all sellers HERE at this site NEED a real competitor to ebay to emerge as fast as possible......and all we NEED is ONE.. with two competitors the fees at both places will be as low as they could be .. even with 3 or for 4 REAL compeitors... SO we NEED just ONE.....
when us sellers look for this NEED we ALL have .. one thing we look at is the number of listings cause a real competitor will have to have a high number of listings.... so when there is a professed unbiased auction chart showing these listings... then all sellers even from here should look and compare and analyze who has the BEST chance to become this one real competitor and then when we see the one with the BEST chance we then should go there and help build it even further.... this misleading false placement of counting items when the chart clearly says LISTINGS has been going on for 6 months or so .. this auction site has the correct count that fits psu's auction chart clearly on their site along with this incorrect count of total items.. Psu picked the incorrect info and stayed with that for 6 months even after alot of heated discussions about how it how it was totally misleading.... this hurts sellers HERE cause of not knowing who has the best chance for real competition to ebay... dirty laundry here??? this guy stockmizer helped all sellers here.. not until he use real legalese arguments did psu take this harm to ALL sellers down... someone says he changed it cause of the site was using it as a promotional tool.. if one checks the thread its easy to see the moment he changed.. it was from the following post .. from a hero to all us sellers who had the wisdom and guts to go against the grain and now this misleading harmful thing to all sellers is down. donna you may want to get your lasso out.. and lasso this wise brave hero and bring him OVER!!! someone that wise and brave would help us all .. so donna go lasso him if you can...
if you read the OLA bashing thread one can see clearly when someone mentioned that auction site was using this as a advertizing tool.. when psu responded to this post he didn't respond like it was any problem didn't even mention it.... but the change in psu came directly after this stockmizer post...
and again the reason for the change is not that it was used as an advertizing tool but because it was incorrect!!! and this understanding of being incorrect has been there for 6 months.. the big difference is how stockmizers post made him see danger..
and another way to understand that.. that as the reason does not hold water....is that psu lets this site and others PROMOTE their sites thru psu...this incorrect chart count is with the biggest banner advertizer on psu's site AND in addition they both have big banner ads in a recipical manner to benefit both sites.... psu's big banner on this auction site would benefit psu itself for this online auction site to INCREASE.. more there then would see psu's banner there and this misleading count does indeed help both that site AND psu... thats why its appalling this was left up for 6 months... and bidville was indeed hurt in a misleading way.. they were 2nd in listings without this false placement ... people who go looking for the 2nd place to go went to this false site instead of the truth site listings bidville....
but here is the post that made psu change this... all sellers here should congradulate this wise and brave guy..tis has HELPED us ALL!! dirty laundry... no bringing what helped us sellers is important to all us sellers..
The problem is that you are displaying what looks like an objective ranking table based on actual statical data. Instead you have a set of numbers that are logically incomparable.
People are fairly simple when it comes to stats - you say company X is #1, company Y is #2, etc....most people think that it means that company X is "#1" based on the statistics you are using, as compared to company Y, who is #2 based on the SAME statistics. This is not only common sense, but intuitively correct.
If, however, you create a set of statistics and create a ranking based on incomparable data sets, your table is inaccurate and deceptive. Instead of providing useful information, the table misrepresents reality. It doesn't matter that "fine print" or disclaimers are used.
Legally speaking, when we analyze concepts of fraud, deception, and misrepresentation, disclaimers have very little, if any, impact. In fact, the disclaimers are often used against the offender because they clearly demonstrate that the deception was both deliberate and known to the offender.
In your case we have a ranked table being displayed publicly that admittedly misrepresents it's rankings. Further, the site that is being "beneficially misrepresented" is a client of PSU, so a direct financial relationship exists. Your only excuses for the misrepresentation are that (1) you put a lot of work into collecting the data and you'd hate to waste the effort, (2) you are not representing the chart for any particular purpose, and (3) you have a disclaimer.
Let's assume for a moment that Bidville decides to sue you for deliberately misrepresenting their rank, what could they argue? For one, they would argue that these misrepresented statistics have been used by OLA in press releases and "other advertisements" to further OLA's interests directly resulting in financial losses to Bidville. Second, they would argue that PSU conspired with their client OLA to create these misrepresentations to the financial detriment of Bidville.
Third, OLA could even be sued for Libel by stating that Bidville is #3 instead of #2 - libel law allows suit merely based on "implication". Clearly, PSU knows the ranking is a misrepresentation and PSU could financially benefit from the misrepresentation. Look up Libel and you'll see that none of your excuses would be a defense, and your disclaimer would be used against you.
If Bidville wanted to get really tough, they might also bring in the FTC to investigate PSU and OLA for deceptive advertising practices. PSU is acting as a publisher, and OLA is an advertising client. The FTC defines deceptive advertising as "a representation, omission, act or practice that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances." The PSU "chart" would be similar to a Car Magazine publishing a vehicle safety chart that ranked the magazine's biggest advertiser as having a safer car by knowingly comparing completely different data sets.
Even if the magazine had not actually directly colluded with the advertiser, if the end result misleads consumers, and the magazine directly or indirectly benefits from the deception, the magazine is exposed to liability.
IMHO...
Legally speaking, you are quite foolish to leave OLA ranked as #2. It is not "#2" in any way shape or form.
Ethically speaking, the ranking chart does deceive people - regardless of whether you think it "should" or not.
Business-wise, it makes OLA and PSU look untrustworthy. Imagine for a moment that Bidville decided to write a press release tomorrow that mentions this in some of the details I've already spelled out. How would that help PSU or OLA?
and by the way.. i see no problem with the OLA cheerleaders or anyone who is happy about their site and brags....some people can't stand people being happy and find ways to disrupt just let em all blow it out thier ears.. let em enjoy their cheerleading for their site they choose.... its just that this chart was really causing harm to all sellers..and it was so glaringly right infront of all the psu posters that it was shocking the overlooking the big fire in the house..