Ever since our Auction Search went live a couple weeks ago, I've received countless emails every time eBay posts another warning announcement -- it seems they're going to go after anyone who uses functionality like our meta-search scripts which pull results from multiple locations and combine them in what's returned to the user. Rumors have even reached my ears that we may be contacted by eBay directly about it. Sites around the internet have sprung up with this as their core functionality -- Bidder's Edge, Auction Watch, and others have as their entire focus what's happening on auction sites around the web such as eBay, Amazon, and Yahoo. Based on the popularity of these sites (our own auction search area receives some 3,000 user sessions per day already, and is linked to by sites all over the internet ranging from other Star Wars sites to Beanie Baby and sports memorabilia collectors) it seems that the public wants this capability, yet eBay cries foul and threatens litigation if the practice continues.

So who's right?

"We're Doing This For Your Own Good!"

eBay makes wild accusations and claims (such as those by eBay spokesman Kevin Pursglove in the course of a conversation with C|Net's www.news.com at http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-205529.html?tag=st.cn.1fd2), including statements that scripts such as ours "can bog down eBay's computers and slow bidding for users" and that they have "received complaints from users that information on other sites often does not give full descriptions of items or doesn't have the most up-to-date bidding information."

Well, the latter I can address in a straightforward manner -- unless the scripts you're using are programmed or run incorrectly, your results are going to have up-to-the-minute information. Meta-search scripts are, by nature, designed to go out and pull the most recent information from the sites included in the script routines. Admittedly, some scripts utilize a search "cache" or "caching" -- a collection of recently collected information -- to improve performance and speed ... and this may be what they're referring to. A cache for a search engine is much like the cache used by your web browser -- it's designed to keep a historical record of your most recently visited files, which allows you to surf the web at a faster speed by not requiring constant downloads of the same files. The difference is that for most people, browser cache files can take up tens (if not hundreds) of megabytes of disk space, which can affect performance ... while our search cache is set to maintain absolutely no history, since we use other methods to speed up the script execution.

But let's say (for the sake of argument) that we did utilize a search cache, and let's say we set it at five minutes of history ... what would this mean to you, the user? It would mean that if you were to come to our auction search area and search on "star wars," and then you told your friend on ICQ (speaking of which, make sure you check out our newly revamped ICQ user database at http://www.echostation.com/icq/) to go check out the results you found, if your friend entered the same search criteria as you did within the next five minutes, he/she would see the exact same results you saw. However, at that five-minute-and-one-second mark, the result set would quite possibly be different. At that point the cache will have automatically expired, and new dynamic queries will be executed on all the search sites, pulling back all new content. Does a five-minute cache affect performance? Not really. People are using our scripts to search for all sorts of different things...it's actually quite rare that two people search on the same exact keywords within five minutes of each other unless they happen to be using one of our pre-defined searches (like "star wars"). From our point of view, that makes a five minute cache worthless ... if it's not going to speed things up for the end user, why do it? Longer caching of data may well speed things up for the end user (some sites utilize a 10, 15, or even 30 to 60 minute search cache), but by the nature of their functionality, searches have less and less value the longer the cache is maintained -- would you want to see the item you've been dying to find show up in your results only to discover that the auction actually expired 45 minutes ago? No, you wouldn't ... and you'd most likely get upset with the service that linked you there.

Darwin proclaimed "survival of the fittest" to be the rule of nature, and it is this same process which will eliminate sites providing poor levels of service to their visitors. No threats from eBay are necessary ... sites like that will ultimately collapse as people stop using their service in favor of one presenting results closer to (or actually at) real-time caliber.

The search results themselves are pretty much the same regardless of method. Searching directly on eBay brings you back the Item Number, the Item Description, the current price, the number of bids, and when the auction ends. Searching through our search script doesn't bother giving you the Item Number (which is actually just a unique identification number to that auction in eBay's database) because we didn't think it provided any value, and leaving it out saves space. Everything else is the same though -- description, current price, number of bids, and auction closing date/time ... in short, all the essential information is included ... with one addition. You get consolidated results from other places around the web as well, and our results tell you where those results are coming from.

As to eBay's complaints regarding things slowing down for their users ... well, that's quite easy to believe given that eBay goes down more often than your average submarine ... and sometimes stays down just as long as that submarine. eBay has lost tens of millions of dollars refunding listing fees to outraged sellers who have had auctions offline for days at a time due to server outages. eBay really has no excuse for these outages either ... though they've tried everything they could to come up with one. They tried blaming Sun Microsystems, the manufacturer of the systems upon which eBay's auction system lives, only to have Sun publicly denounce eBay's lack of forethought and planning by eBay's refusal to apply regular system upgrades and patches necessary for continued operation, as well as eBay's refusal to maintain and operate a full failover environment which would minimize downtime in the case of server outages for a system so mission critical to their core operations. eBay backed down, shaking the finger they'd been pointing at Sun that had been burned by the flames of Sun's response, and retreated to their corner mumbling "we're trying to make that happen" under their breath while hoping to restore things quickly. Another outage occurred due to lack of proper system monitoring when a series of CGI processes spiraled over the course of several days to occupy all of the available system memory ... no small trick when dealing with robust machines such as the ones they run on. Rebooting did not help, and the site was down for another lengthy period of time as programmers rushed to trace the offending process. As a note, eBay has now decided that it can't possibly be their programmers' fault ... it has to be the hardware. Even though machines from Sun Microsystems power some of the world's most robust applications, eBay has announced that they're just not robust enough for them (see the article here) and they are considering other options including IBM (notorious for being behind the Schwab online e-trading meltdowns) and Hewlett "really, we don't do just printers!" Packard.

So yes, eBay may well have a point when they say that external processes slow things down for their end users (though to be honest, I've seen no such complaints myself from any eBay users on any of the message boards I checked) ... but what they're really saying, if you pay attention, is "we're not prepared." If eBay is already collapsing routinely under the weight of its own traffic, and they are incapable of ramping up to accommodate the traffic they're getting these days, then what happens if they get more popular? What if eBay got their wish and instead of all the meta search engines working as they do, people just provided direct links to eBay for their searching? Wouldn't the traffic be just as heavy, and eBay just as incapable of dealing with it?

Something to think about, isn't it?

What's it all about? (Using the User)

Don't listen to anything they say to the contrary ... it's about money. Forget anything they say about "user experience," or "commitment to their user base" ... it's not about a search cache ... it's just about cash.

People pay to advertise on eBay's website. People pay a lot to advertise on eBay's website. They pay such inflated fees to advertise on eBay's site because eBay gets a traffic level giving the average advertiser more potential for exposure ... which means eBay can charge whatever they want for their ad space. Just like the Superbowl commercial spots currently going for just under $2 million per 30 second spot, eBay guarantees a wide, diverse viewing audience.

But what if people don't go to eBay as much any more?

The way things should work from eBay's point of view is that you should have to hit their main page, and get ads shown to you (you get to see 6 ads on their home page when I checked it last). If you're lucky enough to know what you're doing, you just enter some keywords in the search engine and go from there ... but how many do? How many users out there are just clicking on the sections they list "for your convenience" and get exposed to (surprise!) yet more ad banners each time. Yes, it's nice that eBay provides a Yahoo-like feature -- it does help the uninitiated migrate their way towards where they want to be -- but does it have to be so self-serving at the same time? It's little different than sites that provide absolutely no content on their "home" page whatsoever ... but they make sure you see that banner ad, usually with a "click here to continue!" which naturally has yet more banners. (If you're lucky, a site will lead you on to a banner-ad extravaganza spanning multiple pages before you hit paydirt.)

...and before someone goes off on a rant, let me explain myself. Banner ads, in and of themselves, aren't a problem. I understand that some sites show banners to help offset the costs of running their site, or possibly even in exchange for getting a free website, which is totally fine ... so long as what's being served up might be of interest to the people you're forcing to view them and you do it in moderation. But if I'm going to eBay to do a quick search for Star Wars memorabilia, do I really need to see ads about eBay's Visa and AOL? Not really, thanks.

That's what meta-search engines like ours keep you from having to deal with. That's what eBay is all fired up about, regardless of anything else their Public Relations group spoon-feeds the press. You go, you search, and if you see something you're interested in, you go straight to it. Not a banner ad to be found anywhere in that entire process (at least not with Echo's search now... other sites may vary on that policy) -- just going directly what you're looking for, regardless of where it happens to be currently listed. It's roughly akin to going to a shopping mall ... except as we all know, the internet is much, much larger ... you see lots of stores, and you get to pick and choose which ones you'll walk into, and more importantly, which ones will ultimately get your money. If the window display doesn't catch your eye, you don't go in. If the store is all about jewelry and you're looking for a new sofa, you don't go in. Pretty simple, logical, and easy concept, right?

Not according to eBay. They don't want you walking through the mall and choosing where to spend your money. No, no ... they'd much rather be the big Wal-Mart or KMart that moves into your small town and carries just enough of everything to get you by ... maybe not exactly what you're looking for but hey, it's all you've got to choose from so just suck it up and buy it. Oh, and while they're at it, they're going to try and shut down any and all other markets in town ... especially if they dare to advertise lower prices. That's where the eBay legal team comes in.

eBay managed to get the "Bidder's Edge" website to stop including their information in their meta search result sets by threatening legal action. Much like situations covered in my recent article on LFL and Copyright Law, eBay is relying on tactics  any schoolyard bully would be familiar with ... as would A New Hope's villainous Grand Moff Tarkin, who I believe said it best (paraphrasing): "fear will keep them in line." eBay threatens legal action against a group that knows they don't have eBay's money or resources ... and so the group folds under the pressure, and eBay gets what they want -- one less player in the marketplace trying to give people the information they need to be educated shoppers online. No no, can't have that.   Bidder's Edge has decided they won't stand for it either, and fired back with an extremely public refusal in response to eBay's demands, including a full-page ad in the New York Times.

Basically, eBay wants things to remain as they were when www.ebay.com was first launched -- they want to be the only player in the game, and they want 100 percent market share. If nobody else is going to do it, please let me be the alarm clock that wakes eBay out of their blissful dreams of world domination and clue them into what's happening around them. It's reminiscent of the old fable about the King who stood on the shores shouting at the ocean that was threatening to engulf his kingdom with a flood ... even as the waters crashed down upon him. They've annoyed the vendor of their hardware platform, the people that they depend upon for support, maintenance, and their very existence. They've painted a gigantic bullseye on themselves as a target of scorn, derision and ridicule ... which isn't helped by the fact that about once a week there's a new story hitting the wires about auctions of marijuana, children, and other illegal items taking place on eBay ... or yet another server failure. They're taking steps to eliminate the grass-roots support which might have saved them from all of the above by trying to shut down websites and featured content of sites.

If you put your ear really close to your monitor while eBay.com is loaded, you can hear the ocean.

Biting the Hand...

Grassroots movements can either make or break a website - if the people love you, they'll forgive your errors ... but if they hate you, you're in for a really rough ride. eBay had the market cornered, and could have swept aside all the newcomers to the game ... but much like Apple and the Macintosh computer, they dropped the ball. They broke ground with a killer affiliate program which offered unprecedented payouts for click-throughs ... but then failed to support links to individual auctions. They're only interested in paying out if you're willing to send users to a generic page where, you guessed it, your referred visitor gets to see banner ads. So, in our case, a choice needed to be made. Were we going to support the true functionality that we felt the users wanted and provide links to the exact auctions they were searching for, or were we going to sell out and force them to a generic page where they'd have to perform their search all over again just so we could make a buck? If you've used our Auction Search, you already know the answer -- the functionality for the user won. There are now other auction sites around the web that do support linking to individual auctions in conjunction with your "partner ID," and again we were faced with a decision. Do we drop eBay altogether in favor of the services that will compensate us for the exposure we provide to them? Again, functionality for the end-user won out ... dealing with eBay has unfortunately become much like dealing with Microsoft -- if you're going to play the game, you can't ignore the dominant player if you expect to get anywhere. However, should eBay continue their war against sites like ours that use the meta-search concept, they may well find themselves hurting badly. As users become aware of other avenues for their buying and selling needs through promotion by sites that either back down from eBay's wrath or simply choose not to deal with eBay at all, the sellers will surely follow. Since eBay depends on commissions from all sales on their site as a revenue stream, this may well be the only way the message will finally get through to them ... but by that point, it may be too late. Users will support sites that support them back, and sellers will always go where the users are ... it's the inevitable way things work.

Now that more and more auction sites are cropping up, including a partnership between really big guns like Microsoft, Dell, and other Fortune 500 companies specifically aimed at taking eBay down a few notches, eBay is already hearing the footsteps behind them. Couple that with newer auction sites supporting their end-user community with mutually beneficial affiliate programs and associations, and you've got a one-two combination that's got eBay starting to stagger.

You can almost hear Tarkin in the CEO office of eBay's Corporate Death Star repeating the phrase, "I think you seriously overestimate their chances," over and over again to himself. Unfortunately for eBay, it's not just one lone fighter maneuvering down the trench any more ... there are hundreds of them, and any of them could be the one to fire the shot that takes them down.

It's time for eBay to stop shouting at the ocean and start filling sandbags.