BrandBucket Experience

[xtremex]

hello

I am new to BrandBucket. Before getting my hands on this

I wish to experience about brandbucket from my fellow members


Thanks

 

[JimJammy]

Like I said it is based of DNbolt sales data. Of course if some are not listed then they aren't counted but hate to tell you but there isn't enough not reported that would skew the numbers that much. I see only ONE listed out of the 80 or so sales that isn't keyword or partial keyword based.

It has been mentioned many times that DNBolts information is incorrect. Perhaps you could just stick to the actual facts as provided by the MD of BB instead of making up data, thanks.

 

[Grilled]

I believe in fairness. There are more domainers, than marketplaces.

Like I said it is based of DNbolt sales data. Of course if some are not listed then they aren't counted but hate to tell you but there isn't enough not reported that would skew the numbers that much. I see only ONE listed out of the 80 or so sales that isn't keyword or partial keyword based.

Perhaps you could just stick to the actual facts as provided by the MD of BB instead of making up data, thanks.

Well bb sellers aren't on NamePros reporting sales as often as previous months.

Did the MD of bb start informing their sellers of the bb sales? If we can't use @Dnbolt, and others aren't reporting sales, how are we supposed to know if bb is worth investing in. I was under the impression bb averaged around 80 monthly sales. Can anyone confirm if it's more or less?

 

[hookbox]

It has been mentioned many times that DNBolts information is incorrect. Perhaps you could just stick to the actual facts as provided by the MD of BB instead of making up data, thanks.

No one here including BB has ever questioned if the names listed on DNbolt actually sold. The only thing they have questioned is that sales data is not complete not that the names listed is not correct. If DNbolt's info was not correct then BB sure goes to a hell of a lot of trouble trying to hide data that isn't true. Why remove sold tags so DNbolt can't easily find the info? Why try to hide something that makes no difference if the info wasn't true.

Many have said that sales prices are not correct but I could care less if XXXXXXXX.com sold for $2,500 or $2,100 all I care about is what sold and what price range. BB has said themselves that if a name sells for less it is a very small percentage off of that name. So the actual numbers aren't that far off. There are 82 sales listed for May and I could care less if DNbolt missed a few here and there because it changes nothing.

 

[JimJammy]

*couldn't.

This list contains names that have not been sold, inaccurate prices (both lower and higher), and doesn't contain all of our sales.

EDIT: By taking a a couple minutes and cross-checking our sales with this database, I can confirm that this list does not contain all of our sales.

Most likely through scraping.

After a few minutes of cross checking, I can also confirm that this list does not include all our sales.

Many domain buyers request an NDA. When you sign up with BB as a seller the TOS state you also agree to that NDA. I couldn't care less why a purchaser would want their domain purchase private, I just respect it.

 

[Recons.Com]

And Michael himself has stated I don't know how many times that DNBolt data is not accurate. Members here have also stated here that they have made sales that are not reported in that list and I too have made sales that have not been reported in that list.

You are making up figures based on incorrect data.

1. He is using available data
2. What makes you think that the missing sales would change the ratio for COMPLETELY madeup brandables?
3. If BB is worried about interpretation of public data that might be inaccurate, it could easily fix it by publishing the accurate one (without prices and without the names that the new owners specifically asked to be excluded from reports).

 

[JimJammy]

1. Incorrect data.
2. Nothing. But I'm not assuming the ratio would stay the same either.
3. I don't think they are worried, they don't try and correct any misinformation put out there. They have an agreement with their buyers that they will not divulge information. End of.

 

[Recons.Com]

1. Incorrect data.
2. Nothing. But I'm not assuming the ratio would stay the same either.
3. I don't think they are worried, they don't try and correct any misinformation put out there. They have an agreement with their buyers that they will not divulge information. End of.

Why do you think data is incorrect? Do you have the correct data to claim someone's is incorrect? What is incorrect about it? Prices or sold names are not sold or sold ones are not included? If he has about 80 names there and BB claims to sell around 80, it can't be much inaccurate, can it?

If the data is "incorrect" by 20% or so, it won't affect the conclusion that you are protesting. Namely, that only 1 completely made-up no-keyword brand has sold out of 80. Heck, even if he has got half of the names wrong, and it is 1 out of 40, it won't change the conclusion much, will it?

Namely, the conclusion is this:

1. Out of 30,000 names on BB around 25%-30% are not based on any keyword.
2. The chance of keywordless brand being among sold ones is 1.25%-2.5%.
3. Therefore, the chance to sell keywordless brand on BrandBucket is 12-24 times less than other category names (keyword+suffix, keyword+keyword etc.)

 

[JimJammy]

The data is incorrect because BB has said so, many times.

IF the data is "incorrect" by 20%......... or 150% or 1000%. It's incorrect. We have no idea how much it's incorrect by. Guessing doesn't help anyone.

 

[hookbox]

1. Incorrect data.
2. Nothing. But I'm not assuming the ratio would stay the same either.
3. I don't think they are worried, they don't try and correct any misinformation put out there. They have an agreement with their buyers that they will not divulge information. End of.

I always find it funny that in the first 6 years and 680 sales on BB no buyer had an issue with the sale being reported but as soon as outside sellers were allowed to sell on BB now buyers have an issue with sales data being reported.

I roll around and laugh every single time I think how ludicrous that is.

 

[JimJammy]

They were only small in the early days. They probably put it in place when it became an issue.

I've sold plenty of names where the buyer requested an NDA, I'm sure you have too. Not really seeing why you would find it funny that someone else might be in the same position.

 

[hookbox]

They were only small in the early days. They probably put it in place when it became an issue.

I've sold plenty of names where the buyer requested an NDA, I'm sure you have too. Not really seeing why you would find it funny that someone else might be in the same position.

Of course, but why did it become such an issue after 680 completed BB sales? We're not talking about 10, 20, 100 sales, we are talking about 680 sales with no buyers having issues with it. If it was such a large issue it would have been addressed well before 680 sales.

 

[JimJammy]

Again, they probably put it in place when it became an issue. It's easy not to report some of your own sales.

It's more difficult to report 'some' of your clients sales but not others, so it's easier not to report any.

 

[JimJammy]

It is basically the same users trying to discredit DNBolt data without providing any other alternative.

Other than you, it's basically the same non-BB users trying to discredit BB using inaccurate data.

 

[Recons.Com]

Other than you, it's basically the same non-BB users trying to discredit BB using inaccurate data.

How did the above discussion discredit BB in any way? In case you missed it, the point from hookbox's analysis was that any seller is better of focusing on kw+kw or kw+suffix names. You'd think BB would also have the same interest. Why doesn't it?

 

[JimJammy]

And where do you get b) from? Inaccurate data posted here. Not from BB. BB stated they made 800+ sales in 2015. It's now June 2016. However you get to any 'monthly sales figure' from that is still not from BB. It's still a guess.

Hookbox is analysing incorrect data, he doesn't know what any seller is better off focusing on.

 

[hookbox]

My interest is not in discrediting DNBolt, but to get people to use logic. I am neither on DNBolt's side or BB's side. I use BB. I use other platforms. I like things about BB. I dislike things about BB. But I refuse to use bad data to make arguments for or against them. If data is not valid, you can't use it (or shouldn't use it). People are making claims using data that is false. It would be better to not use any data that to use it. I am not offering an alternative, because there isn't one. I want one! But using bad data because there isn't an alternative is a HORRIBLE decision.

You don't need every single data point to come up with a logical decision. If DNbolt is providing 80 out of 90 BrandBucket sales that I can check by visiting each name and see for myself if it sold or not then why isn't that data viable? I don't care if they provide every single sale because I can logically gain tons of information off what they do provide. I know that the name sold and know within a certain price range and that's all the info I need. How in the world is that considered corrupt data?

 

[equity78]

I have to say from close to 20 years in this business that most buyers of a $2,000 name do not request an NDA. They might if they got an unbelievable buy and want to represent they paid much more and that the name is a real asset to their company. But icozo.com for $1,899 and an NDA is a bit odd. There are a few not so above board reasons a start up might want to do that, like get funding, have $50,000 committed for a domain name, buy for $2,000 and have the remaining for a company getaway at a golf resort. I am not saying that those who say they had buyers request it are lying by any means. Just looks like the brandable space has a higher request level for lower priced names than most other niches.

 

[svede]

Svede, you are IT guy, right?

Let's see the situation from your professional unbiased (hopefully view).

A BB seller has 2 alternatives regarding DNBolt data:

1. Ignore
2. Use and extrapolate

What we know:

a) DNBolt has 80 sales listed for last month.
b) BB makes around 80 sales in a typical month with +/- 20% variation adjusted for the size of portfolio
c) from a) and b) we conclude that DNBolt might be missing 0 to 16 sales.
d) no reason to believe that missing data points are not random

Now tell me, is a BB seller better of choosing alternative 1. or alternative 2?

I'm a software engineer that works with big data, but close enough.

Honestly, my answer is closest to ignore. There is a difference between a small data sample and a bad/corrupted data sample. That DOESN'T mean I won't read what he says. But I don't use it in any decisions. Like I said - even with the error % you are suggesting, I would be fired from my job for doing that. Part of the problem is that people are relying on pure metrics to sell brandable domains. But it doesn't work that way. Trust me, I wish it did.

I took LOADS of sales data and ran machine learning algorithms, etc on them last year to look for patterns. What I found? There is no pattern. Or the pattern changes every month or week. What is more important is to understand the pulse of the business world and of linguistics and their interaction. Yes, pay attention to general metrics, but don't place too much faith in them. When I use patterns and metrics I chose MUCH worse domains than when I used linguistic and business knowledge mixed with gut instinct.

Additionally, to be perfectly clear, if people want to discuss DNBolt's metrics and study them, that's fine. That's not my issue. My issue is when they use false data to make conclusions on BB etc. That's just unfair. For SURE I feel BB has brought this on themselves by not sharing the data themselves, but that doesn't mean we should do it.

Hope this helps!

 

[JimJammy]

You don't need every single data point to come up with a logical decision. If DNbolt is providing 80 out of 90 BrandBucket sales that I can check by visiting each name and see for myself if it sold or not then why isn't that data viable? I don't care if they provide every single sale because I can logically gain tons of information off what they do provide. I know that the name sold and know within a certain price range and that's all the info I need. How in the world is that considered corrupt data?

And where are you getting 80 of of 90 BrandBucket sales? You made it up. How do you know it's not 80 out of 200? Or 80 out of 1,000?

How do you know what sales DNBolt is missing? He might be missing a set of individuals, he might be missing information from the way the domains are pointed at BB, he might be missing a registrar, he might be missing anything. Any of those could sway the figures a little or a lot.

 

[svede]

You don't need every single data point to come up with a logical decision. If DNbolt is providing 80 out of 90 BrandBucket sales that I can check by visiting each name and see for myself if it sold or not then why isn't that data viable? I don't care if they provide every single sale because I can logically gain tons of information off what they do provide. I know that the name sold and know within a certain price range and that's all the info I need. How in the world is that considered corrupt data?

The problem with unreliable data is you don't know the % off. You can't even use the fact that his ~80 sales per month "sounds" similar to what BB says, because you don't know if he is thinking domains sold that didn't in addition to missing those that sold. The fact is he has been wrong in both directions (via NP domains that were either listed as sold when not or sold and not listed). I really want him to get good data, but it isn't accurate. Without being able to vet it against the source, there is no way to say he isn't 60% off... Also, 20% off is HUGE for what we are doing.... you might not think so, but I will disregard any conclusion based on such data..