Honesty is the Best Policy at Flippa?

[benitez17]

Flippa's latest blog post claims that, "Honesty is the best policy." While I agree with that remark, I don't post it above a marketplace filled with scammers that I coddle, encourage, and support.

I personally believe posts like this coming from them are dangerous because they give newbies a false sense of security, and are irresponsible given their generally lenient response to scammers on their site.

It is okay for Flippa to make posts like this, pretending that this experience should be expected, or should they take a more cautious stance?

[Clinton]

I hear what you're saying, but how do you describe what is and what isn't a scam? Some are obvious, but some are less so.

If we ever start a marketplace here we'd be faced with that same definition problem. Left to me I'd say even sellers who quote net profit without making a fair deduction for owner time ... are scammers. Most people wouldn't see it that way. But based on a ruling like there'd be zero listings in Flippa in the average month.

So, how and where would you draw the line? What would your rules say?

[benitez17]

I hear what you're saying, but how do you describe what is and what isn't a scam? Some are obvious, but some are less so.

If we ever start a marketplace here we'd be faced with that same definition problem. Left to me I'd say even sellers who quote net profit without making a fair deduction for owner time ... are scammers. Most people wouldn't see it that way. But based on a ruling like there'd be zero listings in Flippa in the average month.

So, how and where would you draw the line? What would your rules say?

I have a problem with Flippa because they make no effort to moderate their marketplace, but I have a major problem with their reaction when a scam is pointed out to them. They apparently see temporarily (or even permanently) suspending an auction as a very serious penalty, while I disagree. I don't even bother reporting scams to them that I see any more because it would take them a couple days to respond, and their response was usually along the lines of giving the seller a scolding.

My rules would be: Facts only (no inflated seller opinions of potential), no false data or intentional omissions, nothing illegal in the UK (I'd say US but I have no problem with gambling sites), deleted listing on first offense, permanent ban on the next offense.

A form that sellers have to fill out that includes line items for all expenses (including owner time and cost) to list their site could help steer people down the right path.

[Wheels]

I think the fact that Flippa aren't making inroads on this creates another opportunity for a gold level service that has some real business rules written around it. That said, I suspect Flippa would lift their game as soon as someone started that which may impact the viability of the non-Flippa gold service.

1) I also don't think it is too much of an ask for any organisation to (at least start to) draft up some rules and regulations.*I write engagement contracts for companies to handle IT vendors all the time. And if I were to stereotype IT vendors are all pretty much a reincarnation of the under 1.5KL/month "career changing" Flippa market; they're always writing agreements and service contracts that give themselves backdoors. So, as a result I'm always keeping up with (hopefully ahead of) the oversights by which vendors will still get paid when they don't deliver.

2) Aside from diving into policy, rules and regulations; another good place for Flippa to start increasing the value to customers IMO would be a review board for for sale items. The Board could be made up of guys like yourselves from here. The sellers could pay an extra $50.00 for the service and advertise it and the results. Those that didn't want to wouldnt have the results and that would say something about them. Sellers that did could easily recoup the costs in the sale price. That would allow all newcomers an easy way to identify what was OK and what was not. Of course the seller could challenge the reviews in a semi/public message system like this.

3) Another way, could be to review buyers or at least provide them with a publicly viewable message service to discuss their experiences and how long their "career changing investment" performed as advertised.

Of course without 1, 2 and 3 me and most newcomers are significantly limited in understanding the true potential of the opportunities that Flippa offer. Conversely, with 1, 2 and 3 implemented it may impact Flippa's revenue which is why they may have not done it.

Please let me know if anyone wants to put these ideas into practice, as it wont be long before someone offer the marketplace a more premium service in my opinion; particularly now that the size and popularity of the market has been established. The only question (from a revenue perspective) is; in implementing the premium service are you weeding out so many scammers that the listing/registration fees for sellers drops so dramatically that the whole concept is not worthwhile?

Over to you guys on that?

Cheers,

Steve

[Clinton]

IMy rules would be: Facts only (no inflated seller opinions of potential), no false data or intentional omissions, nothing illegal in the UK (I'd say US but I have no problem with gambling sites), deleted listing on first offense, permanent ban on the next offense.

A form that sellers have to fill out that includes line items for all expenses (including owner time and cost) to list their site could help steer people down the right path.

Very nice rules, but completely unsustainable. Their market relies on the junk and scams. Without those Flippa would go bust. It has therefore always been in their interest to support the sellers of these scam and junk sites and give them the impression they've got a good chance of a sale in the Flippa marketplace. That's why they go so easy on scam complaints - because a) Flippa is making a killing on these scams (albeit indirectly) and b) Flippa isn't a viable business without them.

Don't get me wrong, benitez17, I think those are good rules. The "no opinion" rule is one I originally suggested at the start of this forum two years ago and have been repeating ever since!

There's good reason why I believe Flippa is rotten at the core - the intentional blind eye towards scammy listings speaks volumes. This also puts paid to your idea, Wheels, for Flippa to start a review board "made up of guys like (yourselves)". The last thing Flippa wants is to scare sellers (and revenue) away! Flippa don't like the truth and will do what they need to do to bury it. You may not be aware but they did have such a review board a couple of years ago. They had people like us on that board. Er, scratch that. They didn't have people "like us", they had us - Benitez17, tke71709, myself and several other posters you see here regularly. Do you know what Flippa owners did? They played all kinds of dirty tricks to skew opinion ...even deleting threads they didn't like. You think a lenient hand towards scammy sellers is bad? It used to be worse - Flippa owners controlled the main discussion board on site buying/selling ...and they didn't play fair.

That's why every single regular poster from their boards moved in a mass exodus to start these experienced-people.net forums. We have subsequently been the singlest largest thorn in Flippa's side, exposing scams by Flippa sellers and exposing Flippa themselves. (For example, we've argued that the "education" Flippa has been publishing for buyers is nothing but self-serving promotional material slyly attempting to lull buyers into a false sense of security. )

When and if the Flippa marketplace becomes again the main location to discuss site buying/selling and due diligence you, as a new buyer, can consider yourself screwed.

In the meanwhile I urge you as a new buyer to post site buying/selling/due-diligence type questions on the experienced-people.net forums and I urge more experienced players to contribute by helping out with answers - here!

Another way, could be to review buyers or at least provide them with a publicly viewable message service to discuss their experiences and how long their "career changing investment" performed as advertised

Buyers can already do it here. Unfortunately many of them may not know these boards exist and those that do can't be bothered to type up a detailed post explaining their mistake.

The sellers could pay an extra $50.00 for the service and advertise it and the results. Those that didn't want to wouldnt have the results and that would say something about them. Sellers that did could easily recoup the costs in the sale price. That would allow all newcomers an easy way to identify what was OK and what was not. Of course the seller could challenge the reviews in a semi/public message system like this.

This forum is non-commercial and I'm opposed to my charging for services provided here but I am not opposed to our members making money. I don't know if there's a way to square that circle. But I do love the idea of people being able to pay a token sum of money to elicit unbiased feedback from more experienced buyers. Suggestions welcome either here or in a new thread.

[Wheels]

Wow, what can I say? That "Ed Dale - Flim Flam" issue was a blockbuster issue Clinton (and Benitez17). I read all the posts and those linked to it, on Flippa and EP. You guys are (justifiably) savage. Benitez17; I agree with your comments in relation to the Ed Dale fiasco - likewise Clinton. I liked how you dropped in on the Flippa forum Clinton and invited Ed to the challenge whilst pointing out your not for profit agenda. And Benitez17, you tracked Ed's evasive backpedalling very well. He contradicted himself big time. How can the rip off problem be missing if you really need to do your due diligence. Also, his comments in relation to how quickly someone could copy/ghost your site are not real. Only the most simple of sites combined with a hosting organisation that moves faster than universal comics' Flash could even approach those turn around times; such that the site was completely copied and functional to the extent it was a real threat. And to do that to/with a website with e-commerce functionality - I don't think so. Not in an hour or a day!!

All hyperbole hair commercial stuff - blow the problem (entire world has frizzy hair that causes bad breath) out of the water and hype the solution's merits (new shampoo with a zillion chemicals that we call Peachysmeach because 0.01% of it is from peach skin walked over by supermodels). As soon as I read Ed Dale's post I knew it was an infomercial and garbage. It was like one of those long, what are they called . . squeeze pages . . like the coffee shop millionaires and MCTS. Very misleading.

The fact that all the Flippa cheerleaders (your term in the Ed Dale Flippa response/blog Clinton) came out and raised their skirts on the Flippa blog, was sad too. The majority of them deliberately or unknowingly misinterpreted responses just to justify their own and Ed's propaganda.

Ed's comment that the rip off problem has disappeared and that there is a safe environment; are utterly laughable. Great read(s) on Benitez and Your part there.

I didn't know you guys used to review for Flippa but I can see why they treated you the way they did; not that I condone it. I can also see why Flippa come here and try to appease you (within reason) as you're the popular and independent voice they cant now (or anymore) nullify. Hmm interesting times.

Clinton, you do know that my earlier suggestions in relation to a $50 fee for the service were aimed at Flippa don't you? I wasn't suggesting that EP do that - just wanted to clear that up. Also, I was aware that buyers can discuss their experiences here and I think that is a good thing, but with that comment I was mostly relating to Flippa providing the "visible" function so that it could start to form a self regulated system. Because if people don't have good experiences at Flippa then newcomers can read it and place it next to the plethora of promotional and sales material that exists, and make a better judgement. My point is too, that Flippa customers shouldn't really have to rely on your forum (even though it is good to have), as Flippa should be striving towards a quality product enough so that they can confidently publish the results and experiences of their buyers - after all if they're not confident enough to do that then that really tells you something.

[Clinton]

My point is too, that Flippa customers shouldn't really have to rely on your forum (even though it is good to have), as Flippa should be striving towards a quality product enough so that they can confidently publish the results and experiences of their buyers - after all if they're not confident enough to do that then that really tells you something.

I don't agree. It's a conflict of interest for owners of the marketplace to control the discussion. What's to stop them publishing only positive buyer experiences? As long as they are in a position to benefit financially from influencing public debate, closing threads that are counter to their interests, deleting conversations that they don't like and having full access to reading confidential messages members exchange with each other (which messages Flippa needs to read on a regular basis), they are the last people to trust to manage public discussion of their buyers' experiences.

But they would certainly like to move the discussion back to Sitepoint (their own forums) and to that end started work on improving the quality of posting over at those Sitepoint forums I mentioned earlier (HAWK is the Sitepoint forum admin). That was about a year and a half ago.

Whether publishing of buyer feedback is done on these forums or elsewhere, I believe it serves buyers best if it's done outside of Flippa and where Flippa can't delete threads.

[Wheels]

Yes I think we agree even though it may not seem like it. My comments were based on a Utopian ideal. Yours from real world experience. I get what you're saying though. After reading all the connected posts, and their interconnects; from your above posts and links; all I can say is that I am glad the EP forum is here and that my name is not Matt, Luke or Hawk.

[tke71709]

I am glad ... that my name is not Matt, Luke or Hawk.

Luke is gone if I remember correctly and Hawk is cool. They were just doing their jobs.

Matt wants to make money, and he's doing a good job of that. He saw an opportunity and he took advantage of it. At the end of the day no online marketplace can truly police all their buyers and sellers.

[Clinton]

I don't personally have anything against any of them. I'm happy to go for a drink with them and I'm sure we'd get along splendidly. In fact, I did liaise with Mattmcg on the Ultimate Guide To Valuing Websites article and we had a good relationship all through it, I've had several very cordial private chats with Sarah (HAWK) and even more with Luke. All lovely people!