I don't think Andy's example is a case of automatic incremental bidding at all. Here, a***p had put in a bid at 2232 on 07/02; on 09/02 at 1442 another bidder, _***p put in a bid of somewhere above £106. The a***p, on noticing he had been outbid, started putting in sequential bids, trying to find the second guy's bid and slightly outbid him. He gave up at £104, or ran out of time as the auction ended, and this set the final price of £106. Note that it is always the second highest bidder that sets the price in an eBay auction (unless there is only one bidder!). The creeping barrage approach of a***p is the hallmark of a novice, and he probably can't understand why he hardly ever wins anything – he might have been prepared to bid a lot more, but it may be that the auction ended before he got there.
If a***p had put in a bid of £104, after a previous higher bid had been made by _***p, his automatic bids (if shown, which they were not here) would have been at the same time, and presumably _***p's automatic responses would have shown as well. It also looks like _***p is also a novice; if he had put in his maximum bid of £106 (or more) in the last 5 seconds, it is unlikely a***p would have had time to put in another bid, and he would have won for £51 instead of £106.
There is nothing at all wrong with the eBay bidding syestem; it is rather that people expect it to be like a traditional manually operated auction, which it isn't. The process is set out clearly, and if someone doesn't understand it, that's their problem. It is, or would be if everyone used the best approach, more closely akin to a sealed bid process – everyone decides what they think a thing is worth, they put it in a sealed envelope, and at the end the one quoting the highest price wins. The difference here (and it favours the buyer) is that the highest bidder does not pay his bid price, he pays one bidding increment more than the second bidder.
David
Edited By David Littlewood on 13/02/2013 12:35:47