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.
Gather around boys and girls. I want to tell you a story. My last sale was arabica.org. It went to auction with NO reserve. The last bidder won it after 24 hours with a bid of only $55. $55! Let's just say I bought it for MUCH more than that. If I believed that bidding on my domain was OK to do, then I could have bid it up to $100 and likely got it back no problem. BUT I did not. And of course I still wouldn't do it now or in the future. I took the risk in the hopes of the reward of more bidders. That's business. I'm not going to sacrifice the integrity of how I conduct my business, period!

Always a risk. If your willing to take that risk go no reserve. If ya think not a good idea then add a reserve. At the end of the day a loss isn't a waste as long as ya learn from it and having good ethics is a good business model. (y)
 
3
•••
As an official statement from NameJet – our policy is clear that sellers cannot bid on their own domains, period. The integrity of our platform is of utmost importance to us and we do not condone shill bidding of any kind. From an ethical standpoint, it is unfair to the other participants, and from a practical standpoint, a few extra dollars on a few sales is simply not worth the potential damage to our reputation and business. Again, our stance is clear and we take immediate action whenever we have any reason to believe that there is inappropriate activity occurring on the platform. Bottom line – we take these matters very seriously!

With that said, it is my understanding that Andy and James Booth are not the sellers or current owners of the domains at issue. Andy did own them recently, but per him (both to me privately and in this thread) the domains are no longer his to sell, and he was interested in reacquiring them at what he felt were good prices. However, the WHOIS still reflects Andy as the registrant and that has made this whole thing confusing and problematic.

And while I have no reason to dispute Andy’s claims, we will cancel the remaining auctions involving these domains. To put things in perspective, there are not many domains involved, so it is not some large coordinated campaign to improperly inflate auction values. And it looks like they won nearly all of those domains auctioned, which further speaks to their legitimate interest in them – and for anyone negatively impacted we will look to address that.

Moreover, we will take steps to further outline and clarify our rules around this over the next few weeks to help eliminate any ongoing confusion. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate and monitor this issue (as well as any others brought to our attention) to determine if any further action is necessary.

Thanks everyone and have a good evening.

-Jonathan
GM, NameJet
 
0
•••
That's why Rick Schwartz is best domainer of all time!!!

true
if he wasn't domainer
he'd have the best drama tv show of all time
better than the simpsons
that's how good he is
 
1
•••
I wanted to say something (share my findings on whois/ips/dns and generic opinion) a few pages ago, but elected not to - as it would be better to wait until NameJet, who should be the only "judge" here, returns back to this thread and posts their findings.

Indeed, without their findings, we the forum members are all in specific postion of Cassandra trying to make too many predictions. Just imagine for a moment, what if the statement of both brothers are correct and they indeed do not own domains in question, nor they asked somebody to list the domains on their behalf?

Many members (myself included) already decided for themselves what really happened and how, but isn't it too early to make our findings public before we hear from NameJet, who is also participating in this thread?

For for the sake of clarity, I have never met or dealt with either brother, and I did not bid @ NameJet on any domains in question. I am simply trying to be as fair as possible....

A suggestion to NameJet: IF you find that bidding activity in auctions in question included one or more bids that should have never appeared in the first place, please do not restart auctions and please do not withdraw domains from your lists. YOU allowed this bad thing to happen. YOU have to fix. The only way to fix it - still saving face and everything else - would be to stop auctions right now and award domains in question to the latest highest legitimate bidders, those highest bidders who made their bid before illegitimate bid appeared. Yes, it may even be below expected market value. Fine. And this would also be a perfect lesson to any customer who may be planning to try to abuse the system in future.

EDIT: I noticed that NameJet posted their response in about the same time I made my post. I'd say that NameJets investigation is not yet completed. One would expect much more facts and analysis, up to IPs/Logins/Docs/Sellers payee account/Sellers w9 tax form, or at least an outcome of such an analysis.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
"It is my understanding", isn't very convincing.

Either it is known who owned the names or you do not know and we would hope you will provide that info when you figure it out later. They could have quickly played a game and transferred them to their nextdoor neighbor for all we know.
 
5
•••
With that said, it is my understanding that Andy and James Booth are not the sellers or current owners of the domains at issue. Andy did own them recently, but per him (both to me privately and in this thread) the domains are no longer his to sell, and he was interested in reacquiring them at what he felt were good prices. However, the WHOIS still reflects Andy as the registrant and that has made this whole thing confusing and problematic.
-Jonathan
GM, NameJet

The above just doesn't smell right at all. Seems to me you verified the truthfulness of him not owning the domain based on his words. What are the facts? When exactly did those domains change hands, and WHO owns them now -- and this who MUST be the one who is auctioning those domains right now.

I cannot auction my domain without changing my registrant AND prove I own it by either changing the registrant's email or changing the records in the domain's records themselves. So how in the world could the current owner(s) able to put their domains in auction without even changing the registrant's info?
 
Last edited:
14
•••
Let me be the first. I call BULLSH*T. Like it if you feel the same! We're not that gullible.

Namejet is about to topple Flippa as Shill Kings Platform.

If you really want to investigate, you'd look at all the auctions they have bids on before also. What's the odds of transferring domain names on several domains and not having the Whois updated. If they used Escrow it's one criteria for a fund release.


As an official statement from NameJet – our policy is clear that sellers cannot bid on their own domains, period. The integrity of our platform is of utmost importance to us and we do not condone shill bidding of any kind. From an ethical standpoint, it is unfair to the other participants, and from a practical standpoint, a few extra dollars on a few sales is simply not worth the potential damage to our reputation and business. Again, our stance is clear and we take immediate action whenever we have any reason to believe that there is inappropriate activity occurring on the platform. Bottom line – we take these matters very seriously!

With that said, it is my understanding that Andy and James Booth are not the sellers or current owners of the domains at issue. Andy did own them recently, but per him (both to me privately and in this thread) the domains are no longer his to sell, and he was interested in reacquiring them at what he felt were good prices. However, the WHOIS still reflects Andy as the registrant and that has made this whole thing confusing and problematic.

And while I have no reason to dispute Andy’s claims, we will cancel the remaining auctions involving these domains. To put things in perspective, there are not many domains involved, so it is not some large coordinated campaign to improperly inflate auction values. And it looks like they won nearly all of those domains auctioned, which further speaks to their legitimate interest in them – and for anyone negatively impacted we will look to address that.

Moreover, we will take steps to further outline and clarify our rules around this over the next few weeks to help eliminate any ongoing confusion. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate and monitor this issue (as well as any others brought to our attention) to determine if any further action is necessary.

Thanks everyone and have a good evening.

-Jonathan
GM, NameJet
 
10
•••
@NameJetGM

it is my understanding that Andy and James Booth are not the sellers or current owners of the domains at issue. Andy did own them recently, but per him (both to me privately and in this thread) the domains are no longer his to sell

As the GM of NameJet I would like to think that you have access to the information of who the actual seller of these domains is! Why is it an "understanding" and "per him" the domains are not his. If they aren't his and were listed by someone else, I would like to think that you as the GM would be able to verify that? Please do!

What am I missing here?
 
5
•••
NJ
You replied way too early...
A couple email exchanges isn't enough...
Go Investigate this thoroughly...PLEASE.
 
4
•••
Hi all,

Sorry if I wasn't clear - they are definitely not the seller of the domains. It is 100% a different seller.

Thanks,

-Jonathan
 
0
•••
As an official statement from NameJet – our policy is clear that sellers cannot bid on their own domains, period. The integrity of our platform is of utmost importance to us and we do not condone shill bidding of any kind. From an ethical standpoint, it is unfair to the other participants, and from a practical standpoint, a few extra dollars on a few sales is simply not worth the potential damage to our reputation and business. Again, our stance is clear and we take immediate action whenever we have any reason to believe that there is inappropriate activity occurring on the platform. Bottom line – we take these matters very seriously!

With that said, it is my understanding that Andy and James Booth are not the sellers or current owners of the domains at issue. Andy did own them recently, but per him (both to me privately and in this thread) the domains are no longer his to sell, and he was interested in reacquiring them at what he felt were good prices. However, the WHOIS still reflects Andy as the registrant and that has made this whole thing confusing and problematic.

And while I have no reason to dispute Andy’s claims, we will cancel the remaining auctions involving these domains. To put things in perspective, there are not many domains involved, so it is not some large coordinated campaign to improperly inflate auction values. And it looks like they won nearly all of those domains auctioned, which further speaks to their legitimate interest in them – and for anyone negatively impacted we will look to address that.

Moreover, we will take steps to further outline and clarify our rules around this over the next few weeks to help eliminate any ongoing confusion. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate and monitor this issue (as well as any others brought to our attention) to determine if any further action is necessary.

Thanks everyone and have a good evening.

-Jonathan
GM, NameJet
Did they provide proof of an actual sale or are you just accepting them at their word? @NameJetGM

My account was suspended 6 years ago, due to the fact that I won a domain name, failed to pay (from being in the hospital for almost a month). I tried to provide documents proving what I was saying was fact, considering you didn't accept my word, which went ignored.

Fast tracking to present day, I wanted to have my account re-instated, you guys requested $2,500 in order to do so, a non-refundable deposit, fast forward again 6 months later and you all allowed me to re-open it for $250 non-refundable deposit.

I wish my word was taken at face value. And seeing how you are handling this only at their word, I kind of wish I didn't fund my account knowing that some people are going to be able to get away with whatever they want, all depending on their profile in the industry. Ridiculous.
 
13
•••
As an official statement from NameJet – our policy is clear that sellers cannot bid on their own domains, period. The integrity of our platform is of utmost importance to us and we do not condone shill bidding of any kind. From an ethical standpoint, it is unfair to the other participants, and from a practical standpoint, a few extra dollars on a few sales is simply not worth the potential damage to our reputation and business. Again, our stance is clear and we take immediate action whenever we have any reason to believe that there is inappropriate activity occurring on the platform. Bottom line – we take these matters very seriously!

With that said, it is my understanding that Andy and James Booth are not the sellers or current owners of the domains at issue. Andy did own them recently, but per him (both to me privately and in this thread) the domains are no longer his to sell, and he was interested in reacquiring them at what he felt were good prices. However, the WHOIS still reflects Andy as the registrant and that has made this whole thing confusing and problematic.

And while I have no reason to dispute Andy’s claims, we will cancel the remaining auctions involving these domains. To put things in perspective, there are not many domains involved, so it is not some large coordinated campaign to improperly inflate auction values. And it looks like they won nearly all of those domains auctioned, which further speaks to their legitimate interest in them – and for anyone negatively impacted we will look to address that.

Moreover, we will take steps to further outline and clarify our rules around this over the next few weeks to help eliminate any ongoing confusion. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate and monitor this issue (as well as any others brought to our attention) to determine if any further action is necessary.

Thanks everyone and have a good evening.

-Jonathan
GM, NameJet
Disappointed in your statement, NameJet. You said nothing substantially new here. You should be able to check in your system on what account is indeed selling those domains. By how you explained it to us here, you are merely asking people and not verifying the records. If you did so, then explain better and elaborate more.
 
6
•••
As an official statement from NameJet – our policy is clear that sellers cannot bid on their own domains, period. The integrity of our platform is of utmost importance to us and we do not condone shill bidding of any kind. From an ethical standpoint, it is unfair to the other participants, and from a practical standpoint, a few extra dollars on a few sales is simply not worth the potential damage to our reputation and business. Again, our stance is clear and we take immediate action whenever we have any reason to believe that there is inappropriate activity occurring on the platform. Bottom line – we take these matters very seriously!

With that said, it is my understanding that Andy and James Booth are not the sellers or current owners of the domains at issue. Andy did own them recently, but per him (both to me privately and in this thread) the domains are no longer his to sell, and he was interested in reacquiring them at what he felt were good prices. However, the WHOIS still reflects Andy as the registrant and that has made this whole thing confusing and problematic.

And while I have no reason to dispute Andy’s claims, we will cancel the remaining auctions involving these domains. To put things in perspective, there are not many domains involved, so it is not some large coordinated campaign to improperly inflate auction values. And it looks like they won nearly all of those domains auctioned, which further speaks to their legitimate interest in them – and for anyone negatively impacted we will look to address that.

Moreover, we will take steps to further outline and clarify our rules around this over the next few weeks to help eliminate any ongoing confusion. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate and monitor this issue (as well as any others brought to our attention) to determine if any further action is necessary.

Thanks everyone and have a good evening.

-Jonathan
GM, NameJet

I have spend hundreds of thousands of dollars @ NJ. This response does not sit right with me. It calls into question the integrity of the auction process itself.

I am sorry but the facts are that the whois shows Andy Booth. Why are both Booth brothers bidding on domains that are still in their WHOIS info?

Were you provided any records to show the domains were actually sold? Why was the WHOIS never updated?

I think you need to come up with a better answer than that.

Brad
 
21
•••
Who is the seller then?

Can you connect the seller to the Brothers?

Does the seller say he indeed purchased these names in question from them?
 
7
•••
#boothgate or #namejetgate or #broothbrothersnamejetgate ? Or just simply, #domaingate ?
 
6
•••
Disappointed in your statement, NameJet. You said nothing substantially new here. You should be able to check in your system on what account is indeed selling those domains. By how you explained it to us here, you are merely asking people and not verifying the records. If you did so, then explain better and elaborate more.

I followed up with another comment. Sorry if I wasn't clear initially - they are definitely not the seller of the domains.
 
0
•••
Can I Bid on my Own Auction? – Flippa Help Center
No. This is called shill bidding and is grounds for permanent suspension.
The seller may not bid on his or her own auction. This includes bids placed using a second user account.

Shill bidding policy - eBay
Shill bidding happens when anyone—including family, friends, roommates, employees, or online connections—bids on an item with the intent to artificially increase its price or desirability.

Shill bidders - not welcome at Trade Me | Trade Me
Shill bidding is where sellers use memberships of people they know, or fake memberships they have created, to put false bids on auctions in an attempt to bid up the price of goods they are selling.

 
3
•••
Have the domain owners come forward to clear this up, it's that simple.

If there actually is someone who bought these domains then they should speak up and provide proof of transaction / transfer.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
I followed up with another comment. Sorry if I wasn't clear initially - they are definitely not the seller of the domains.
Are you being serious with this post? We all know they weren't the seller on NameJet, what we are all concerned about is the obvious... Did they transfer the domain to another account in order to be auctioned, so they themselves can shill bid on the auction or do you have verifiable information to assure us all that they did in fact sell the domains to another party and are now trying to take advantage of the fact that its at a no reserve auction and trying to get them back cheap?

Also, the fact that you cancelled the auctions shows some type of admission of guilt.... why take them down if nothing is wrong? If they verified they actually sold the domains?

Can you go into more detail on how you verified, well... anything here?
 
7
•••
Hi all,

Sorry if I wasn't clear - they are definitely not the seller of the domains. It is 100% a different seller.

Thanks,

-Jonathan
Then tell us how in the world could this seller of the domains able to auction on your site without changing the registrant info, which is the ultimate indicator of the one who can indeed sell the domains? Don't you do proof of ownership?
 
5
•••
I have spend hundreds of thousands of dollars @ NJ. This response does not sit right with me. It calls into question the integrity of the auction process itself.

I am sorry but the facts are that the whois shows Andy Booth. Why are both Booth brothers bidding on domains that are still in their WHOIS info?

Were you provided any records to show the domains were actually sold? Why was the WHOIS never updated?

I think you need to come up with a better answer than that.

Brad

Hi Brad,

First of all, thank you for your business.

And we are continuing to look at this in order to verify the facts and cancelling any ongoing auctions in the meantime to make sure no one is negatively impacted. We do not tolerate any kind of shill bidding at all, so you can rest assured that our auction processes in general are not compromised.

Thanks again,

-Jonathan
 
0
•••
Boy you sure are contradicting yourself... Either you're done investigating this or you're not. Seems to me your first statement earlier said you already finished and accessed the penalties.

This is going to turn out bad for NameJet. And I am almost certain, you will end up without a job.
For your sake..get this right before it's too late. And don't base it on the words of the perpetrators.

Hi Brad,

First of all, thank you for your business.

And we are continuing to look at this in order to verify the facts and cancelling any ongoing auctions in the meantime to make sure no one is negatively impacted. We do not tolerate any kind of shill bidding at all, so you can rest assured that our auction processes in general are not compromised.

Thanks again,

-Jonathan
 
Last edited:
3
•••
1
•••
As an official statement from NameJet – our policy is clear that sellers cannot bid on their own domains, period. The integrity of our platform is of utmost importance to us and we do not condone shill bidding of any kind. From an ethical standpoint, it is unfair to the other participants, and from a practical standpoint, a few extra dollars on a few sales is simply not worth the potential damage to our reputation and business. Again, our stance is clear and we take immediate action whenever we have any reason to believe that there is inappropriate activity occurring on the platform. Bottom line – we take these matters very seriously!

With that said, it is my understanding that Andy and James Booth are not the sellers or current owners of the domains at issue. Andy did own them recently, but per him (both to me privately and in this thread) the domains are no longer his to sell, and he was interested in reacquiring them at what he felt were good prices. However, the WHOIS still reflects Andy as the registrant and that has made this whole thing confusing and problematic.

And while I have no reason to dispute Andy’s claims, we will cancel the remaining auctions involving these domains. To put things in perspective, there are not many domains involved, so it is not some large coordinated campaign to improperly inflate auction values. And it looks like they won nearly all of those domains auctioned, which further speaks to their legitimate interest in them – and for anyone negatively impacted we will look to address that.

Moreover, we will take steps to further outline and clarify our rules around this over the next few weeks to help eliminate any ongoing confusion. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate and monitor this issue (as well as any others brought to our attention) to determine if any further action is necessary.

Thanks everyone and have a good evening.

-Jonathan
GM, NameJet

Isn't it Namejet's policy to ensure a domain is owned by the person listing it via Whois?
 
5
•••
If anyone has any more info and you aren't sure if you should come forward, PLEASE share - for the sake of the industry there needs to be transparency.
 
0
•••
Back