posted on January 1, 2001 03:42:17 PM new
And, of course, eBay's response to a complaint of keyword spamming is directly related to the price an item is at, IMO. I have made complaints five times in the past six weeks. The first four (where the selling price was under $20) were ended, but the most egregious case (one where a person listed in the title something along the lines of 'Ford Chevrolet Chrysler widget' ie, three distinct brand names) only merited a warning from eBay. Why? The item was selling for $580 and eBay obviously didn't want to lose their cut.
posted on January 1, 2001 03:47:01 PM new
Oh, now THIS is interesting....not a minute after I posted a reply, I get an email from eBay asking for my opinion of how they handled this latest keyword spamming complaint. Guess I'll give them an earfull.
And Hellcat, thanks for posting this topic. I had heard the Holt Howard brand name, but had never looked at such items. Just did and they are a neat little collectible.
posted on January 1, 2001 04:15:11 PM newNeil, you make a good point...I have to admit that I'm tired of seeing "Eames Era" in the titles for HH (and related) stuff.
I think there may be a distinction to be drawn, however, between items which are currently being produced, and more vintage collectibles. Take, for example, handbags. If I am looking for a Coach (or Gucci, or Louis Vuitton) purse, I admit to becoming annoyed by those listings for Coach knockoffs which mention "Coach" in the listing title. And I think that "Coach" (or Gucci, or Louis Vuitton) might reasonably pursue their trademark rights in such a situation. Holt Howard, on the other hand, no longer exists (no current trademark is violated, although it is still a trademarked brand), and it is generally acknowledged among collectors that HH was the spawning inspiration for many of these silly little jars (whether they were HH knockoffs or, like the Deforest, actually preceded the HH pixieware) and the current collections. Literally, HH is synonymous with the collection, as "Mission" is synonymous with a style of furniture created during a time period by many furniture makers. Maybe it is like the term "Kleenex" to some extent...once (and still) a trademarked brand name, "kleenex" has come to represent all tissues, in the English-speaking lexicon? I don't know.
And it seems to me that the seller who is actually knowledgeable in these collectibles is at a disadvantage to some extent (by comparison to the non-expert seller). I can (and you can) for example, look at, a Davar ketchup, and KNOW that it is not HH, and therefore not to be described as such (in an auction title). But what about the more eclectic seller, finding their bargains (for resale on eBay) at the yard sales and thrift stores, and offering a variety of things, about many of which they have limited knowledge. It would be no surprise for such a seller to describe a Davar ketchup as a Holt Howard, even if it's clearly marked "Davar." And that less knowledgeable seller isn't trying to keyword spam anyone...they just don't know the difference. That non-expert seller is going to have an advantage over you, the expert, in regard to search results, because their title will include "Holt Howard" and yours will not.
I surely don't want that non-expert seller discouraged from putting those auctions on eBay, because they often represent the affordable "finds"...not just for my collection and area of interest, but for many others. But neither is it fair that their lack of expertise gives them advantage over the seller who knows their merchandise.
posted on January 1, 2001 05:20:17 PM newascorti, that's an interesting perspective (price of the item at the time of report determines action). I'm glad you shared that, and your observation in these matters...and thanks for your view on the HH stuff. I love the stuff (and the related pieces from other manufacturers), but my (far more proper) mother believes that I have lost my mind, and I cannot begin to explain my attraction to it. But then again, who can explain their collections?
Neil, I think you are right (that it's inappropriate to suggest (in an auction title) that a piece is manufactured by "A" when you know it was made by "B" ). I still don't know how to reconcile that between those who are experts in their field (and might know they are misrepresenting) and those who are not (and make an error without intent to misrepresent), and the advantage that I perceive the latter seller to have.
And I'm still feeling 'iffy' about the use of a manufacturer's name in the title of an auction for a piece whose maker is unknown. Who is to say that it "isn't?" What I'm saying is, I think the marked Davar shouldn't be described in the title as "Holt Howard" but I think maybe the Jolly Girl could reasonably be titled as, at least "Holt Howard-like".
