interviews DomainSherpa Review – July 31: NameJet Safe to Buy/Sell? Getting Uncomfortable w Shane…

[Chris Hydrick]

**Typically these headlines are posted by @DomainSherpa himself, but since I couldn't find anything about this DomainSherpa interview on NamePros, I'm posting it so we can have an upon unfiltered discussion about the interview**

Link HERE

Earlier this month, I tried to comment on the interview. It's been about 2-3 weeks or so, and the comment still hasn't been approved. I had asked a simple question to Mr. Cyger. I don't know remember the exact wording of the unapproved comment, but it was something like

"How can you call the NamePros thread about NameJet shill bidding a witch hunt if you don't know which accounts were actually blocked?"

My question derived from Michael's below transcript. If Michael doesn't know which accounts were blocked, how can he protect himself from those accounts if they rise again in a different form?

Michael: That was a witch-hunt that went down. You know, I give NamePros a lot of credit for being the place where somebody can bring up something like this, because if we didn’t have NamePros I’m not sure people could’ve discussed it and we could’ve found that there was an issue. Because clearly there was shill bidding going on, and NameJet has blocked those people — NameJet said that there was shill bidding. I don’t know what accounts were actually blocked. Shane, regardless of whether accounts are blocked or not, one of the reasons I love to have your perspective is that I don’t wanna put words in your mouth, but tell me if you agree with this.

I don’t care if people are shill bidding or not, I understand the value of a domain name at wholesale value, and if I can get it at a good price, I’m willing to buy it. Would you agree with that or not? Clearly, shill bidding is wrong, but you get my point that you’re only bidding based on the value of the domain name, regardless of

In Michaels defense, I don't think he approved my comment because he wanted to keep attention drawn to the last comment which benefits a charity...

 

[Addison]

This threat/bulling would have made domain news headlines

Improbable. It happens again and again. It's not new and it's not news. You get what you get with him. Love him or hate him. On the condition that he doesn't follow-through with tormenting anyone in a bona fide lawsuit, then there are more important conversations to be had.

Conversing about his outbursts is getting old.

 

[anantj]

Just because you move on when you get outbid doesn't mean everyone does. I'm sure that a lot of people have a fixed maximum price in their head prior to an auction but when they see they get outbid they may increase their maximum bid. They start to believe the domain has more value than their initial assessment. But in case of shill bidding this "value" is artificially increased. So basically shill bidding makes those kind of bidders pay more for a domain compared to what they normally would have paid if there wasn't any shill bidding going on. Now, you can blame those bidders for not sticking to their bid but in the end the shill bidder is the culprit here and the people who are bidding on those auctions the victims.

Further (This for @Bean), say if in your mind, you had a max price of $1000 for a domain. Without the shill bidding, you might have won the auction for say, $500. Would you still rather pay the $1000 or would you prefer paying $500?

 

[Bean]

Just because you move on when you get outbid doesn't mean everyone does. I'm sure that a lot of people have a fixed maximum price in their head prior to an auction but when they see they get outbid they may increase their maximum bid. They start to believe the domain has more value than their initial assessment. But in case of shill bidding this "value" is artificially increased. So basically shill bidding makes those kind of bidders pay more for a domain compared to what they normally would have paid if there wasn't any shill bidding going on. Now, you can blame those bidders for not sticking to their maximum bid but in the end the shill bidder is the culprit here and the people who are bidding on those auctions the victims.

I understand what you're saying and you're right that the shill bidder is the culprit. The problem is that it's impossible to completely eradicate shill bidding or guarantee that there is no shill bidding going on. So when you take this stance, you're essentially making it impossible for you to find a permanent solution to the issue. Having auction sites enforce tighter controls and better monitoring of accounts might help but that's like outsourcing the solution, your interests are being defended by a third party you have no real control over. If they drop their guard you're back to square one except that you won't even know it because you're trusting that they're doing their jobs.

 

[Bean]

Further (This for @Bean), say if in your mind, you had a max price of $1000 for a domain. Without the shill bidding, you might have won the auction for say, $500. Would you still rather pay the $1000 or would you prefer paying $500?

Well, believe it or not, when I come up with a max price, it's always a price I would be happy to pay right away without bargaining, I never find myself hoping for the final price to be less than my max, if it turns out to be less then it's just a bonus

 

[Chris Hydrick]

DELETED -- not sure if this is time and place.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

DomainSherpa is retired now?

 

[JimJammy]

Shame that Domain Sherpa has retired. But I suppose when you and your guests get 'investigated' and 'attacked' because you are a public figure there is no point trying to help the community anymore...

May I be the first to wish Michael Cyger and ALL of his crew a very happy "retirement". I found the information invaluable whilst it was available and wish each and every one of them the very best for the future.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

But I suppose when you and your guests get 'investigated' and 'attacked' because you are a public figure there is no point trying to help the community anymore...

Nobody is getting attacked, and/or investigated simply because they are a public figure. Mind you, the topic of this Sherpa debacle is: Is NameJet safe to buy/sell. And as you know from this thread something fishy occurred (occurring?) at NameJet (a DomainSherpa sponsor) Holding the Sherpa's to higher standards may not matter to you since you've been in the industry, and on NamePros since at least 2009, but some of us came up watching DS, and as such, it had a lasting impact on our development.

We learned from DS. We purchased advertised services the Sherpa's recommended. We formed investment strategies based on their experience, appraisals, and market ear. We told our friends about the Sherpa's. We recommended Sherpas as brokers based on what we saw out of them on DS. DS has been a crucial part to some of our domaining careers, and as such, some find/found it necessary to hold them to higher standards of trust and integrity.

 

[toughdomains]

with so much fake news out there we see the need for honest journalism. This includes a clear division btw content and advertising. If you are preventing companies from advertising on your site, or filtering the voice from other domain experts or removing content that you once promoted or only showcasing tools that pay you then its not pure or trusted news. Im not suggesting DS did any of this Im just commenting on news purity and the difference btw a personal blog and a trusted news organization like New York Times or CNN.

 

[toughdomains]

We are excited about the new content coming out of DS from Drew Rosener
We have already reached out to him and he seems to be open to working with us. I feel from our initial exchange Drew will provide a new and open discussion on DS that may not have been present before.