The big new changes at EBAY

[Mitch Perkins]

PayPal has certainly had its share of lawsuits but it's pretty common knowledge that the google entries are nothing more than repetitions of the same information.

Roger

Clicking through the pages of hits will provide specific knowledge that the hits are not in fact "nothing more than repetitions of the same information".

Not really. A casual glance will reveal that most hits on any subject are direct or indirect links to the very same information.

Yes, really; I'm not talking about "most hits on any subject", but rather this subject and these pages specifically.

More to the point, and by your own admission, you had to click through the pages and explore them to extract the comparative information you wanted,

As it happens, your failure to understand is not my admission; I had no interest in extracting "comparative information", unless by that you mean simply checking urls and subject lines for repetition, which is what I did. Again, it revealed that in this case the hits are not in fact "nothing more than repetitions of the same information".

thus proving my point that simply listing the number of hits related to a subject is meaningless.

Not really; it depends on the particular subject and the variety of urls/headlines. Hey, imagine I googled "paypal lawsuit" and got *no* hits - that would have some meaning...~:?)

Mitch

[reflex]

In Canada, we have the option of instant money transfers between accounts at the major banks. The cost is minimal - either free with a banking package or a few cents. eBay should support it, but they choose to ignore it in favor of extracting an extra 3% in fees.

The only drawback of bank transfers is that you have limited recourse when dealing with fraudulent transactions, but my understanding of Paypal is that there protection is fairly limited as well.

[MovieStuff]

... I'm not talking about "most hits on any subject", but rather this subject and these pages specifically.

But you only know what's on these hits because you actually looked at them, Mitch. That you were able to get information from them is fine and I'm not even debating the validity of the information; I'm no PayPal apologist. I use them it and it works for me. For some it does not. That isn't even the issue here. What's in question is your apparent belief that the number of hits in google somehow quantifies the scope of a given issue. But you and I both know that the actual number of google hits means little because many are going to be repetitions of the same hit, only re-directed. And the only way you would be able to know the difference is if you delve into the individual links and compare to see how many are repetitions and how many are unique. And, even then, that would not tell you anything until you actually read the pages related to the links.

It might turn out that a million hits on one topic only reveals 10,000 unique links while 500,000 hits on another topic reveals 100,000 unique links. Thus it is possible to have more relevant and new information links from only 500,000 hits on one topic than from one million hits on another. The number of hits is meaningless, in and of itself, which is why I said I did not see the significance of posting the number of hits in your search.

Hey, imagine I googled "paypal lawsuit" and got *no* hits - that would have some meaning...~:?)

Sure. It would mean that no one on the internet is discussing it enough to appear on the google radar. Nothing more. It would certainly NOT mean that there were no lawsuits against PayPal. The number of google hits is an indicator of interest on the internet; not a measure of guilt or innocence for the company being discussed.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

In Canada, we have the option of instant money transfers between accounts at the major banks. The cost is minimal - either free with a banking package or a few cents. eBay should support it, but they choose to ignore it in favor of extracting an extra 3% in fees.

The only drawback of bank transfers is that you have limited recourse when dealing with fraudulent transactions, but my understanding of Paypal is that there protection is fairly limited as well.

Apparently Ebay doubled the protection for paypal transactions and removed entirely all protection from non-paypal transactions. Yknow, so you'll use paypal...~:?)

Mitch

[Mitch Perkins]

... I'm not talking about "most hits on any subject", but rather this subject and these pages specifically.

What's in question is your apparent belief that the number of hits in google somehow quantifies the scope of a given issue.

For the third time, not "a given issue", but rather this issue specifically.

It might turn out that a million hits on one topic only reveals 10,000 unique links while 500,000 hits on another topic reveals 100,000 unique links. Thus it is possible to have more relevant and new information links from only 500,000 hits on one topic than from one million hits on another.

That's right - this is one of those topics with a lot of hits having unique links. IOW, not one of those topics where "the google entries are nothing more than repetitions of the same information."

Hey, imagine I googled "paypal lawsuit" and got *no* hits - that would have some meaning...~:?)

Sure. It would mean that no one on the internet is discussing it enough to appear on the google radar. Nothing more. It would certainly NOT mean that there were no lawsuits against PayPal.

What are you, nuts? Lawsuits against paypal and nothing about it on the internet?

The number of hits is meaningless, in and of itself, which is why I said I did not see the significance of posting the number of hits in your search.

[...]

The number of google hits is an indicator of interest on the internet; not a measure of guilt or innocence for the company being discussed.

As you say, it represents general interest in most cases, and in this one many of the hits are unique, ceratainly not "nothing more than repetitions of the same information."



Mitch

[reflex]

Apparently Ebay doubled the protection for paypal transactions and removed entirely all protection from non-paypal transactions. Yknow, so you'll use paypal...~:?)

Have you ever read their "protection" policy? To qualify for full coverage, the buyer must ensure that the seller has over 50 feedbacks and is a premier or business member. It's also important to realize that it's a buyer protection policy, so small-time sellers can easily get ripped off by unscrupulous buyers (sending a package without a tracking number would cause Paypal to side with the buyer if they claimed they never received it, for example).

I'd much rather have an Interac transfer receipt between two Canadian banks than proof that I used an unaccredited money transfer company in California if I have to threaten legal action.

[Ace]

Hey Roger,

Read my post again, I think we are arguinbg the same point, my assertion is that you made a point that Paypal is more safe and easier than a money order...not true. Maybe in your experience. Bottom line is, (and my point, if I didn't already hit you over the head with it) is that it is dangerous for one entity to have to much control. Unfortunatly, ebay is the only auction site in town, who are about to mandate paying through the payment service that they own (charging whatever they want for this service). Again, this is a dangerous precedence.

For example, Dwaynes could start charging anything they wanted to develop k40 and make you use their payment service for a surcharge...totally legal, but is it morally right to take advantage of the consumer because you can? or because you want to make the most money possible? I could site a hundred different examples of this, all I'm saying is that since they are so powerful, they have a responsibility.


Speaking of ebay (a little off topic) but I saw a moviestuff projector for sale, is this an older model? If so, how good is this compared to your newer ones in terms of quality?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... :IT&ih=015

[MovieStuff]

... I'm not talking about "most hits on any subject", but rather this subject and these pages specifically.

What's in question is your apparent belief that the number of hits in google somehow quantifies the scope of a given issue.

For the third time, not "a given issue", but rather this issue specifically.

I was speaking generally because my point applies to all subjects, including this one. You've presented nothing that would suggest this subject is unique or has been filtered through google so that the number of hits is relevant to their guilt. You just know there are X number of hits talking about PayPal's lawsuits. You've never even mentioned how many lawsuits there are, which I would think is far more relevant than how many google hits there are, many of which you knew were repeats of other links, even before posting the search results.

It might turn out that a million hits on one topic only reveals 10,000 unique links while 500,000 hits on another topic reveals 100,000 unique links. Thus it is possible to have more relevant and new information links from only 500,000 hits on one topic than from one million hits on another.

That's right - this is one of those topics with a lot of hits having unique links. IOW, not one of those topics where "the google entries are nothing more than repetitions of the same information."

I never said it was the same information in every link, Mitch, and you know that. I have repeatedly said that, typical of google, many of the links are repeated entries. The funny thing is that, even if I didn't point it out, you knew that about google even before you posted the number of hits from your search. That you are now attempting to make a distinction where there is none is mystifying unless you really believe that over one million hits somehow means there are over one million lawsuits against PayPal. If you don't believe there are over one million lawsuits, then you have to admit that many of the links are repetitive. And if you admit they are repetitive, then you know that listing the number of total hits is irrelevant.

The number of hits is meaningless, in and of itself, which is why I said I did not see the significance of posting the number of hits in your search.

[...]

The number of google hits is an indicator of interest on the internet; not a measure of guilt or innocence for the company being discussed.

Roger

As you say, it represents general interest in most cases, and in this one many of the hits are unique, ceratainly not "nothing more than repetitions of the same information."

Well, again, that is never what I said and side steps the issue, which is that simply listing the number of hits means nothing unless you actually read the linked pages.

For example, what if there were a discussion about violence in schools and someone posted, "Hey, what about those Duke boys that raped that girl?" and then posted the following google search:

duke university athletes rape girl = 311,000 hits

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... tnG=Search

But actually reading the linked pages will reveal three things:

1) That the athletes were 100% exonerated

and

2) that the DA was tossed out of his office and is being charged with negligence and he and the city are being sued to the point of bankruptcy by the boys and their parents.

and

3) That (like the PayPal links) much of the information is repeated, thereby reducing the total number or relevant links or new information to a fraction of the 311,000 hits.

But without actually investigating the links, this would suggest over 300,000 damning google hits that implied their guilt.

So, like the Duke example, to list X number of links about PayPal lawsuits is meaningless because you have no idea how many are unique, how many are repeats, how many are true and how many are false. In fact, unless you've read through all 1,000,000+ entries, you really don't know much more now about PayPal's legal problems than before you posted the number of hits. And anything that you have gleaned from posting the hits is because this discussion has forced you to read the information connected to the links. But, before doing that, the actual number of hits told you nothing other than there were X number of hits. And why? Because the number of google hits is an indicator of interest on the internet; not a measure of guilt or innocence for the company or subject being discussed.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Hey Roger,

Read my post again, I think we are arguinbg the same point, my assertion is that you made a point that Paypal is more safe and easier than a money order...not true. Maybe in your experience.

Of course. I'm only speaking about my experience. For some, PayPal is a nightmare.

Bottom line is, (and my point, if I didn't already hit you over the head with it) is that it is dangerous for one entity to have to much control. Unfortunatly, ebay is the only auction site in town...

Are they, really? Not being a smarty but I really don't know if there are other auctions. I know there used to be.

....who are about to mandate paying through the payment service that they own (charging whatever they want for this service). Again, this is a dangerous precedence.

But is it really dangerous or is it just annoying to those that want to pay using another method? I mean, pennies are legal tender but you can't use them to pay off a million dollar legal judgment or claim (this is true, BTW). That ebay wants people to use PayPal and nothing else doesn't prevent them from using a different auction method to sell their goods. True, it means that ebay and PayPal might get a larger share of the profits but, to me, this is like publishing where unknown authors get a small fraction of the book sales because the publishing house is the one making sales possible. Of course the author could self-publish but would they make less money than going through a publisher? That's for each person to decided but, in either case, no one is forcing them to use either method so to describe ebay's decision as "dangerous" seems a bit of a misnomer.

For example, Dwaynes could start charging anything they wanted to develop k40 and make you use their payment service for a surcharge...totally legal, but is it morally right to take advantage of the consumer because you can? or because you want to make the most money possible?

Is it unethical to charge a lot for something that is rare, like K40 processing? The way I see it, that's pretty normal. What you describe has no moral context and is going to be self regulating, anyway. People don't have to shoot film of any kind and they certainly don't have to use Dwaynes, if it is felt that Dwaynes is charging too much or that their payment method is undesirable.

...all I'm saying is that since they are so powerful, they have a responsibility.

To whom? This is kind of like the whole Yale Labs discussion. If people don't like them and their policy, then Yale will lose business. If Yale loses enough business, then they'll go under. But it is never a question of ethics, really. Just business decisions based on the bottom line. I find it only becomes a matter of ethics when people that feel they deserve a better deal don't get it.

Speaking of ebay (a little off topic) but I saw a moviestuff projector for sale, is this an older model? If so, how good is this compared to your newer ones in terms of quality?

It is one of a few that we made on request many, many years ago. It was basically a modified sound projector with a condenser lens, like a film chain. I have no idea how "good" it is now because I don't know the amount of mileage it has.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

... I'm not talking about "most hits on any subject", but rather this subject and these pages specifically.

What's in question is your apparent belief that the number of hits in google somehow quantifies the scope of a given issue.

For the third time, not "a given issue", but rather this issue specifically.

I was speaking generally because my point applies to all subjects, including this one. You've presented nothing that would suggest this subject is unique or has been filtered through google so that the number of hits is relevant to their guilt.

I presented this -

"Clicking through the pages of hits will provide specific knowledge that the hits are not in fact "nothing more than repetitions of the same information".

This in answer to your claim that it is "pretty common knowledge" (insinuating my lack of said knowledge), that "the google entries are nothing more than repetitions of the same information."

Well, in this case they are not - you don't have to read every hit, just look at the titles and urls on every tenth page.

As to paypal's guilt, that's your strawman - I simply posted the search as a matter of interest...

You just know there are X number of hits talking about PayPal's lawsuits. You've never even mentioned how many lawsuits there are, which I would think is far more relevant than how many google hits there are, many of which you knew were repeats of other links, even before posting the search results.

Folks can find out how many lawsuits there are on their own, if they're interested...

I'm not comfortable with you telling me what I knew, implying dishonesty on my part. Anyway even if there are repeats, that doesn't mean that in this case, "that the google entries are nothing more than repetitions of the same information."

You've allowed that some subjects are more repetitive than others anyway, so I'm not sure what you're going on about here...

It might turn out that a million hits on one topic only reveals 10,000 unique links while 500,000 hits on another topic reveals 100,000 unique links. Thus it is possible to have more relevant and new information links from only 500,000 hits on one topic than from one million hits on another.

That's right - this is one of those topics with a lot of hits having unique links. IOW, not one of those topics where "the google entries are nothing more than repetitions of the same information."

I never said it was the same information in every link, Mitch, and you know that.

What I know is that you said "it's pretty common knowledge that the google entries are nothing more than repetitions of the same information." Sounds kinda like the same thing in different words, don't it?

I have repeatedly said that, typical of google, many of the links are repeated entries.

No, it's over a million spectacularly unique hits...WTF? Of course there are repeats, but that isn't the same as simply stating with an imperial wave of the hand that "the google entries are nothing more than repetitions of the same information", because in this case there are many unique hits, and the sheer volume indicates a lot of interest...so I posted the search.

The funny thing is that, even if I didn't point it out, you knew that about google even before you posted the number of hits from your search.

No. The funny thing is that you presume to read my mind and accuse me of disingenuity.

That you are now attempting to make a distinction where there is none is mystifying unless you really believe that over one million hits somehow means there are over one million lawsuits against PayPal.

The distinction, for the fourth time, is that *in this case*, the hits are not "nothing more than repetitions of the same information."

If you don't believe there are over one million lawsuits, then you have to admit that many of the links are repetitive. And if you admit they are repetitive, then you know that listing the number of total hits is irrelevant.

No. The number of hits can be relevant if there are enough of them that are unique - there doesn't have to be a million lawsuits; and the number of hits "is an indicator of interest on the internet" (your words), showing that the subject of Jim's post is of interest to a lot of people.

Now this one below I'll just leave for the entertainment value -

The number of google hits is an indicator of interest on the internet; not a measure of guilt or innocence for the company being discussed.

Roger

As you say, it represents general interest in most cases, and in this one many of the hits are unique, ceratainly not "nothing more than repetitions of the same information."

Well, again, that is never what I said ...

Funny stuff!

So, like the Duke example, to list X number of links about PayPal lawsuits is meaningless because you have no idea how many are unique, how many are repeats,

Check the headlines and urls - while there are some, even many, repeats, all the hits are certainly not "nothing more than repetitions of the same information".

how many are true and how many are false. In fact, unless you've read through all 1,000,000+ entries, you really don't know much more now about PayPal's legal problems than before you posted the number of hits.

I know that there's a lot of interest in paypal's legal problems, and that the hits on the pages linking to them are not "nothing more than repetitions of the same information". As for true and false, time will tell...

And anything that you have gleaned from posting the hits is because this discussion has forced you to read the information connected to the links.

Yes, your logic is all-powerful - get real - I checked the urls and headings on every tenth page to the last one. They were not "nothing more than repetitions of the same information". You lose.

But, before doing that, the actual number of hits told you nothing other than there were X number of hits. And why? Because the number of google hits is an indicator of interest on the internet; not a measure of guilt or innocence for the company or subject being discussed.

Roger

Right - it told me nothing other than there were X number of hits...oh yeah and that there is a lot of interest.

[looking back edit] Well, it looks like I'm as "entertaining" here as anyone else...~:?)

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

..... in this case there are many unique hits,

Of course! There are always many unique hits, just like there are many repeats of the same information. That's why posting the number of hits is meaningless as a quantifiable measurement of any kind other than interest in a subject. That is what I have been saying all along.

...and the sheer volume indicates a lot of interest...so I posted the search.

That's a very good reason.

Roger

BTW: Went to your website to look at your transfer stuff and I thought it was dead but my pop-up blocker was on. Took me a bit to figure it out. You might want to put some tiny type telling people to turn off their pop-up blocker. Anyway, stuff looks good.

What else can we argue about?

[Jim Carlile]

How about religion and politics?

Gee I feel bad I lit a fuse here. The problem I have with the new EBAY rules is more the fact that they are encouraging sellers to go to the 'buy-it-now' model, which translated means 'pay more.'

I've used money orders with never a problem, but they were always a small amount-- I'd never do it with anything over $50 or so. A postal m.o. will be investigated by the Postal Inspector too, so that helps out if there is any fraud.

My understanding is that these new rules will soon be imposed in Europe, which means no more money transfers, either-- it's all PayPal or credit cards after October.

[Mitch Perkins]

BTW: Went to your website to look at your transfer stuff and I thought it was dead but my pop-up blocker was on. Took me a bit to figure it out. You might want to put some tiny type telling people to turn off their pop-up blocker. Anyway, stuff looks good.

Thanks. We badly need to put some new (better) stuff up there. Seems to work w/our PUB on, but we'll definitely look into that. Thanks for the tip...

What else can we argue about?

~:?)

Gee I feel bad I lit a fuse here.

Ech, no worries...

Mitch