Dynadot

Bidding on your own names at NameJet...?

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch
Once in awhile I see people bidding on their own domains at NJ. I would think it would be frowned upon.

Today's seems more obvious than normal. Or am I missing something here?

Airlinejobs.com owned by Andy Booth at Booth.com and high bidder is BQDNcom (James Booth).

3 bids down we see Boothcom as a bidder.

Same thing with MovieZone.com. Owned by Andy Booth in which he currently appears to be the high bidder.

High Bid: $2,475 USD by boothcom

They actually won their own domain airplanesforsale.com. Im guessing it didnt get as high as they wanted so needed to protect it.

Bidder Amount Date
bqdncom $2,001 7/17/2017 12:23 PM
boothcom $1,950 7/17/2017 12:23 PM
 
44
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
EDIT: (I obviously started writing my last reply way before you posted this last message)

So Andrew just jumped the gun with a vague idea and seems like he has nothing to do with this activity.
Though I never accused him, I apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Your's and other's insinuations were damaging enough.

From the very start he said he was exploring the idea in order to make domain auctions better.

Without even a shred of evidence it was completely wrong to even openly assume anything even remotely of the such. Your language and insinuations were borderline at best (on the wrong side of the border) .. other people's accusations were significantly more inappropriate.

What's worse is that for the most part people don't read through the middle of extended discussions like this. By the time it's all over people will miss the tiny little post in the middle saying that he indeed was not involved.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
All these statements and disparaging remarks you've made so far and you didn't even have any evidence to back it up or even his email handles?

You simply can't go around making ignorant accusations and insinuations like you have without anything but your feeling to back it up.

If you listen to most @DomainSherpa shows in their entirety you'll find they they regularly state that what they say is their opinion. I'll go one step further and say they they don't even really need to do that .. because they ARE ENTITLED to their opinions .. whether right or wrong or more lilely .. somewhere in between. They regularly "recommend" things. They often state how they don't know things for sure .. and even laugh at themselves when they are wrong. There is absolutely ZERO basis in merit stating they anybody there actively is out to deceive anyone. If you have proof .. bring it up .. if you suspect something then tread very lightly and investigate without making false accusations that you cannot backup .. if you end up finding proof then fine .. make your accusations ... but making false accusation and insinuations is akin and equal or worse in severity to what you're accusing them of.

@Domain Shane .. you owe absolutely ZERO explanations/justifications to anyone. You reiterate so often that what you say is OPINION that can and even sometimes WILL be wrong that it's almost silly. How anybody could ever blame you for being misleading is beyond insane.

@MediaOptions often goes off on tangent and explores random thoughts based on in the moment ideas that developed during the discussions. He tends to ramble on and CAN sound convincing because he often follows up his ideas with examples and facts (something ironically lacking here from those speaking against him and @Michael Cyger). But let's be very clear that most of the time, it's very clearly OPINION.

The last time something like this happened Cyger DID take action. Action that hurt his own content as he removed a huge portion of past shows .. but he took action SPECIFICALLY to protect new domainers despite the fact he actually got grief for it and took an obvious SEO hit from losing so much content.

I'm not even stating that anybody/everybody mentioned in this entire thread is innocent .. but it is 100% wrong to make accusations without at least some evidence or proof .. it is also 100% wrong to say it is wrong for people to share their opinions.

All the Sharpas take personal time to share their opinion ... and because of it and other sources of information, I'm now at the point where I actually sometimes even disagree with their opinions from time to time. But even then I grow and learn something based on them discussing something I don't agree with.


It's like earlier on in this thread when Andrew (@MediaOptions) shared his OPINION on how he thinks domain auctions could be changed for the better. The moment said that people rushed to accuse him of all sorts of things not even circumstantial. People conveniently overlooked the fact that he said he was thinking out loud, and even if he did think allowing self-bidding would help the industry, that he in no way thought that was an excuse for the current suspect bidding by the original accused in this thread. He stated the current rules are the current rules .. and should not be broken or circumvented until the rules are actually changed.

What's worse is that the only obvious fact everyone can agree on is that auctions across the domain industry are a mess and changes, reforms and improvements are desperately needed. Open and frank debates throwing out and discussing all sort of crazy ideas is how we can find potential solutions/improvements.

I don't know what portion of my comment you didn't understand.
In the light of shill bidding, do you think Andrew's suggestion on DomainSherpa to a newbie that he can always find comfort that others are bidding on that domain; find any relevance?
There would be a lot of domains inflated by shill bidding, which once bought will have no value.

Was referring to this comment by Andrew.
 
1
•••
Just another observation Ive made going through some of the auctions I won on NameJet over the last 2 years is that hkdn only participates actively in public auctions, all his bids on pre-release or deleted auctions have always been $79.
 
6
•••
I don't know what portion of my comment you didn't understand.
In the light of shill bidding, do you think Andrew's suggestion on DomainSherpa to a newbie that he can always find comfort that others are bidding on that domain; find any relevance?
There would be a lot of domains inflated by shill bidding, which once bought will have no value.

Was referring to this comment by Andrew.

I'd say he has a point really. Especially for a newbie, if there are a lot of under bidders that's going to be a safety net for a future resale. If a newbie get's in to a bidding war with just 1 other bidder then that's a whole different kettle of fish.
 
0
•••
Hey, I just wanted to give an update on my end. I had a conversation with Andrew Rosener and we talked about the situation and why it's so convoluted and frustrating for all parties involved. I made accusations that I shouldn't have, and I would like to publicly retract them and apologize for any harm they have done to Andrew Rosener, Media Options and their employees.

I said things that I shouldn't have, I'm truly sorry for that, and I hope that Andrew can forgive me. We all got heated into this discussion and have tried to find connections where there weren't any. Even if some people have done something wrong, it's not okay to lump others together with guilt by association. So what I said was misguided, I didn't have the answers. I hope that this thread can stay on task in being able to fix the issues at hand, let's stay clear of unfounded personal accusations.

Ultimately I hope that we are able to make amends as a community and sort out these issues.

It's great that you offered a public apology, given your openly, aggressive attack on Mr. Rosener and his company. Hopefully you learned a valuable lesson in attacking someone that openly without having facts to back them up.
 
0
•••
@Hemanttilotia - Is there a reason why you are not responding to any of the posts asking you to clarify the refund you said you got from NameJet, after reporting Oliver's bidding activity in certain auctions? If NameJet did provide you with a refund, that's a significant development in this case, and the nature of this refund and how they dealt with it would serve as a useful reference for other buyers in the same situation.

Here's the questions posed to you about the NameJet refund, would really appreciate if you could expound on your statement about being sent a refund due to Oliver's bidding activities:

Please clarify the nature of the auctions you got refunded for and which of Oliver's bid handle(s) bid you up in these auctions.

How did they determine the amount of money they refunded you for due to unnatural bidding in these auctions?

Was it a partial refund OR a full refund with (or without?) required return of domains in question...

Did they simply sent your payment back, or maybe they agreed to reverse the transaction so that the domain or domains in question are no longer yours?
 
5
•••
hmmmmmm.. is nj seriously at the stage where they're issuing refunds already?
 
0
•••
I don't know what portion of my comment you didn't understand.
In the light of shill bidding, do you think Andrew's suggestion on DomainSherpa to a newbie that he can always find comfort that others are bidding on that domain; find any relevance?
There would be a lot of domains inflated by shill bidding, which once bought will have no value.

Was referring to this comment by Andrew.

Do you honestly think they were thinking shill bidding was serious a problem when they were discussing that ???

No .. they were giving ADVICE to domainers with sub-par domains on how to POSSIBLY improve domain buys in the future.

In fact .. I remember in one of those conversations one of the sharpas even said not to even do that because they didn't think the person in question was ready to recognise the difference between a good and bad domain.

There certainly is some logic in what he is saying (even if I personally wouldn't do it). what they were saying was essentially that it is better to buy a commodity that is in demand. Which is a basic fundamental fact of economics.

Again .. you are 100% completely wrong to state that any person in a free society is not entitled to having or sharing their opinion!

If you were so concerned about his statements before .. why didn't you start a thread and share your concerns before just adding it to the completely unproven circumstances here?

Heck .. I don't have access to NameJet records .. and as such I didn't even say or claim he was innocent. But I can say that it is very very wrong to make false accusation and insinuations of guilt when there are no facts to back it up ... in fact .. it seems some were so in a rush to knock him down that you didn't even care to read the related posts in this thread where he and a couple of us stated that the discussion was purely hypothetical .. he even apologised that this thread was probably not the best place for this discussion .. and even invited a moderator to move those aspects of the discussion (omg .. looking back .. separating this thread between fact and theory would be more complicated than brain surgery .. lol)

Oh wait .. look what I just found .. back on page 10 of this very thread ...

Yes, again, I apologize for getting off topic, the mess is my own fault. It may even make sense for the moderators to separate out my posts from into another thread.

I simply wanted to make a theoretical point about auction processes and how it related to this post. I got off topic and the momentum took the thread even further off topic to the point that people started confusing what I was even saying. By no means am I or did I ever encourage or defend shill bidding. Please read my comments in their entirety to actually understand what I am saying.

Anyhow, I won't comment any further (seriously this time!).
 
1
•••
Why would someone have someone else list their own domains FOR THEM at Name Jet whenyou have your own account and list your own names...? LMFAO

I wish I owned BS.COM. That comment would be at the top of the list....
 
1
•••
0
•••
Playing Judge, Jury and Executioner is very dangerous until all facts are investigated.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Playing Judge, Jury and Executioner is very dangerous until all facts are investigated.

I don't see any playing executioner. just an awareness.

some damn good stats to-boot
 
Last edited:
1
•••
NameJet has denied any wrongdoing, but has refunded me back the amount, in good faith !!

Please repond to me and @Arca - is this true or false?

And if false, WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Thanks.
 
4
•••
0
•••
thanks ezee, lets hope, as been the case so-far that a willingness to acknowledge 'a poor performance' does not get overtaken by a ill-placed sense of defence -
 
0
•••
Last edited:
4
•••
sounds better than their last post here.
but this is a very long way still from ensuring people who were impacted in past for potentially huge sums, are taken care of.
and I hope they will be!
 
0
•••
i personally feel NJ is focused only on selling the name. Meaning no attention is made on shill bidding or anything else. if you want to bid on your name and win it you have to pay them a commision to buy your own name. in the end they win. certainly not policed like other auction houses. also they allow post auction bids from bidders so if it doesnt sell you can hold off on your best bid conact NJ and they will try to negotiate a buy price with you. NJ is a great place to find many names but there are alot of issues. did I mention they hold your funds for 30 days? there is also no clear way to buy one of those banners promoting your portfolio. customer service says its something buyers do themselves but not additional info is given. they will also ask you to lower reserve prices if names dont sell. we have actually never sold a name for a profit on NJ...its good for large portfolio holders looking to sell names for a loss or break even.
 
2
•••
Good job Namepros. Its a start. New domain investors need to be protected from predatory behavior.
 
0
•••
we have actually never sold a name for a profit on NJ...its good for large portfolio holders looking to sell names for a loss or break even.

That's pretty much on you. You set the prices. As far as payment, they pay once a month, on time.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Edited: already announced by @Beezy
 
Last edited:
1
•••
That's pretty much on you. You set the prices.
yes you set the price but NJ approves the domain and the price.
when you list a name and try to sell it agian at the same price namejet may reject your listing and personally ask you to reduce your reserve or get rejected.
So either you lower the price or dont list your name.

NJ also will keep your highest bid and bid history on all domains in their system.
So when a name relists lowering the reserve often triggers a buy from someone who had bid not intended to buy the name trying to see what the reserve is.

they also dont want to bother with small portfolios so they often want you to list hundreds of names at once which they will stagger release dates. Its easy to set a price on a few names and calculate your name minus the commisssion..but when they force you to lower reserves you have to recalculate profits on hundreds of names and make sure you dont sell at a loss. Its easy to let one slip.

all these features are not set to help the domain seller they are forced upon you by namejet. now allow shil bidding and you have the perfect market to just get names sold at a volume and hold hundreds of thousands or millions of commission for a month. as a buyer you have to pay within a few days.

@JB Lions it very much feels like your avatar when you deal with them...
 
0
•••
Good job Namepros. Its a start. New domain investors need to be protected from predatory behavior.

new domain investors, that's a good-one. they don't really exist. any that seen the 4 LLLL (non pronounceable) as an investment need their head examined
 
0
•••
2
•••
they also dont want to bother with small portfolios so they often want you to list hundreds of names at once
??? I've never had to list 'hundreds' at once. Usually 30-40 at a time. Don't know where you got 'hundreds' from.
 
1
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back