effort that he did into implementing it.

I'm sure normal grouping, where you wish to only win one item and exclude all the rest, after the first is won, is used much more... and that's because it's always useful for that scenario.

An implementation that is useful in more scenarios is still something that I'd use on a regular (now probably monthly) basis... but contingency bidding is something I use perhaps once every few years. It's also hardly ever something I can recommend here, because for most users their requirement doesn't fit, past the first couple of items that they are interested in.

As it is now I find myself updating (increasing) bidding amounts on already scheduled bids on a regular basis, because of this... but I can only do that when sellers have their auctions spaced enough apart that I can get in and do it before they complete, and I'm around to notice that I've actually won something... an automated solution would be much more convenient and much less stressful when auctions are scheduled by sellers within just a few minutes of each other, which is, of course, quite common.
_________________
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Gixen.com Forum Index -> Suggestions and Ideas All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

© 2006 - 2023 Gixen.com. Forum powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group.