New scams by Flippa sellers

[Clinton]

I discovered yesterday a new way dodgy sellers are finding of circumventing Flippa rules and exploiting less experienced buyers.

They create their listing and are careful to follow all the listing rules. Wild claims, claims about originality on content, guarantees about future rankings etc., are kept out of the listing to make the listing look very legit.

But they've got the copy all carefully prepared - copy that makes all the above claims to hoodwink n00bs - and they send it by PM as soon as you bid or show any interest. In fact, you have to PM them as they usually leave out one crucial bit of information or make a blatant typo to tempt the private contact.

Some of them have gone one step further and withheld their URL behind a Confidential Listing requiring you to sign up to their NDA and, bingo, they can now PM you the FAQ.

Flippa, you won't find these sellers by going through my own private PMs at Flippa. I was given a login to someone else's account to see this yesterday.

Caveat Emptor, but when the emptors being encouraged to bid in Flippa are raw n00bs then Venditor Praemium.

[David S]

There are always going to be new ways to scam innocent buyer, but it is up to Flippa to figure out a way to combat these new schemes or it will completely lose all credibility.

[benitez17]

There are always going to be new ways to scam innocent buyer, but it is up to Flippa to figure out a way to combat these new schemes or it will completely lose all credibility.

This (scamming in general, not this specific implementation) has been going on for a few years now, so I don't think it's an issue for Flippa. The only way it will harm them is if some other marketplace puts in the effort to cut down on scams.

[Clinton]

David, why is it up to Flippa? Flippa is just the marketplace and therefore cannot take responsibility for buyer stupidity or carelessness, can it?

[Bryan]

Of course it's up to Flippa. It's in the best interest of the marketplace to minimise the possibilities of their members getting scammed.

If someone gets scammed on a purchase they've made through Flippa then it's Flippa who risk losing a buyer for life.

Obviously one could claim that there are no good alternatives to Flippa (even though there are - for mid- to high-end sites anyway), most buyers who are vulnerable to scams are new in the whole industry and getting scammed on their first few purchases may make them leave the industry for good, so at the end of the day Flippa still lose a customer, even though the customer has nowhere else to go.

[flipfilter]

Of course it's up to Flippa. It's in the best interest of the marketplace to minimise the possibilities of their members getting scammed

I get both sides of the argument, but isn't it a little like delegation, as in you can delegate authority but not responsibility?

Flippa should be making an attempt to get rid of scammers - if anything it's good for business, but they're not omnipotent; ultimate responsibility lies with the buyer to educate themself and not rely on anyone else to guarantee they don't get taken for a ride.

[Bryan]

Completely agreed with what Justin said above.

For the sake of clarity, I have never argued (or at least never intended to) that it is Flippa´s _responsibility_ to keep scammers away, but that it is in their (and obviously the market´s) best interest to do so and if needed, educate the buyers as well - as at the end of the day doing this will increase their own bottom line.

[Clinton]

bryanon and flipfilter, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the "education" was left to people like you rather than Flippa

It's not a good idea to put the cat in charge of the pigeons.

[mikeb]

Clearly it IS up to flippa.

If they allow posters to hide sites behind "URL hidden" then the buyers have no way of knowing whether the seller has multiple schill accounts selling related websites. The only ones in a position to do the comparison is flippa, and so they MUST do it, or possibly even leave them selves open to negligence claims.

I can confirm (a) there are such schill sellers and (b) flippa are not finding them. Even basic stuff like "same analytics snippet"

If I can find this, flippa could too.

But I can only do it KNOWING the URLs which flippa allows sellers to keep hidden.

In MY view flippa can and must do more to vet sellers. ie ONLY ratified address and identity sellers should be permitted to sell or buy over $1000. There are many technological solutions to this, like forcing seller deposit of funds from a known credit card, for which the sellers name and address match. Clearly any (later) attempt to change name and adress can be viewed with extreme suspiction.

[Matt Mickiewicz]

Clearly it IS up to flippa.

If they allow posters to hide sites behind "URL hidden" then the buyers have no way of knowing whether the seller has multiple schill accounts selling related websites. The only ones in a position to do the comparison is flippa, and so they MUST do it, or possibly even leave them selves open to negligence claims.

I can confirm (a) there are such schill sellers and (b) flippa are not finding them. Even basic stuff like "same analytics snippet"

If I can find this, flippa could too.

But I can only do it KNOWING the URLs which flippa allows sellers to keep hidden.

In MY view flippa can and must do more to vet sellers. ie ONLY ratified address and identity sellers should be permitted to sell or buy over $1000. There are many technological solutions to this, like forcing seller deposit of funds from a known credit card, for which the sellers name and address match. Clearly any (later) attempt to change name and adress can be viewed with extreme suspiction.

We'd love to hear about any shill bidding that you see happening in our marketplace... please contact us.

And we do require credit card verification for all bids above $2000 in our marketplace already, to eliminate not only shill bidders, but to weed out people who have no intention of following through. It's been very successful at reducing disputes.