This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Game theory High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I've seen some novel attempts of un-notable people trying to get a Wikipedia mention to spruik their business, but this attempt is new....."An estate agent, John Morrisby, conducting an auction of real estate in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia." I dare say a Checkuser of that editor who uploaded the image would find something interesting, but why bother? Who is John Morrisby? Why is his named included with the picture? Why is his name relevant to the article? ....Fair enough leave the photo, but I would perhaps edit the photo as 'an Australian auctioneer', but as a retired active editor, I would rather no get into a edit war. 2406:3400:217:6BB0:45CC:45BC:315F:EDDB (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading "Types: Visibility of bids", it states "In an English auction, all current bids are visible to all bidders and in a sealed-bid auction, bidders only get to know if their bid was the best. Best/not best auctions are sealed-bid auctions with multiple bids...Rank auction is an extension of best/not best auction, where the bidders also see the rank of their bids." (emphases added)
The use of the term "best" is inappropriate here. There is no such thing as a "best bid", and bids are not selected for being "best", but rather for being highest. "Best" is the superlative form of "better"; "highest" is the common way to describe a quantity (such as a bid or a price) that is greater than all others. In many decades of observing and participating in auctions in the US and UK, I have never heard any bid described as "best". In actual usage in auction houses, the term is usually "winning", as in "the winning bid is (insert amount here)", or "the winning bidder is (insert bidder number here)". Nor do the sources provided support the use of "best". Bricology (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and think it ought to be changed.Sbishop (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]