debate Domain age is myth

[Isac]

I sold many Handreg and new domains to end users but till now i am not able to sell a single aged domain to enduser in my portfolio.
.
Enduser all about cares about name. What u say ?

 

[namelancer]

etc

I do not see the "make an offer" option in my control panel. Only BIN.

That's where a Scenario3 comes into the picture:

1. A 20 years-old domain is caught on the drop for pennies on a dollar by the would be seller of it.

2. In the manner of toasting to the health of the original registrant, the new owner (who is fortunate to have been unsaddled with a 20 year cycle of renewal notices for the won domain) puts it up for sale. Believing strongly in the adage of innocent paying for the sins of the guilty and in the right of collecting other peoples debts vicariously, through the objects owned by them in the past, he marks the price at 5,000 usd to reflect the registration fees borne by the name over its hard-working life and as a reward for staying put on a single dns server.

2. A willing buyer comes along, quickly appraises the domain's value and feels willing to pay the amount minus the registration fees of 1,300 usd, but the seller refuses (or rather his BIN doesn't clear the initial bid).

3. To appease his sense of justice, the buyer settles on a payment method by bitcoins to the tune of the full asking price of 5, 000 usd, which only costed them 3, 700 usd initially to acquire.

4. The seller wakes up in the morning to the 'your name have been sold' notice thinking he has finally won the race.

5. But life teaches them a different lesson. By the time the bitcoins hit the account, their value suddenly drops to 3, 700 usd.

 

[Premiums]

Does anyone wants 19 years old name for $19?

 

[Dondomainer]

Does anyone wants 19 years old name for $19?

i can sell you.. 19yearsolddomain.com for $19 if you want

 

[Amar D]

Also many webmasters are checking whois reg date of hosting company before purchasing some of their packages. Age = companys stability.

 

[Rajnish Prasad]

In reseller market , it has value but i don't think any end user gives age a value

Correct...endusers check their business requirement. For ex If they want "brepasero.com" for their newly opened business and if that domain is Even 2 days old only then it hardly matters to them bcoz the name is what they...what the hell that enduser will do with the age when his requirement is getting fulfilled..

The age mostly matters within the reseller group..

 

[Kate]

Here's the oldest WHOIS date you can ever see

Or... enea.se
Background info: https://www.namepros.com/threads/worlds-first-100-domain-names.394362/#post-2672954

 

[ctmixing]

The value is in a mix of things, including age. If you don't believe me, my biggest sales involve domains I held for a decade or more.

The thread is titled "domain age is a myth" - that's really the myth here, debunked.

Did the buyer express to you that they acknowledge that the domain is aged and they agree to pay more because of it?

 

[namelancer]

I don't believe there is a "nnbvcxcvbnmnnxc" sample that'd survive the drop.

Being caught on the drop isn't the only way for a domain to stay actively registered. There are plenty of domain holders who keep renewing seemingly randomly-built domains with values apparent only to them. One of them admitted in the post earlier on this thread to having been guilty of doing just that for a multi-syllable domain he had for his blog by carrying it almost from the last century into the present.

 

[mrballa23]

Smh

 

[namelancer]

Plenty of arguments here support you can't find good domains that aren't aged, and most aged domains are good.

Plenty of arguments over there to support that one can find good domains that aren't aged, BitcoinCash.org being one of them (although the purists might object given that the taximeter of time starts ticking to the rhythm of age acceleration from the moment of registration, so even a domain that's 1 second old has aged by a second).

Regarding the fact that 'most aged domains are good', is 'most' to be understood as the majority, or 51 percent or above ?

 

[namelancer]

Long term, domains you pick up and hold must pass a survival test.

Speaking on behalf of domains holders, in order for a domain to survive it must pass a financial survival test administered by the wallet of a domain registrant. I can assure you beyond all doubt, that if a domain could pass afore-mentioned litmus test it's chances of existing for perpetuity will be guaranteed.

 

[namelancer]

Of course, in that case, the domain would be useless based on age alone. IMO, such a fine piece of junk would not survive the practical definition of an aged domain, e.g. 10 years or older. It would have dropped a long time ago.

1. You have reconfirmed the primacy of quality over age.

2. As a decision to renew a domain continuously is the prerogative of an individual domain holder (barring special circumstances of a third party involvement), any judgment as to the ability to evaluate or practically define domains is subject to their competence level.

 

[namelancer]

And then the drop/auction houses for expired domains contributed to a 3rd cycle of aged domain availability.

Can one then say that creation of the 3rd cycle of aged domains was construed as nothing other than artificial life support system ?

 

[namelancer]

This thread exists as a failed attempt to discount age in determining domain value and subsequent sales price.

You are partially responsible for that yourself:

If you need a "cxcxcxcxvxvxvx" random string to define an argument, it's an extremity. Of course, in that case, the domain would be useless based on age alone.

 

[namelancer]

If you need a "cxcxcxcxvxvxvx" random string to define an argument, it's an extremity. Of course, in that case, the domain would be useless based on age alone. IMO, such a fine piece of junk would not survive the practical definition of an aged domain, e.g. 10 years or older. It would have dropped a long time ago.

This is why your argument is wrong (shown from a different angle):

There exist threads where experts espoused significance of just such junk domains, composed of gibberish patchwork of random strings pieced together, as paragons of value in the category of the parked domains, provided they are equipped with valuable back-links and other desirable attributes.

 

[Lox]

> Google patent US7346839 (If necessary read the patent twice)

Certain signals may be used to distinguish between illegitimate and legitimate domains. For example, domains can be renewed up to a period of 10 years. Valuable (legitimate) domains are often paid for several years in advance, while doorway (illegitimate) domains rarely are used for more than a year. Therefore, the date when a domain expires in the future can be used as a factor in predicting the legitimacy of a domain and, thus, the documents associated therewith.

Also, or alternatively, the domain name server (DNS) record for a domain may be monitored to predict whether a domain is legitimate. The DNS record contains details of who registered the domain, administrative and technical addresses, and the addresses of name servers (i.e., servers that resolve the domain name into an IP address). By analyzing this data over time for a domain, illegitimate domains may be identified. For instance, search engine 125 may monitor whether physically correct address information exists over a period of time, whether contact information for the domain changes relatively often, whether there is a relatively high number of changes between different name servers and hosting companies, etc. In one implementation, a list of known-bad contact information, name servers, and/or IP addresses may be identified, stored, and used in predicting the legitimacy of a domain and, thus, the documents associated therewith.

Also, or alternatively, the age, or other information, regarding a name server associated with a domain may be used to predict the legitimacy of the domain. A “good” name server may have a mix of different domains from different registrars and have a history of hosting those domains, while a “bad” name server might host mainly pornography or doorway domains, domains with commercial words (a common indicator of spam), or primarily bulk domains from a single registrar, or might be brand new. The newness of a name server might not automatically be a negative factor in determining the legitimacy of the associated domain, but in combination with other factors, such as ones described herein, it could be.

 

[namelancer]

Plenty of arguments here support you can't find good domains that aren't aged, and most aged domains are good.

It's not entirely consistent with your earlier statement:

For several years into the commercial registration of domain names, many great names remained unregistered. Once certain parameters changed, the bulk of these domains was snatched. What were these parameters? "Small details," such as having an alternative domain registrar with lower prices, being able to register domains automatically vs. with a manual process, being able to transfer domains without a manual process, etc. All of a sudden, quality became synonymous with availability

My point being that once buying domains became as easy as purchasing a bottle of milk in your grocery store, the flood of average Joe's had crowded the space registering everything available under the sun, included but not limited to low quality domains. So, while it's correct to expect to find a higher quality among aged domains which in itself would warrant having a second look if not a third opinion, when I see one stemming from the early 2000s hidden behind the privacy shield, I have no way of telling if it was the creation of a great domain maestro or a product of commonplace registration.

 

[Acroplex]

Did the buyer express to you that they acknowledge that the domain is aged and they agree to pay more because of it?

When they attempt to trivialize the value of a domain and age is introduced, that argument holds plenty of water. So yes, they pay considerably more for a domain with a registration date in the 1990's.

 

[Acroplex]

Plenty of arguments over there to support that one can find good domains that aren't aged, BitcoinCash.org being one of them (although the purists might object given that the taximeter of time starts ticking to the rhythm of age acceleration from the moment of registration, so even a domain that's 1 second old has aged by a second).

Regarding the fact that 'most aged domains are good', is 'most' to be understood as the majority, or 51 percent or above ?

You're clearly not understanding what factor age plays in domain negotiations.

Apples and oranges. Bitcoincash? We are in a cryptocurrency fever, if it sells for what it did is irrelevant. It means nothing outside of the context of what it represents (BCH).

 

[Acroplex]

It's not entirely consistent with your earlier statement:


My point being that once buying domains became as easy as purchasing a bottle of milk in your grocery store, the flood of average Joe's had crowded the space registering everything available under the sun, included but not limited to low quality domains. So, while it's correct to expect to find a higher quality among aged domains which in itself would warrant having a second look if not a third opinion, when I see one stemming from the early 2000s hidden behind the privacy shield, I have no way of telling if it was the creation of a great domain maestro or a product of commonplace registration.

Who cares. Someone registered it. What is your argument exactly?

 

[Acroplex]

This is why your argument is wrong (shown from a different angle):

There exist threads where experts espoused significance of just such junk domains, composed of gibberish patchwork of random strings pieced together, as paragons of value in the category of the parked domains, provided they are equipped with valuable back-links and other desirable attributes.

It all begins with an artificial example: the domain you chose to use as your "worse case scenario" is invented. Your assumptions are therefore relying on that example, devised to entertain the soft minds of newbies who want to believe that new registrations are equally worthy as aged domains.

 

[Acroplex]

You are partially responsible for that yourself:

Try to provide some substance instead of weak attempts at discounting factual references to how I valuate domains.

 

[namelancer]

For example, domains can be renewed up to a period of 10 years.

It's 100 years actually at some of the places that allow domains mature like the best of wines.

 

[Acroplex]

It's 100 years actually at some of the places that allow domains mature like the best of wines.

Namelancer, why pour irony over something you disagree with?

Let us handle aged domains, those who call it a "myth" can stick to doing what they know. It's all good.

 

[namelancer]

Namelancer, why pour irony over something you disagree with?

Because there is a difference between a trajectory of value and one of age of an actually registered domain. Registration as such merely permits one to hold on to the value that otherwise risks getting lost to a competing interest.