The LLLL.com sales and discussion thread

[italiandragon]

Hello, I think it would be pretty useful to keep track of all LLLL.com sales , even the little ones under $100 so that , pretty soon , when the available LLLL.com will be finished , we`ll have a better idea on market prices.

It is important that these sales are confirmed. So before to post, make sure payment went OK.

I will start with todays` Sedo confirmed sales:

FISE.com 2,700 Euros
TSRT.com US $760
VEUP.com US $1,700


Also, I found interesting to see this average LLLL, getting bids up to $51 and reserve not me. It says it all.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...110154111735_W0QQ_trksidZm37QQfromZR40QQfviZ1

 

[Nem0]

Daniel, here's what I posted:

An LLLL.com is a 4 letter .com domain name. If there are not exactly 4 letters in the domain name, it is not an LLLL.com. The use of the letter “L” to denote letters in a domain name dates back many years and is the accepted domaining standard of denoting the length of a domain name.

LL.com = 2 letter .com

LLL.com = 3 letter .com

LLLL.com = 4 letter .com

Similarly, LL, LLL, and LLLL can be used to denote a domain of length 2, 3, or 4 without specifying the extension.

eBay has recently seen increasing amounts of members keyword spamming LLLL and LLLL.com in their listings when they are not 4 letter domains. This makes it more difficult for eBay buyers interested in buying an LLLL.com to find LLLL.com listings. Any additional traffic sellers receive by incorrectly listing domains as LLLL or LLLL.com is untargeted traffic — this is not the kind of traffic which will convert to extra sales and detracts from everyone’s user experience when using eBay. If you or anyone you know is keyword spamming on eBay, please make sure it stops. Many of us very much enjoy using eBay as both a domain name buying and domain name selling platform, however your actions are making it more difficult for us to both conduct business and conduct market research.

Please feel free to use any part of it however you see fit, no need to quote LLLL.com.

Gall dang Reece, perfect! Do you have it on a separate page? What do you think about a link button next to "About", "Home" etc... maybe call it "LLLL Defined" or something? ANyway, great job. Your site will certainly be the best to reference the spamming to eBay because of your URL of course ... and especially with that LLLL description/definition.

 

[snoop]

I don't even like the word "minimum" for this industry. I mean, does it really even fit in with domaining?

This argument only ever comes out when prices fall, then people hate the concept of a minimum, because the falls cannot be hidden. When prices are rising people love it.

For better or worse the minimum shows the true state of the market, both when prices are rising and prices are falling, it is clear, it does not lie and it can't be fudged. Trying to play down the minimum, or trying to redefine it as so many llll.com and lll.com supporters have tried to do lately will not change a thing.

 

[krx]

It has been said so many times before, but minimum means exactly that.....minimum, it doesn't mean selling under the best circumstances, it means the worst. Fair enough to ignore one outlier that is particularly low. But to start discounting numerous sales because you think too many dropped that day or that the timing wasn't perfect is denial.

Who said anything about "best" conditions and "perfect" timing? I said normal conditions. And "discounting numerous sales" is obviously contrary to my point, which is that if and when a particular sales figure becomes likely or predictable, then it has become the new minimum (whether higher or lower than the previous minimum). If you start to have numerous sales around the $7 mark, as we're just seeing tonight, then that becomes the new minimum. Prior to tonight I had not seen more than a couple oddball sales below $10 for several days. Thus my sense that the minimum had increased to that level. But I wouldn't proclaim $7 the new minimum unless and until this figure holds for at least a few days, since I'm interested in longer trends and not daily spikes and valleys in price.

The meaning of minimum seems to have different meaning to different domainers depending perhaps on their purposes. But I don't think sales conducted under the worst circumstances, as you say, have any meaning or value to domainers trying to assess what is and isn't a good deal, what they might be able to expect for their domains, and who are trying to map the value trends of the market. That data can be used for rhetorical purposes, if you like, but that's about the extent of it's utility as far as I can see.

 

[Nem0]

This argument only ever comes out when prices fall, then people hate the concept of a minimum, because the falls cannot be hidden. When prices are rising people love it.

Please show me one example of this argument on the forums. I don't necessarily doubt you, I just have never seen someone refute the words' meaning for this market like I just did and would like to see what you are talking about. Thanks.

I wasn't really arguing anyway. Just throwing out a schpeel about how I feel.

eBay has recently seen increasing amounts of members keyword spamming LLLL and LLLL.com in their listings when they are not 4 letter domains.

Heya Reece, I also think in this part you should specify "title"... such as...
"eBay has recently seen increasing amounts of members keyword spamming LLLL and LLLL.com in their listing titles..."

..or something to that effect..

 

[snoop]

But I don't think sales conducted under the worst circumstances, as you say, have any meaning or value to domainers trying to assess what is and isn't a good deal, what they might be able to expect for their domains, and who are trying to map the value trends of the market.

"Minimum" isn't about what domainers might be able to expect, it is about the "lowest" they can expect.

 

[-REECE-]

Haha, thanks Daniel

Made a link: http://www.llll.com/definition-of-llll-com/

Gall dang Reece, perfect! Do you have it on a separate page? What do you think about a link button next to "About", "Home" etc... maybe call it "LLLL Defined" or something? ANyway, great job. Your site will certainly be the best to reference the spamming to eBay because of your URL of course ... and especially with that LLLL description/definition.

 

[krx]

"Minimum" isn't about what domainers might be able to expect, it is about the "lowest" they can expect.

That's exactly what I said. It is the lowest they can EXPECT. The meaning of the word expect is what is normal and predictable, not anomalous outcomes produced under aberrant conditions.

 

[Nem0]

If you start to have numerous sales around the $7 mark, as we're seeing tonight

Well to me there was really only one $7-range sale today. One of those LLLL.com that I posted (which I almost didn't post) did not have the very CRUCIAL "LLLL" or "LLLL.com" in the title (yeah yeah call it an excuse again Snoop). I guarantee you if the seller of that $7 ASYJ.com sale put "LLLL" in the title then I would not have won it for $7.50.... it most likely would have sold for $20+. Who wouldn't have bought it for much more than $7.50? It starts with two of the best letters A and S! Y and J ain't too shabby either..

Haha, thanks Daniel

Made a link: http://www.llll.com/definition-of-llll-com/

Awesome ... it will surely be used.

 

[snoop]

Please show me one example of this argument on the forums. I don't necessarily doubt you, I just have never seen someone refute the words' meaning for this market like I just did and would like to see what you are talking about. Thanks.

Note the posts by Michael, it goes on for about 10 pages though, good example of someone trying to redefine minimum as an average to ignore the lowest sales,

http://www.namepros.com/429599-lll-com-sales-report-evaluation-thread-33.html

Example,

The term "minimum wholesale" refers to the average sale price. There can only be one average, just as there is only one min wholesale for a category of domains.

 

[Nem0]

Note the posts by Michael, it goes on for about 10 pages though, good example of someone trying to redefine minimum as an average to ignore the lowest sales,

http://www.namepros.com/429599-lll-com-sales-report-evaluation-thread-33.html

Example,

Thanks I'll take a gander at it in a bit, am curious to see what others have to say about it.

*

I took a look at many of those posts and they are not really on par with what I was saying nor concordant with what I was asking for, sorry. My thoughts were more along the lines of discounting the name from domaining period as it really has no use here (to me). I can understand using the word minimum and it's definition going back to the 1800s or even back decades like it was originally intended within certain marketplaces but am not so sure the word really even fits in with domaining. Like krx just said, "I don't think sales conducted under the worst circumstances, as you say, have any meaning or value to domainers trying to assess what is and isn't a good deal, what they might be able to expect for their domains, and who are trying to map the value trends of the market" .. and that sums it up real well (to me). I surely don't and never will base my buying of LLLL.com, my selling of LLLL.com and my research of what to expect of certain LLLL.com on the rare $3 "eBay" sale that only sold that much to begin with because the seller can't correctly make a title, nor will I base anything on the very rare $7-something sales when 95% of similar names sell for much much more. They mean nothing to me, nor does the word "minimum" anymore. When we start having several sales per day in the $3 or $7-range or whatever, then it will mean something to me. The word minimum is tired, old and out-of-touch with domaining and does nothing for sales or research (to me).

(but keep in mind, although I bought my first domain in 1997 I am still quite the "noob" when it comes to domaining as I only got into this a bit over a year ago... so take my opinion for what it's worth )

By the way I did read all of those posts already while they were going on live, in fact I made this comment: "Some excellent posts, Michael -- each one of your counters the last few pages were dead-on." on the 29th while it was still going on. But I don't recall anyone bringing up a discounting of the name like I was.

No biggie... was just rambling about it anyway.

Peace

 

[krx]

Well to me there was really only one $7-range sale today. One of those LLLL.com that I posted (which I almost didn't post) did not have the very CRUCIAL "LLLL" or "LLLL.com" in the title (yeah yeah call it an excuse again Snoop). I guarantee you if the seller of that $7 ASYJ.com sale put "LLLL" in the title then I would not have won it for $7.50.... it most likely would have sold for $20+. Who wouldn't have bought it for much more than $7.50? It starts with two of the best letters A and S! Y and J ain't too shabby either..

That is a good example of what I'm talking about. We'll have to see how things shake out over the week to be sure.

I surely don't and never will base my buying of LLLL.com, my selling of LLLL.com and my research of what to expect of certain LLLL.com on the rare $3 "eBay" sale that only sold that much to begin with because the seller can't correctly make a title, nor will I base anything on the very rare $7-something sales when 95% of similar names sell for much much more. They mean nothing to me, nor does the word "minimum" anymore. When we start having several sales per day in the $3 or $7-range or whatever, then it will mean something to me. The word minimum is tired, old and out-of-touch with domaining and does nothing for sales or research (to me).

Well said. But I think the term "minimum" has only become so useless because of the very strange thing that has happened to it in this thread. I find it a very useful index or parameter for buying and selling, and I think all it needs is a little clarity to restore it's usefulness for those purposes.

I'm on the fence on this, on one hand take those lowest sales yesterday, look at the quality relatively speaking,

UMTQ.com $7.00
ASYJ.com $7.50

Those are a long way from the bottom in my view. Having said that though all the worst quality names have now been through the renewal cycle so it would make sense that the lowest value names should be higher quality combinations than a month or two ago.

What I would say thoough is nothing has really changed in the market since the $2-$3 sales, it is just that people have paid a renewal fee and those names are now worth $10.

The buyout was Nov 2. It can take up to two months or more so I think we've still got some time before the bulk of the buyout drops cycle through (someone correct me if I'm wrong). So that doesn't explain the increase, which is probably just what most here have said, a natural upward trend.

But it seems to me you're guilty here of what your accusing others of (isn't that always the case?): redefining the meaning of minimum. The minimum is the lowest expectable price. It doesn't matter how much the seller may have invested in the domain. You have to keep the term of reg that remains more-or-less constant and compare apples to apples. It was $2 to $3 before (exc regfee), to use your figures, and it's $7 to $10 now (exc regfee). Thus the minimum has increased at least 5 bucks.

 

[Nem0]

Well said. But I think the term "minimum" has only become so useless because of the very strange thing that has happened to it in this thread. I find it a very useful index or parameter for buying and selling, and I think all it needs is a little clarity to restore it's usefulness for those purposes.

Cool. My opinions are flexible and I can see your point as well as agree on the word needing clarity. But again, I'll never take seriously one $3 sale per week at such an unpredictable venue like "eBay" until it is very common - that's why I don't see the dictionary definition of the word 'minimum' fitting in with domain research much at these places. I think I like terms such as "minimum wholesale" or "resell" applied to domains a whole lot better than just the word "minimum" and its' exact dictionary definition.

"The smallest or least value within a distribution of numeric values is the Minimum"
"The minimum is the smallest value present for this marker among all of the participants in the group being compared"
If someone applies these definitions to one or two super-low sales each week at "eBay" then it means nothing to me, nor does the word.

 

[ecalc]

It was $2 to $3 before (exc regfee), to use your figures, and it's $7 to $10 now (exc regfee). Thus the minimum has increased at least 5 bucks.

Pack of 5 LLLL.com (VUZQ, GJUQ, HSUQ, QPUI & QGUH) sold for $43.78 (about $8.70 ea)

These names expire Sep/Oct 2009, registrar answerable, free push. Seven day auction ended Sunday evening 18:00:00 PST 16-Nov-2008. Search friendly terms "4 LETTER - LLLL - .COM" in title. Seller feedback (1028) 100% positive. Auction page viewed 136 times.

 

[Nem0]

These names expire Sep/Oct 2009, registrar answerable, free push. Seven day auction ended Sunday evening 18:00:00 PST 16-Nov-2008. Search friendly terms "4 LETTER - LLLL - .COM" in title. Seller feedback (1028) 100% positive. Auction page viewed 136 times.

Yeah thanks -- I knew all that when I posted the sale and researched the names. Thanks again for that "BULK SALE" analysis though. Just one more variable at an unstable venue which really means squat. Gotta go by single sales IMO.

$8.70 per really isn't too bad though for bulk.

 

[Nem0]

Made a link: http://www.llll.com/definition-of-llll-com/

I just went through all "LLLL" listings and sent warnings out to the sellers who had LLLL in title but who are not selling 4-letter names. "Primodomains" was by far the biggest culprit with 30+ such auctions, so if that's you (yeah you) then please quit it in future listings or eBay will be receiving some Primocomplaints about you

 

[-REECE-]

Thanks Daniel

Hopefully no Primocomplaints will need to be sent :D

I just went through all "LLLL" listings and sent warnings out to the sellers who had LLLL in title but who are not selling 4-letter names. "Primodomains" was by far the biggest culprit with 30+ such auctions, so if that's you (yeah you) then please quit it in future listings or eBay will be receiving some Primocomplaints about you

 

[Nem0]

Thanks Daniel

Hopefully no Primocomplaints will need to be sent :D

For sure And if any of them do respond to me or my friends we'll refer them to your new page.

I left one sale out on purpose, I will post it later.. just making sure it gets finalized.

There was one more bulk package of 5 LLLL.com names that ended yesterday on eBay for $29.99, they were: EOYT, ZYSF, AYWZ, AOXV & AVXM. I didn't want to mention the deal earlier since it was a fairly new seller and I didn't want to spook him if he read this, plus I wanted to receive the names first(which I did just now). Pretty good deal I think, even though they all expire next month (lots of neat-o names that start with A though; AVXM-Audio Video Exchange Market? EOYT-Entrepreneur Of the Year Trophy? :D ). Yeah yeah the names come out to $6-per but again, the seller didn't have "LLLL" or "LLLL.com" in the title and if he did it most likely would have gotten other bids (mine was the only bid).

 

[Andrei P.]

when analyzing eBay sales I also noted that domains listed at domain registrars others than GoDaddy and Snapnames are selling much worse. Just imagine that there are 10 active bidders now for 1 domain. Domain is at NameCheap. 8 of bidders backed off because they didn't want to set up account at yet another domain registrar... 2 bidders left but they are also not very eager to pay more for the name that is connected with additional hassle. I snatched such a name just for renewal+2$ a week ago

+ also min. price should be calculated for the name with 1 full year. It's not fare to compare XJVQ.com sold in 2007 for 10$ and re-sold (without renewing) in 2008 for 3$ and tell that prices dropped. Of course seller has loss - 7$. But buyer doesn't get the same domain. This doesn't reflect domain value. 7$ is a maintenance costs of the domain. We do not take into consideration parking revenue either. And it's a problem of seller if he had not monetized the domain in one way or another. I do monetize my domains. All my renewals are successfully paid by end-user sales (mostly) + parking (I still have additional low $xxxx yearly for my renewals from parking!). Not only paid but also I could pay for 2.5 years in advance

So in comparison with November 2007 I would say that prices in November 2008 are the same This is still bad, but this is not a catastrophe, especially taking into consideration what happened in 2008 to the whole world.

Panic-mongers must be executed by shooting during times of crisis. But I see that moderator here is too liberal. Can I say f**k off? Because there are some 'guests' who think they can come to LLLL.com house on a regular basis to shit in the middle of room, and they think it's normal. You must be at least an owner of this house in order to shit here.

 

[Federer]

Please keep this thread clean of insulting terms and words in respect of some of us.

Thank you.

 

[Dean]

I agree with Ergo, considering the worldwide economic catastrophe I still think LLLL.com are going good and we will see some nice reseller prices by around April next year.

 

[-REECE-]

Andrei,

We can all agree to disagree on LLLL.coms, however everyone is welcome in this section and is appreciated by many (if not most) members here who want to hear both sides of the story. I know this because I've had many members here tell me they appreciate Snoop's differing opinion and how the Short Domain section doesn't try to force the ideals some of us have on everyone else.

Let's please try to keep the language suitable for minors. I don't want to have to edit anyone's posts and please don't let different investment strategies chosen divide this short domain community. Snoop, ecalc, gazzip, Steve, etc who come in from time to time to share their opinion collectively bring a lot of domaining experience to the table and there's plenty we can all learn from them.

Pleasing everyone is a fine balance -- I prefer not to edit/delete/interfere with discussion unless absolutely necessary (eg. illegal/inappropriate content).

I'll make but one request, let's agree to disagree on min wholesale and all try to bring this thread back to what the thread was originally created for and what I think Lorenzo intended it to be about -- ALL LLLL.coms, not just the minimum wholesale

Does that sound fair to everyone?

when analyzing eBay sales I also noted that domains listed at domain registrars others than GoDaddy and Snapnames are selling much worse. Just imagine that there are 10 active bidders now for 1 domain. Domain is at NameCheap. 8 of bidders backed off because they didn't want to set up account at yet another domain registrar... 2 bidders left but they are also not very eager to pay more for the name that is connected with additional hassle. I snatched such a name just for renewal+2$ a week ago

+ also min. price should be calculated for the name with 1 full year. It's not fare to compare XJVQ.com sold in 2007 for 10$ and re-sold (without renewing) in 2008 for 3$ and tell that prices dropped. Of course seller has loss - 7$. But buyer doesn't get the same domain. This doesn't reflect domain value. 7$ is a maintenance costs of the domain. We do not take into consideration parking revenue either. And it's a problem of seller if he had not monetized the domain in one way or another. I do monetize my domains. All my renewals are successfully paid by end-user sales (mostly) + parking (I still have additional low $xxxx yearly for my renewals from parking!). Not only paid but also I could pay for 2.5 years in advance

So in comparison with November 2007 I would say that prices in November 2008 are the same This is still bad, but this is not a catastrophe, especially taking into consideration what happened in 2008 to the whole world.

Panic-mongers must be executed by shooting during times of crisis. But I see that moderator here is too liberal. Can I say **** off? Because there are some 'guests' who think they can come to LLLL.com house on a regular basis to shit in the middle of room, and they think it's normal. You must be at least an owner of this house in order to shit here.

 

[Andrei P.]

Please keep this thread clean of insulting terms and words in respect of some of us.

Thank you.

Sometimes polite words said with smile on face insult more than rude words. Look at intentions hidden under the words. We are here all shareholders of one big building - LLLL.com and it's not surprise that we want to be clean. We can invite guests here. But I don't like someone coming here to tell me that everything what we build is not worth a cent. Why this guest is insulting us in our house intentionally on a regular basis even not being paid to do this - i don't care. He doesn't one any LLLL.com so he must not care about them. The same as I don't care about other domain niches. The only thing I want is not to see him here if the only thing he wants to do to take every chance of diminishing value of LLLL.com.

ps. And it's not only a game. This game is connected with money. And if each word of this guest costs me even 1$ why should we suffer him at our cost?

 

[thetruman]

I agree with Ergo points (apart from swear words that are not necessary mate), as I see often some "ad art" provoking posts.
In fact I really do not see a point just to came over this particular thread to spread JUST negative points, with biased points of view.
An Ergo is right when he comments about not being a game (this is not my particular case, but many people get a living out of domaining and I understand that this can become more then irritating).
Said that I read with interest all post in this section, also the "other side of the coin" ones: unfortunately, for somebody this coin have the same sad face on both sides...

 

[Semtex]

And it's not only a game. This game is connected with money. And if each word of this guest costs me even 1$ why should we suffer him at our cost?

I agree with Ergo here. I understand stating the bad as well as the good in any investment. But when the person has no investing interest in the topic he or she is talking about, then their view is not valid IMO. It seems like a waste of time to keep cleaning a house you don't live in.

P.S. Ergo's "bad" words were necessary to get his point a cross IMO. Someone who says doo-doo or poopy cannot be takin' seriously in my book.

:imho:

 

[Nem0]

I'll make but one request, let's agree to disagree on min wholesale and all try to bring this thread back to what the thread was originally created for and what I think Lorenzo intended it to be about -- ALL LLLL.coms, not just the minimum wholesale

Does that sound fair to everyone?

Sounds fair to me! (as long as everyone else plays fair )

You must be at least an owner of this house in order to shit here.

Gotta admit that there ^ was dang funny though... and yet so true! How can one who doesn't even dabble in the niche, who doesn't get down and dirty with these low-end LLLL.com by actively buying and selling them themselves have any kind of relevant input when all they do is observe and then post a couple of the lowest sales per week that they had nothing even to do with!

Hehe boiling points eh? Funny stuff.

Good points also being made about this not being a game, that people's cold hard cash is on the line for many.

I guess the main reason I can't stand seeing these occasional attempts at llll.com degradation is just because of any new domainers that may come along and shy-away from the niche by reading a couple of those negative posts (that often seem oh so convincing).