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

 

[Recons.Com]

I figured it was a news site or something. Thanks for sharing.



To put BrandBucket in contrast with other marketplaces:

Sedo.com has 9,751 likes.

BrandRoot has 8,680 likes. [I've heard whispers that they use aggressive (but effective) black hat seo strategies] They are more active on Facebook, but I wouldn't put it past them to have inflated likes in a similar fashion. Rader is a ninja.

Namerific has 560 likes.

Flippa has 33,284 likes.

NameJet has 3,054 likes.

AfterNic has 2,558.

Catchy has 469 likes.

Embarrassing for all of them, except, maybe Flippa.

 

[BrandClub.com]

I figured it was a news site or something. Thanks for sharing.



To put BrandBucket in contrast with other marketplaces:

Sedo.com has 9,751 likes.

BrandRoot has 8,680 likes. [I've heard whispers that they use aggressive (but effective) black hat seo strategies] They are more active on Facebook, but I wouldn't put it past them to have inflated likes in a similar fashion. Rader is a ninja.

Namerific has 560 likes.

Flippa has 33,284 likes.

NameJet has 3,054 likes.

AfterNic has 2,558.

Catchy has 469 likes.

BrandClub.com has over 1,700 likes on FB
https://www.facebook.com/BrandClubCom/

 

[Grilled]

OK - turning the grill on low for the time being since bb staff appears to be back on NamePros...

Did BrandBucket sell Edamame.com for $135k?!

The domain now belongs to Trading-Point. (owners of XM.com)

WHOIS updated July 20th, 2017.

Below from DNBolt.com

DNBolt reported the facebook handle was available. I checked to confirm, and found this weird error by FB.

 

[Grilled]

OK - turning the grill on low for the time being since bb staff appears to be back on NamePros...

Did BrandBucket sell Edamame.com for $135k?!

The domain now belongs to Trading-Point. (owners of XM.com)

WHOIS updated July 20th, 2017.

Show attachment 62102
Below from DNBolt.com
Show attachment 62103

DNBolt reported the facebook handle was available. I checked to confirm, and found this weird error by FB.

Show attachment 62104

Sold on NameJet for $15,200 on 9/16/2016

 

[bazabizo]

I just scanned the full 4L names on BB. They have like 500 names, I believe only 60 of these names should be in a brandables marketplace. Again, this started as the best ever marketplace a domainer can think to even belong to, and emerged into this.
They have lots of room to regain trust. Nothing is late, BUT the current attitude of throwing out a bunch of people to just defend the platform is just pathetic! I feel even bad for these nice people that dont know that they are just defending something that actually needs a drastic change. You guys are helping them to continue in a path that is doomed to fail. Sooner or later it will! I have no hard feelings against anyone. I just people are rational and not biased. One can love a platform, but cant defend as its a religion of his own

For all those muslims out there, Happy Feast

Good luck everyone, as always you will need it!

 

[offthehandle]

I figured it was a news site or something. Thanks for sharing.



To put BrandBucket in contrast with other marketplaces:

Sedo.com has 9,751 likes.

BrandRoot has 8,680 likes. [I've heard whispers that they use aggressive (but effective) black hat seo strategies] They are more active on Facebook, but I wouldn't put it past them to have inflated likes in a similar fashion. Rader is a ninja.

Namerific has 560 likes.

Flippa has 33,284 likes.

NameJet has 3,054 likes.

AfterNic has 2,558.

Catchy has 469 likes.

Fiverr has likes and other BS social in packages at very low cost, the entire like metric is gameable. The cost is so cheap that anyone can afford it, go buy 10000 likes if you think it will help your business, its corrupt and your website will have purchased more than these other marketplaces. The whole social network acceptance thing is really corrupt and find it amusing that people put any stock in it at all. Take a look at all the fake promotions you can buy on fiverr. Its a laugh.

https://www.fiverr.com/categories/online-marketing/social-marketing?source=gallery-listing

 

[Recons.Com]

Fiverr has likes and other BS social in packages at very low cost, the entire like metric is gameable. The cost is so cheap that anyone can afford it, go buy 10000 likes if you think it will help your business, its corrupt and your website will have purchased more than these other marketplaces. The whole social network acceptance thing is really corrupt and find it amusing that people put any stock in it at all. Take a look at all the fake promotions you can buy on fiverr. Its a laugh.

https://www.fiverr.com/categories/online-marketing/social-marketing?source=gallery-listing

Would be stupid to buy fake likes. A social network always starts with showing your latest post to a small pilot group and then based on popularity scales up. With lots of fake likes, it will conclude that your post doesn't engage people and will stop showing further.

 

[Grilled]

Not to open up any old wounds, but can anyone tell me why Swidoo/com is listed 1st in search 'Design' when sorted by default 'relevance'?

When sorting search 'design' by price, Swidoo is the 698th (page 15) most expensive domain searchable by 'Design' - https://www.brandbucket.com/names/search=design&sort=price&page=15

The most expensive domain searchable with 'design' is a GREAT $300k one word domain (Sketch/com) >>> In bb default relevant search 'design' sketch is on page 12 (position #580)
https://www.brandbucket.com/names/search=design&page=12

More over, Swidoo has been listed on BB for 5+ years (since 2012) and still hasn't sold. Why (after 5 years) does this domain (that, IMO, isn't directly related to fashion) still positioned number 1?

@Justin Matmor - Please don't try to contradict this, just to contradict me. This is for the good of the company (more profit if they sell Sketch) and for the good of sellers (more accurate / fair internal search)

 

[Justin Matmor]

Not to open up any old wounds, but can anyone tell me why Swidoo/com is listed 1st in search 'Design' when sorted by default 'relevance'?

Show attachment 62407

When sorting search 'design' by price, Swidoo is the 698th (page 15) most expensive domain searchable by 'Design' - https://www.brandbucket.com/names/search=design&sort=price&page=15

The most expensive domain searchable with 'design' is a GREAT $300k one word domain (Sketch/com) >>> In bb default relevant search 'design' sketch is on page 12 (position #580)
https://www.brandbucket.com/names/search=design&page=12

Show attachment 62403

More over, Swidoo has been listed on BB for 5+ years (since 2012) and still hasn't sold. Why (after 5 years) does this domain (that, IMO, isn't directly related to fashion) still positioned number 1?

@Justin Matmor - Please don't try to contradict this, just to contradict me. This is for the good of the company (more profit if they sell Sketch) and for the good of sellers (more accurate / fair internal search)

Thanks for the heads up. Time to remove all my names and look for a different marketplace.

 

[canswift]

More over, Swidoo has been listed on BB for 5+ years (since 2012) and still hasn't sold. Why (after 5 years) does this domain (that, IMO, isn't directly related to fashion) still positioned number 1?

Try checking the Whois on this one...

 

[Brandworthy]

Try checking the Whois on this one...

Although I might seem to be an unlikely person to defend BB, I do believe them when they stated that the seller is not an input to determine search results.

More over, Swidoo has been listed on BB for 5+ years (since 2012)

This is much more likely to be the reason it appears. When they updated their search one of the stated goals (pretty sure stated in this thread) was to bubble up older inventory. The problem I had with this is that it could be dialed up too high, and the main beneficiaries of this change would then be those sellers with the oldest portfolios. I'm sure it does not need to be stated who the seller with the oldest portfolio is.

I'm quite sure that age and price are 2 of the inputs to search, and this was a reason I disliked the changes they made. It naturally favoured insiders who tended to have older names and could (at one time) set their own pricing.

 

[Grilled]

This is much more likely to be the reason it appears. When they updated their search one of the stated goals (pretty sure stated in this thread) was to bubble up older inventory.

Interesting theory. I'll keep that in mind if I decide to continue looking into this.

The only thing that (sorta) combats that argument is search=design rankings 2-5 are 2015/2016 regs...

Below screenshot sorted by search rankings 1-23 for 'design' default sort.

Bo/Haus (1st page # 9) - 2002 reg was added in the May 12th 2017 bb New Domain Newsletter.

Edit:

The #3 domain on Page one of 'Tech' domains was added to the 9.9.2016 bb new domains newsletter.

#1 (Tech/Static) BB NS since 9/2014 (archive.org shows it published May 2008 for $3,250. Now for sale for $5,495 (Why is it worth more after going unsold for 9 years?)
#2 BB (Tech/izer) May 2013

 

[Brandworthy]

The only thing that (sorta) combats that argument is search=design rankings 2-4 are 2015/2016 regs...

Age is only one input, so I don't expect the results to only include aged names. It's also possible that the registration date happened after the name was first listed on BB, and I've registered names and later discovered that they were previously listed on BB. That history stays in BB as you don't have to pay fees to list, so it would make sense that the "age" they use isn't updated when a name is relisted.

What would be interesting to show in your image is the sales price. You might start to see some further correlations when you look at that variable. My theory is that a certain price range is favoured along with higher priced names and names that were editors picks (or whatever it is these days).

 

[Grilled]

Age is only one input, so I don't expect the results to only include aged names. It's also possible that the registration date happened after the name was first listed on BB, and I've registered names and later discovered that they were previously listed on BB. That history stays in BB as you don't have to pay fees to list, so it would make sense that the "age" they use isn't updated when a name is relisted.

I was going to add that disclaimer, but after checking one archive screenshots, I assumed (incorrectly) this was not the case for all 2-5 of search=design....As #2 has bb history prior to WHOIS reg date. (Thanks for pointing this out)

EDIT: Simply checking first nameserver appearance is not sufficient for verifying bb add date. Archived screen shots show domain being listed prior to Nameserver dates for some domains.

BB NS = BrandBucket nameservers found as early as [Month/Year]

#2 (BB NS on 12/2014) Earliest Archived Screenshot: April 5th, 2015
#3 (BB NS on 12/2016) Earliest Archived Screenshot: Jan 8th, 2017
#4 (BB NS on 7/2016) Earliest Archived Screenshot: Aug 15, 2015
#5 (BB NS on 5/2017) Earliest Archived Screenshot: N/A

 

[Grilled]

#1 (Tech/Static) BB NS since 9/2014 (archive.org shows it published May 2008 for $3,250. Now for sale for $5,495 (Why is it worth more after going unsold for 9 years?)

In Margots defense for this price increase / number 1 search position for search=tech, there are two primed endusers for this domain.

TechStaticUS.com and TechStaticGlobal.com (2013 regs)

 

[Grilled]

I'm quite sure that age and price are 2 of the inputs to search, and this was a reason I disliked the changes they made. It naturally favoured insiders who tended to have older names and could (at one time) set their own pricing.

I think you're on to something with this. It would be interesting to see what the sales through rate was prior to these changes.

Something that doesn't make since is old bb domains (even ones dropped because they weren't 'good enough' to renew or w/e) are now shown preference in searches over fresh new to market inventory? (according to this theory)

**I've noticed lots of LOW priced old bb domains being positioned on the last page of searches. Thus supporting your assertion that price matters as well as bb age.

 

[Grilled]

When they updated their search one of the stated goals (pretty sure stated in this thread) was to bubble up older inventory.

I couldn't find any reference to their updated search. I found the below post from Margot (2014) explaining how their search worked then.

Then, the below quote from MK in 2015.

We aren't messing with any algorithms or search results to highlight my names or boxador's names over anyone else's names.

The thing is, if price / bb add date / staff picks are data points in the algorithm, then they are 100% highlighting their names over their average seller. As BB add date heavily plays into Margot / MK / other vocal supporters. Staff picks / pricing is something only BB staff has control of.

Lastly, an interesting precursor ((below)) (July 25th, 2015) to BB's NameMyCompany...

Very few people ask us to give them suggestions on what name they should buy. And almost always, these inquiries never lead to a sale. Since I've been a part of BB, there hasn't been one sale go through that started with this inquiry. When these questions do come through, I can assure you that there is not any bias put into the suggestions they are given.

Lastly, if 95% of sales derive from BB search ((as quoted by Margot)), why have the same names dominate page 1 search results for extended periods of time. @Abdullah Abdullah mentioned (below) Xefio was #2 for search=Tech in February 2017, now 4 months later ((who knows - maybe on page 1 since being published in September 2016)), Xefio is still unsold and on the first page (#3) for search=tech. Will it be on page one for 1+ year if unsold? Why not recycle with one of the many other CVCio.com's published by bb sellers. (lot's of CVCio.com's have been on BB longer than Xefio too!)

You are right. We are not on the same page cause you didnt get the big picture this discussion is about. I for one didnt say you cant get on first page of any keyword at all...Hell I know someone who owns one Media name and it is on page one ...no, that is not the point of this discussion. The point is, when you make a search and 48 names are returned, then how many of those names are owned by the staff ? When I give you 30 names out of 48 names owned by the staff then you should understand the thing we are talking about. Here, for the word tech which @boker mentioned it has like 5000 names. First page results.

1 Margot
6 Privacy
1 Ambassador

Krell

1. TechProwl
2. Xefio
3. TechBark
4. techglove
5. techloving
6. techcog
7. techflame
8. techyjobs
9. techmoda
10. techcovery
11. techwich
12. techfork
13. techcrop
14. techsculpt
15. techias
16. techbrush
17. techpond
18. techclip
19. techpaw
20. techfad
21. techyguide

So Krell owns 21 , Margot 1 and Amb 1 , that is 24 out of the 48 displayed on first page ONLY that are owned by the staff. I hope you now see what we are talking about here .

**I suspect they are updating their search (maybe more heavily favored to old bb domains)) as I'm seeing position changes since my last audit**

 

[Brandworthy]

Updates to search came a long time ago now, I suspect at least 1-2 years ago.

I'm surprised at the 95% statistic. It may well be accurate, but I wonder how many of those users arrive via type-in traffic? I'm pretty confident that more than 5% of my sales came from direct navigation traffic.

 

[hookbox]

Updates to search came a long time ago now, I suspect at least 1-2 years ago.

I'm surprised at the 95% statistic. It may well be accurate, but I wonder how many of those users arrive via type-in traffic? I'm pretty confident that more than 5% of my sales came from direct navigation traffic.

That 95% doesn't hold true today. She said that back in August 24, 2014 when they only had 5,243 names and very few sellers. As a side note Krell had just become a brand ambassador in July 2014 when he had 275 names and 20 total sales.

There is no way that 95% of their sales come from search now. I would say that 95% of their sales come from direct navigation in 2017.

 

[offthehandle]

That 95% doesn't hold true today. She said that back in August 24, 2014 when they only had 5,243 names and very few sellers. As a side note Krell had just become a brand ambassador in July 2014 when he had 275 names and 20 total sales.

There is no way that 95% of their sales come from search now. I would say that 95% of their sales come from direct navigation in 2017.

I am puzzled then. Search is not where the sales come from. Correct me if I am wrong, but If 95% of their sales come from direct navigation, that means its type in traffic. What prevents someone to have success if they arrive at any website like your own instead?