discuss What gTLD failed you? For example, you stocked up for nothing.

1 doesn't resolve
1 hasn't been updated in a year
The others, many are the same person/basically same site.

I don't recall saying anywhere that there wasn't any development. Doesn't change the lack of activity in the market. Not just from what I posted, but new stuff Brad posted. It should be more active. You can disagree with that if you want, if that looks good to you.

henrypcyeung said:

If you still insist on the keyword issue, I randomly select a few ngtlds for the keyword "crypto" and find the following websites that are actively used:

• crypto/xyz
• crypto/review
• crypto/games
  
• crypto/press
• crypto/directory

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! How much were these sold for in the aftermarket?

Joe Nichols said:

Thanks for the info! How much were these sold for in the aftermarket?

Click to expand...

You should ask the domain owners. I just showed some websites that are used by end users.

This is even looking bad - https://www.dnjournal.com/ytd-sales-charts.htm

Only see 2 reported new gtld sales in the top 100. The bottom of that is $50,000. All those new gtlds out there, couldn't manage but 2 over $50,000?

How come this isn't getting snapped up for $388, something that sold for $1,500,000 in .com - https://www.namepros.com/threads/russia-xyz-388.1132011/page-5#post-7365454

bmugford said:

Fair enough, but the data is what it is.

The sales of both .COM and new GTLD are judged both in sales volume and total sales.
That is apples to apples.

If anything new extension sales might be over represented when it comes to money flowing to domain investors. Some individual extensions report their premium sales, like .GLOBAL. This is money from the pool not going to domain investors.

Brad

Click to expand...

You are not comparing apples to apples...

What you are doing is like comparing the height of a child (1m tall) to that of an adult (1.8m tall), and then say the child is not impressive...

henrypcyeung said:

You should ask the domain owners. I just showed some websites that are used by end users.

Click to expand...

Oh.... Apologies, I thought you were showing that these types of names sell regularly in the aftermarket.

JB Lions said:

This is even looking bad - https://www.dnjournal.com/ytd-sales-charts.htm

Only see 2 reported new gtld sales in the top 100. The bottom of that is $50,000. All those new gtlds out there, couldn't manage but 2 over $50,000?

How come this isn't getting snapped up for $388, something that sold for $1,500,000 in .com - https://www.namepros.com/threads/russia-xyz-388.1132011/page-5#post-7365454

Click to expand...

You have severe confirmation bias that only look for info that supports your view but ignore other info that opposes your view.

OK, you select the high extremes to support your view. But why not also select the low extremes? Because the low extremes oppose your view? In the bottom 100, there is only 1 ngtld (ash/xyz). Also, the average price of ngtlds are much higher than that of .com as I mentioned before. Please look at all info, not just the small piece of info that makes you feel happy, before making any arguments. .com and ngtlds are two different kinds of markets and have two different game rules. Don't adopt the tactics of playing .com to playing ngtlds.

Regarding the $388 BIN russia/xyz, why don't you also consider the recent sale of sampledoc/xyz ($4,100)? Do you think russia/xyz is inferior to sampledoc/xyz?

henrypcyeung said:

You have severe confirmation bias that only look for info that supports your view but ignore other info that opposes your view.

OK, you select the high extremes to support your view. But why not also select the low extremes? Because the low extremes oppose your view? In the bottom 100, there is only 1 ngtld (ash/xyz). Also, the average price of ngtlds are much higher than that of .com as I mentioned before. Please look at all info, not just the small piece of info that makes you feel happy, before making any arguments. .com and ngtlds are two different kinds of markets and have two different game rules. Don't adopt the tactics of playing .com to playing ngtlds.

Regarding the $388 BIN russia/xyz, why don't you also consider the recent sale of sampledoc/xyz ($4,100)? Do you think russia/xyz is inferior to sampledoc/xyz?

Click to expand...

No, I look at the information at hand. I posted many different sources of data, big sources. The response I usually get is people posting about freak sales, like you just did with the sampledoc/xyz. You literally just contradicted yourself:

"not just the small piece of info that makes you feel happy," That's what you just did with that example.

There was another recent post I made where I posted a chunk of my non .com sales. My views are more based on my personal experience with .com and non .com and the many big sources of data posted in this thread.

Jurgen Wolf said:

Not only mine.
http://singaporedatacompany.com/blog/how-many-domain-names-are-unused

Click to expand...

It is an extremely small sample size (2,188) and the methodology is not robust.

From a 1% surveys run this month, the percentages are:
gTLD - Content - Templated - Redirects - No Content (HTTPS - Internal )
COM: 14.83 - 27.62 - 27.20 - 30.36 (10.06 - 5.29)
NET: 14.29 - 23.22 - 25.20 - 37.30 (6.67 - 4.20)
ORG: 14.58 - 24.50 - 30.51 - 30.41 (8.89 - 5.54)

A 1% survey surveys a random sample of 1% of the domain names in the zone file.

The HTTPS field is the HTTP redirects. These are where the browser is redirected to the secured version of the website. The Internal redirects are where the browser is redirected to an internal page on the website. Both the HTTPS and Internal redirects are already part of the Redirects and that's why they are in brackets.

The Templated Content field covers PPC, Sales and affiliate landers. The No Content field covers holding pages, 404s, unavailable pages, non-responding websites, domain names with no websites. It is part of a simplified classification system that I've been working on.

Some of the new gTLDs have stronger percentages than the legacy gTLDs. Most have not. There has been a shift towards HTTPS in some of the legacy gTLDs.

Regards...jmcc

Most gTLDs have their own geography and what might appear to be a global gTLD will have a few countries dominating the market. If they have been using discounting to drive registration volume then resale value generally declines. Extreme discounting kills development and renewals in gTLDs. Some might be wondering why their single English keyword domain in a new gTLD isn't getting offers. The answer might be that the English language registrations (US/UK/CA/AU/IE/NZ) only account for 50% or less of these NGTs. And that's before the problem of some registries getting high on their own premium supply.

Regards...jmcc

JB Lions said:

No, I look at the information at hand. I posted many different sources of data, big sources. The response I usually get is people posting about freak sales, like you just did with the sampledoc/xyz. You literally just contradicted yourself:

"not just the small piece of info that makes you feel happy," That's what you just did with that example.

There was another recent post I made where I posted a chunk of my non .com sales. My views are more based on my personal experience with .com and non .com and the many big sources of data posted in this thread.

Click to expand...

You still don't know your problems... I am not saying that you are not using big sources. One problem is that you only select the info that supports your views from the big sources, but ignore all other info shown in the big sources that opposes your views. For examples, you just selected number of sales from Namebio, how about average price? You did not mention any about average price because it opposes your view. If considering the average price, your argument is unfounded. Also, you just selected high extremes, how about low extremes and others in the middle?

Another problem is that you do not try to drill down the data to understand the reasons of decrease in number of sales. Did you notice that .top sales from Chinese venues have not be recorded in Namebio since Aug 2019? Obviously no.

I never contradict myself. The purpose of showing sampledoc/xyz is to show that you have confirmation bias. You just posted one .xyz. Why not post more recent .xyz sales to support your argument? Because recent .xyz sales oppose your view? You can easily find that many inferior .xyz domains to russia/xyz were sold for higher than $388 in Namebio. Please check it yourself.

I never post only a single domain or a small piece of info to support my views. I always post some real examples and look at all available data (whole picture) to make my arguments. I am a neutral person that does not blindly support ngtlds. If the whole picture says both number of sales and average price are decreasing for a few years, I will say new gtlds are dying. But, the fact is not.

henrypcyeung said:

You still don't know your problems... I am not saying that you are not using big sources. One problem is that you only select the info that supports your views from the big sources, but ignore all other info shown in the big sources that opposes your views. For examples, you just selected number of sales from Namebio, how about average price? You did not mention any about average price because it opposes your view. If considering the average price, your argument is unfounded. Also, you just selected high extremes, how about low extremes and others in the middle?

Another problem is that you do not try to drill down the data to understand the reasons of decrease in number of sales. Did you notice that .top sales from Chinese venues have not be recorded in Namebio since Aug 2019? Obviously no.

I never contradict myself. The purpose of showing sampledoc/xyz is to show that you have confirmation bias. You just posted one .xyz. Why not post more recent .xyz sales to support your argument? Because recent .xyz sales oppose your view? You can easily find that many inferior .xyz domains to russia/xyz were sold for higher than $388 in Namebio. Please check it yourself.

I never post only a single domain or a small piece of info to support my views. I always post some real examples and look at all available data (whole picture) to make my arguments. I am a neutral person that does not blindly support ngtlds. If the whole picture says both number of sales and average price are decreasing for a few years, I will say new gtlds are dying. But, the fact is not.

Click to expand...

Reg numbers steadying
Overall sales projected to be less than last year
Only 2 out of the top 100 reported sales this year are new gtlds
New startups picking new gtlds at low single digits
Daily sales posted here usually only showing 0 or 1 sale
Hot keywords, random keywords 1 for 200, 3 for 100 with examples used, there should be more activity

New gtlders = this is a bright future. To me that is ridiculous, the data at hand doesn't look good to me. If you see this as some bright future, then that's what you think. We'll just agree to disagree on this one, I'm sure I'll be bumping this thread in the future.

JB Lions said:

Reg numbers steadying

Click to expand...

Registration numbers, due to the stuffing of zone files with discounted registrations, are no longer a reliable metric for some new gTLDs. Even some of the legacy gTLDs are having issues with this. Over the space of a year, numbers of domain names will be deleted and and new ones will be added. The problem is that when discounting gets out of hand. the zone file at the end of the year is very different to that at the start of the year. Some of the new gTLDs were running at around an 80% replacement within a year (of the entire gTLD) during the worst of the discounting. If you don't know exactly what is behind those registrations numbers, then they can give a completely misleading view of a TLD.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc said:

Registration numbers, due to the stuffing of zone files with discounted registrations, are no longer a reliable metric for some new gTLDs. Even some of the legacy gTLDs are having issues with this. Over the space of a year, numbers of domain names will be deleted and and new ones will be added. The problem is that when discounting gets out of hand. the zone file at the end of the year is very different to that at the start of the year. Some of the new gTLDs were running at around an 80% replacement within a year (of the entire gTLD) during the worst of the discounting. If you don't know exactly what is behind those registrations numbers, then they can give a completely misleading view of a TLD.

Regards...jmcc

Click to expand...

Like I said, that's just 1 piece of data. I didn't even mention past numbers where it was 29 million something and now it's 26 million something, those penny regs playing a part. I could add your post to my list, reg numbers due to stuffing of zone files. Which I don't consider a good look either.

JB Lions said:

Reg numbers steadying
Overall sales projected to be less than last year
Only 2 out of the top 100 reported sales this year are new gtlds
New startups picking new gtlds at low single digits
Daily sales posted here usually only showing 0 or 1 sale
Hot keywords, random keywords 1 for 200, 3 for 100 with examples used, there should be more activity

New gtlders = this is a bright future. To me that is ridiculous, the data at hand doesn't look good to me. If you see this as some bright future, then that's what you think. We'll just agree to disagree on this one, I'm sure I'll be bumping this thread in the future.

Click to expand...

I tried to save you by showing the whole picture of ngtlds. If you still are not aware of your confirmation bias and insist on showing your well selected info (a small piece of all data) to support your views, it is your option.

The following are my points that show your arguments or info are misleading:

1. Overall sales projected to be less than last year

• .top sales from Chinese venues have not been recorded in Namebio since Aug 2019. .top sales were a big portion of ngtld sales in the past.
  
• Average price is higher and standard deviation is lower than last year, implying that the ngtld market starts focusing more on good-quality domains.

2. Only 2 out of the top 100 reported sales this year are new gtlds

• Only 1 (ash/xyz) out of the bottom 100 reported sales this year is new gtlds
• Average sales price of ngtlds ($4,015) is much higher than that of .com ($1,333) in 2019 YTD.

3. New startups picking new gtlds at low single digits

• Except .com, all extensions are single digits.
• Tech startups are the majority group in the new startups, but nearly all ngtlds are not originally designed for tech companies.

4. Daily sales posted here usually only showing 0 or 1 sale

• Daily sales posts have backdating issue.
• Looking at sales day by day cannot give you a whole picture.
• There were days that had a few number of sales but the sales were sold for 5-6 figure.

5. Hot keywords, random keywords 1 for 200, 3 for 100 with examples used, there should be more activity

• Each ngtld has its own keyword list. Perfect match between keyword and extension is the key, not just hot keywords
• The above statistics do not consider a situation that some ngltds with "hot keyword+keyword" may be used by end users currently.

People will view our discussions and judge whether ngltds have a bright or dark near future.

henrypcyeung said:

I tried to save you by showing the whole picture of ngtlds. If you still are not aware of your confirmation bias and insist on showing your well selected info (a small piece of all data) to support your views, it is your option.

The following are my points that show your arguments or info are misleading:

1. Overall sales projected to be less than last year

• .top sales from Chinese venues have not been recorded in Namebio since Aug 2019. .top sales were a big portion of ngtld sales in the past.
  
• Average price is higher and standard deviation is lower than last year, implying that the ngtld market starts focusing more on good-quality domains.

2. Only 2 out of the top 100 reported sales this year are new gtlds

• Only 1 (ash/xyz) out of the bottom 100 reported sales this year is new gtlds
• Average sales price of ngtlds ($4,015) is much higher than that of .com ($1,333) in 2019 YTD.

3. New startups picking new gtlds at low single digits

• Except .com, all extensions are single digits.
• Tech startups are the majority group in the new startups, but nearly all ngtlds are not originally designed for tech companies.

4. Daily sales posted here usually only showing 0 or 1 sale

• Daily sales posts have backdating issue.
• Looking at sales day by day cannot give you a whole picture.
• There were many days that had a few number of sales but the sales were sold for 5-6 figure.

5. Hot keywords, random keywords 1 for 200, 3 for 100 with examples used, there should be more activity

• Each ngtld has its own keyword list. Perfect match between keyword and extension is the key, not just hot keywords
• The above statistics do not consider a situation that some ngltds with "hot keyword+keyword" may be used by end users currently.

People will view our discussions and judge whether ngltds have a bright or dark near future.

Click to expand...

#1 - is from Bob's post. If you have an issue with it, go to his blog post and state your mind.

#2 - is a fact - https://www.dnjournal.com/ytd-sales-charts.htm

#3 - COMBINED, all the new gltds single digits. I'm not just picking 1 new gtld and comparing it to .com or some other extension, but hundreds. You tried to be slick on that one.

#4 - is true, never said just looking at a few days would give you a full picture. I did tell you that you could go ahead and average them out. Reading them on a daily basis over time, gives a pretty good picture.

# 5 - I literally devoted a whole post to it. Maybe read it? The stuff you just posted, I specifically addressed. If you read it and don't understand, that's your issue.

Not sure what part of agree to disagree you're not getting. You're not saving me, haha.

May be .biz in some situation ,

sellnow said:

May be .biz in some situation ,

Click to expand...

Still processing but the results for BIZ are:
Content: 11.68%
Templated Content: 21.17%
Redirects: 24.24%
No Content: 42.92%
(HTTPS redirects: 4.69% - Internal redirects: 3.40%)

There was a big clean out of discounted registrations from BIZ over the last few months and it is around 1.55 million domain names at the moment.

Regards...jmcc

JB Lions said:

#1 - is from Bob's post. If you have an issue with it, go to his blog post and state your mind.

#2 - is a fact - https://www.dnjournal.com/ytd-sales-charts.htm

#3 - COMBINED, all the new gltds single digits. I'm not just picking 1 new gtld and comparing it to .com or some other extension, but hundreds. You tried to be slick on that one.

#4 - is true, never said just looking at a few days would give you a full picture. I did tell you that you could go ahead and average them out. Reading them on a daily basis over time, gives a pretty good picture.

# 5 - I literally devoted a whole post to it. Maybe read it? The stuff you just posted, I specifically addressed. If you read it and don't understand, that's your issue.

Not sure what part of agree to disagree you're not getting. You're not saving me, haha.

Click to expand...

1. Bob's post is not perfect as it does not consider average price and is not aware of the issue of stopping reporting of .top sales in Chinese venues since Aug 2019. When you use his imperfect post to support your view, your argument is not perfect and unfounded. Simple logic. I know Bob read our discussion and should know the issues now.

2. It is a fact but is taken out of context. Why pick high extremes, not all sales? While statisticians try to eliminate extremes to get the big picture, you select the high extremes and eliminate all other data that represent the big picture. If you think the top 100 can represent the big picture, I have no more to discuss with you as you do not have strong statistical background. FYI, just in case you don't know, median is better than average to measure the big picture as it can eliminate outliers. But since Namebio does not provide median, average is the close alternative.

3. Please read carefully again my point that explains why there was single digit for ngtlds. If tech startups are the major group of new startups, ngtlds will never have 2-digit percent. It is because almost all ngtlds are not originally for tech companies. Similarly, .com not originally for tech companies also decreased significantly in startups.

4. Please read again my point about the backdating issue of daily sales posts, and the point that you completely ignore the sales price shown on the daily sales posts. Also, Namebio has done the average calculation job and I easily showed you the average figures already. Then why still reply on reading the daily posts that have backdating problem on a daily basis over time and calculate average figures manually? When you looked at the daily posts, did you correct the backdating problem yourselves? If no, then you missed all the sales that were backdated and your argument is not based on a complete dateset.

5. If you don't understand what I said, then it is your issue.

I agree that all data you showed are facts, but are taken out of context. And they are used to support your view in a way that is not right statistical method.

jmcc said:

It is an extremely small sample size (2,188) and the methodology is not robust.

From a 1% surveys run this month, the percentages are:
gTLD - Content - Templated - Redirects - No Content (HTTPS - Internal )
COM: 14.83 - 27.62 - 27.20 - 30.36 (10.06 - 5.29)
NET: 14.29 - 23.22 - 25.20 - 37.30 (6.67 - 4.20)
ORG: 14.58 - 24.50 - 30.51 - 30.41 (8.89 - 5.54)

A 1% survey surveys a random sample of 1% of the domain names in the zone file.

The HTTPS field is the HTTP redirects. These are where the browser is redirected to the secured version of the website. The Internal redirects are where the browser is redirected to an internal page on the website. Both the HTTPS and Internal redirects are already part of the Redirects and that's why they are in brackets.

The Templated Content field covers PPC, Sales and affiliate landers. The No Content field covers holding pages, 404s, unavailable pages, non-responding websites, domain names with no websites. It is part of a simplified classification system that I've been working on.

Some of the new gTLDs have stronger percentages than the legacy gTLDs. Most have not. There has been a shift towards HTTPS in some of the legacy gTLDs.

Click to expand...

Thanks.
Your data only confirms my words that at least 33% of .COMs are typo and type-in domains.

Joe Nichols said:

Thanks for the info! How much were these sold for in the aftermarket?

Click to expand...

Usually for regfee.
Domainers in relax mode.

Jurgen Wolf said:

Thanks.
Your data only confirms my words that at least 33% of .COMs are typo and type-in domains.

Click to expand...

The assumption that they are typo and type-in domain names is wrong. A lot of COM is brand protection for domain names that exist in ccTLDs. The methodology of that Singapore effort is not robust and neither are its conclusions. Most registrars now park undeveloped domain names on PPC but that does not mean that the domain name is unused for e-mail.

Regards...jmcc

As somebody said above: this is your opinion.
I have another. From my own observation as well.

Jurgen Wolf said:

As somebody said above: this is your opinion.
I have another. From my own observation as well.

Click to expand...

No. This is the data from real web usage surveys.

Regards...jmcc

Your data doesn't break what I said.