.mobi Companies.mobi at Sedo $3,000

[hedgefund]

Not mine, but just found out:

http://www.sedo.com/auction/auction_detail.php?language=us&auction_id=10213&tracked=&partnerid=

 

[-REECE-]

Not mine, but just found out:

http://www.sedo.com/auction/auction_detail.php?language=us&auction_id=10213&tracked=&partnerid=

Great find Hedge, let's hope this sale goes through

 

[htmlindex]

Thanks for the link, I would've thought that it will go for more than that price though

 

[Jeff]

In the plural, I don't think it's worth nearly that amount, in my view .... and with one only one bid, one must consider the possibility that it may be more of this "funny business" with .MOBI's using the Sedo auction systyem, IMHO. :blink:

Who's selling it at this time? :gl:
Thanks.
-Jeff

 

[namewaiter]

with one only one bid, one must consider the possibility that it may be more of this "funny business" with .MOBI's using the Sedo auction systyem, IMHO.

so when an auction only gets 1 bid it's fake? is that what you mean by 'funny business'? tell us more.

 

[Damion]

The assumption can be made that it's a shill bid, a bid placed to get someone to place a higher bid.

 

[mjnels]

i dont really know him personally... but i doubt hangol needs to put fake bids on his domains...

 

[namewaiter]

The assumption can be made that it's a shill bid, a bid placed to get someone to place a higher bid.

why?

are you saying any auction that only ends in 1 bid is shilled?

or are you questioning the seller's character? cause essentially that's what you are doing.

 

[mjnels]

people love acting like they know something others dont..

of course there is always the possibility a niche item like a domain has a fake bid in attempt to make others bid.. simply being on ebay for nearly 10 years has taught me this.. also the possiblity that the buyers eyes are bigger than their wallet, which can end in non-payment.


but here's an idea: when you see a mobi "sell" dont talk about it being a fake bid... dont talk about it being a real bid... because it really means nothing whether it is real or fake... it doesnt mean ANYTHING.


it amazes me that some people wet their pants over a mobi selling for thousands and the next thing they jump to is - oh it could be a fake bid, of course it could... and it also might be real.. save your speculation for more useful things instead of trying to be a know-it-all..

 

[acc]

In the plural, I don't think it's worth nearly that amount, in my view .... and with one only one bid, one must consider the possibility that it may be more of this "funny business" with .MOBI's using the Sedo auction systyem, IMHO. :blink:

Who's selling it at this time? :gl:
Thanks.
-Jeff

YOU don't think it's worth that amount. What do you personally know about the potential value of this name to the bidder? Maybe the POSSIBILITY IS that someone with a business vision is buying the name. Or that someone sees the real POSSIBILITY and POTENTIAL of the name and is investing in it for a future, larger sale.

The seller has an amazing portfolio of .mobis and has had several very nice sales. Casting aspersions on the seller is unwarranted and a cheap shot.

At some point this does get a bit personal. With almost no stake in the extention, and with the millions of terms available to register we have seen evidence of your "thoughts" of real domain name value - "hon****" and "ske*****". With all the generic terms available since day one, those were your best efforts. IYHO.

One might suggest that you take just a little effort away from being CONSTANTLY negative about anything dot mobi ... and redirect that energy into developing your one "top secret super double probation" dot mobi name BEFORE all the stars align properly, BEFORE all the RFPs are done, BEFORE it is completely safe to do so. You don't get ahead of the crowd if you are always after the crowd. Geez.

Nice signature BTW. There is a good possibility that you'll be asking that same question years from now and you still won't like the answer ... IT happened without you. MOBI is happening without you. (Unless of course you're dumb like a fox and buying up behind the scenes, that is. ... But I doubt it.)

Good thing I have normal blood pressure. Good morning all. It's a bit cloudy out today but the air is crisp, since I don't live in Bejing it's clean, and it's a great day to be a mobi understander.

-acc

 

[vikrantjain22]

In the plural, I don't think it's worth nearly that amount, in my view .... and with one only one bid, one must consider the possibility that it may be more of this "funny business" with .MOBI's using the Sedo auction systyem, IMHO. :blink:

Who's selling it at this time? :gl:
Thanks.
-Jeff

The Seller is Hennie (Hangol), the same guy who sold Stocks.Mobi and Girls.Mobi for $ 119,000. If you ever do business with him, you will not find a better person to deal with.

Lets not character assasinate somebody just because there is a nice bid to one of his names without knowing the reality. This guy has one of the strongest portfolios around and he is not a guy who would put a shill bid to sell his domains.

Lets be more careful with our comments.

 

[dag]

The Seller is Hennie (Hangol), the same guy who sold Stocks.Mobi and Girls.Mobi for $ 119,000. If you ever do business with him, you will not find a better person to deal with.

Lets not character assasinate somebody just because there is a nice bid to one of his names without knowing the reality. This guy has one of the strongest portfolios around and he is not a guy who would put a shill bid to sell his domains.

Lets be more careful with our comments.

Here here! I've said the same before, but some people just can't seem to lay off...

At some point this does get a bit personal. With almost no stake in the extention, and with the millions of terms available to register we have seen evidence of your "thoughts" of real domain name value - "honkers" and "skedaddle". With all the generic terms available since day one, those were your best efforts. IYHO.

Thanks for bringing this up -- I completely agree that anyone who bought two of the worst names I've yet seen in this extension and then thinks they actually have a clue as to what others should do with their far better names should be taken with a very small grain of salt. I mean, really..."honkers"?

 

[jeremyp]

why?

are you saying any auction that only ends in 1 bid is shilled?

or are you questioning the seller's character? cause essentially that's what you are doing.

I believe that this AND ANY allegation against another domainer should be made public.

Jeff is continuously communicating to third parties the potential misdeeds of fellow domainers.

It's a broken record...

It is my opinion that every time anyone questions the credibility of an auction, that we contact the seller and let that party fully understand that there are allegations against him in a public forum.

Whether it's veiled under the HUMBLE OPINION standard or not... it's said...

When I completed law school, the one legal standard I never, ever came across was "humble opinion." It doesn't protect you in making allegations... which are, by the way, humble opinions, in my humble opinion.

Shill bidding is a very serious accusation. Before the invent of the internet, if you accused another or alleged that another's running auction was fraudulent in nature, you better have something more than a humble opinion.

The reality is that THIS AUCTION IS NOT YET OVER. Accusations like this could impact a third parties bidding potential and thus the overall valuation of an auction. When it's a no reserve auction, communicating this sort of thing in a public forum has potential damaging consequences.

Finally beyond the legal issues...

Why potentially impact an auction with a credible seller and a credible name?

Jeremy

 

[mjnels]

you guys musta been sleeping when the IMHO clause was added into law back in early '99.. i remember it plain as day.. right after 'OMG' and 'LOL' wasnt it?

 

[hawkeye]

you guys musta been sleeping when the IMHO clause was added into law back in early '99.. i remember it plain as day.. right after 'OMG' and 'LOL' wasnt it?

To be honest, I believe it was the same day that the smiley keyboard was perfected by someone.

 

[Broker]

I think you guys are making a big deal out of nothing. Jeff is entitled to his opinion and hasnt accused anyone of anything. If he thinks it has the possibility to be a fishy auction then so he's allowed to think what he wish's. It isnt bad enough freedom of speech is being taken away now we're going after peoples thoughts? Give me a break!

 

[garrett200]

I agree HasRob. Take his comments with a grain of salt. They won't impact this sale or any other sale.

This is no big deal, so get over it people.

 

[scandiman]

I believe that this AND ANY allegation against another domainer should be made public.

Jeff is continuously communicating to third parties the potential misdeeds of fellow domainers.

It's a broken record...

It is my opinion that every time anyone questions the credibility of an auction, that we contact the seller and let that party fully understand that there are allegations against him in a public forum.

Whether it's veiled under the HUMBLE OPINION standard or not... it's said...

When I completed law school, the one legal standard I never, ever came across was "humble opinion." It doesn't protect you in making allegations... which are, by the way, humble opinions, in my humble opinion.

Shill bidding is a very serious accusation. Before the invent of the internet, if you accused another or alleged that another's running auction was fraudulent in nature, you better have something more than a humble opinion.

The reality is that THIS AUCTION IS NOT YET OVER. Accusations like this could impact a third parties bidding potential and thus the overall valuation of an auction. When it's a no reserve auction, communicating this sort of thing in a public forum has potential damaging consequences.

Finally beyond the legal issues...

Why potentially impact an auction with a credible seller and a credible name?

Jeremy

GREAT POST JEREMY! I would love to see some accountability with the careless accusations regarding shill bids regardless of the domain or tld involved.

I'll ask your last question more directly: Jeff, why did you slander hanogl and his auction without doing your homework first? I have no reason to think he is nothing but a smart domainer who regged some great .mobi names.

 

[jeremyp]

I agree HasRob. Take his comments with a grain of salt. They won't impact this sale or any other sale.

This is no big deal, so get over it people.

HasRob, Garrett200 -

- The seller has credibility.
- The domain name is legitimate.
- The auction is not yet closed.
- An allegation of potential fraud is made...
- on an important public forum directly to potential bidders.

Assuming that isn't a big deal, please explain what would then be a big deal?

I am not suggesting that accusations or opinions of fraud should not be pointed out in a public forum. I am saying that we should have some standards.

And, I completely disagree that this didn't impact the auction's close. I am a very serious buyer. I would have thought twice about bidding on an auction that might be inflated with a shill bid.

I'm not asking for censorship.

I am asking that before we make accusations against fellow domainers, and in this case ones with track records, we should spend even a few minutes researching the issue.

Keep this in mind...

A domain name is an asset analogous to real estate. We all agree on that to some extent.

If you were selling your house and your neighbor made an accusation to a select MLS community forum of fraudulent activity in your sale, and your sale had no-reserve and a defined time, you'd find that to be a big deal.

Jeremy Padawer

 

[dag]

I think you guys are making a big deal out of nothing. Jeff is entitled to his opinion and hasnt accused anyone of anything. If he thinks it has the possibility to be a fishy auction then so he's allowed to think what he wish's. It isnt bad enough freedom of speech is being taken away now we're going after peoples thoughts? Give me a break!

HasRob, I note that you're a DNOA member. With that in mind, I quote from the DNOA code of ethics:

▪ Members of the Domain Name Owners Association shall exercise the utmost level of integrity in all business transactions and in all relations with other buyers, sellers, employees, and competitors. Members shall work diligently to build and perpetuate faith and trust in their business practicies.

. . .

▪ Association members shall make no false statements nor circulate harmful rumors about a competitors’ products, business, financial or personal standing.

▪ Association members shall encourage fellow members of the Domain Name Owners Association, and their colleagues to adhear to this Code of Ethics.

So what part of that code do you not understand? I would think those last two would be something you'd want upheld in this circumstance.