Last Night Had 0, Tonight Have 1300?

Posts: 25 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 25, 2006 Posts: 25

dconnor wrote:

nighthawk wrote:

this isnt the first time the former CEO is involved in controversy

Are you suggesting that Jeffrey planed out a cache problem intentionally? Please...

Of course not.
that is highly unlikely, if not impossible, I just dont know how that many people were declined purchase.

Posts: 2251

nighthawk wrote:

dconnor wrote:

nighthawk wrote:

this isnt the first time the former CEO is involved in controversy

Are you suggesting that Jeffrey planed out a cache problem intentionally? Please...

Of course not.
that is highly unlikely, if not impossible, I just dont know how that many people were declined purchase.

Well, when you drop a comment like that, it sure sounds suggestive.

I do not think the issue here is about people that were declined a purchase. The issue here appears to be that some people (and very few have posted about this) did not know that they were allocated shares from what appears to be a cache/refresh issue.

Posts: 87 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: Feb 15, 2005 Posts: 87

nshreiber wrote:

So, last night I logged onto my Vonage IPO account and was unceremoniously informed that of the 5000 shares I made a conditional offer on, I was allocated ZERO.

If I was in the same situation, I probably would find myself complaining just like you, but....

Could this be an alibi to get out of buying the stock that has went down the sh*tter???

If the stock shot up to $30/share after initially being told you had zero shares and then finding 1,300 shares in your account, you wouldn't be trying to get out of buying them at $17/share.

rs

Posts: 25 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 25, 2006 Posts: 25

dconnor wrote:

nighthawk wrote:

dconnor wrote:

nighthawk wrote:

this isnt the first time the former CEO is involved in controversy

Are you suggesting that Jeffrey planed out a cache problem intentionally? Please...

Of course not.
that is highly unlikely, if not impossible, I just dont know how that many people were declined purchase.

Well, when you drop a comment like that, it sure sounds suggestive.

I do not think the issue here is about people that were declined a purchase. The issue here appears to be that some people (and very few have posted about this) did not know that they were allocated shares from what appears to be a cache/refresh issue.

whatever the case, I am not complaining, I am disappointed I was not able to purchase, when I put in my offer on May 8th. I have been left with the feeling that it wasn't "a lottery" at all, but rather, those who were purchasing the most shares were given the top priority. If that was the case, they never should have offered it for the minimum, they should have stated the minimum amount to be purchased was 1000, instead of 100.
Good Luck to everyone who was allotted this opportunity.
I will just purchase it on the open market...
for alot less.

Posts: 9 · New Forum Member Joined: Mar 21, 2005 Posts: 9

dconnor wrote:

The issue here appears to be that some people (and very few have posted about this) did not know that they were allocated shares from what appears to be a cache/refresh issue.

Why would you think it is a cache/refresh issue? If it was a cache/refresh issue it would show the same info as before "check back soon" instead of 0 shares allocated/$0 owed.

It is most likely a backend website error that gave out false info but was fixed later. If the error lasted 10 minutes the number of folks seeing the error would be limited.

It is clearly not a cache/refresh issue.

Page A - "check back soon"
Page B - "Your allocation: 0 Shares at $17"
Page C - "Your allocation: 1300 Shares at $17"

If Page A was cached it would continue to show Page A and not Page B. Only after logging out, or backend was fixed, and/or session cookie expiring, Page C was shown.

For those that got Page B, they have no reason to log back in because they have already been informed that they have received no shares and owe $0.

Posts: 2251

jeffml wrote:

It is clearly not a cache/refresh issue.

I do not debate on my site, I only try to point out facts.

All indications HERE from early posters that night suggest a cache issue.

Debate/discuss whatever you feel might be the issue without me.

Posts: 9 · New Forum Member Joined: Mar 21, 2005 Posts: 9

dconnor wrote:

I do not debate on my site, I only try to point out facts.

All indications HERE from early posters that night suggest a cache issue.

I have no idea where you get your facts but that topic has two people that say they were allocated 0 shares and not the "check back soon" cached page. Yet throughout this topic you have people telling you they have copies of the page that showed the same 0 allocation, $0 owed information.

I withdrew my offer beforehand so I'm not biased in this situation but you seem to want to disregard the facts for some reason. Not sure why. We all agree that if they log into the website now it will show the allocations. The question is why did it ever show 0 allocated/$0 owed. Their browser can't make up that page to cache, it had to have been delivered at least once.

Good luck to all with this.

Posts: 4 · New Forum Member Joined: May 23, 2006 Posts: 4

Dconnor,

Please don't offer nonsense if you are not prepared to back it up. This is definitely not a "refresh" issue as so clearly pointed out by previous posters. Vonage's attempt to lure investors has been rife with deception from the outset. Sure, this website error may be unintentional, but it is Vonage's responsibility. Please don't common this board (I don't care if you are the admin) schilling for Vonage and then excuse yourself from the debate. That is just pathetic.

Posts: 13 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: May 23, 2006 Posts: 13

My conversations with Smith Barney have been reasonable and amicable-- thus far. They are going to IDEAL (the website that runs WWW.VONAGEIPO.COM) and asking them to re-create my experience onTuesday night -- this will (I've been told by Smith Barney) catch whatever glitch that showed I received 0 Shares. Armed with that I'll have (in Smith Barney's words) "a pretty strong case."

I have my doubts about a glitch that has since been fixed showing up again in any re-creation. But, I'm reserving from any further arguments until I hear what IDEAL has to say for themselves. What an xperience this whole thing has been. Utterly fascinating. A pain in the you-know-what. But a learner, for sure. For one thing, I am going to become best friends with the SCREEN SHOT function of my computer!

Speaking of, can someone tell me how to take s SCREEN SHOT on a mac? Or should I go ask another forum that?

Posts: 25 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 25, 2006 Posts: 25

Will23 wrote:

Dconnor,

Please don't offer nonsense if you are not prepared to back it up. This is definitely not a "refresh" issue as so clearly pointed out by previous posters. Vonage's attempt to lure investors has been rife with deception from the outset. Sure, this website error may be unintentional, but it is Vonage's responsibility. Please don't common this board (I don't care if you are the admin) schilling for Vonage and then excuse yourself from the debate. That is just pathetic.

I couldnt agree with you more Will, maybe it was a blessing in disguise that I wasnt able to get the shares I had proposed to acquire at the begining of this month.
Mr. Conner,
if this site IS IN FACT not endorsed, sponsored, provided, owned or otherwise controlled by Vonage, stop trying to lobby for the company.
What is wrong is wrong, and you know it, its just a matter of time before this comes to a head.