discuss .LINK binge continues

[ThatNameGuy]

".LINK is no worse than .XYZ".....like the .com loyalists despising the .xyz insurgence, the .xyz loyalists despise the .link insurgence.

While most of the really good "single word" .link domains have been registered still a few remain. For example, the day after Thanksgiving I was able to register Thankfulness.link that happens to be no worse than Thankfulness.xyz or Thankfulness.com.

In the way of an update.....domains under management aka DUM has grown from 200,000 to 221,000 since May, and 1,500 of those I've registered. In addition, i have it from some reliable sources that "Good News is Coming"

 

[Joe N]

Once you understand there's literally no technical difference between Networking.com. Networking.xyz and Networking.link, you may begin to understand what I already understand.

Sounds exactly like what someone would say if they themselves don't understand anything.

 

[Joe N]

Not to worry Joe.....i've helped others make a lot of money over the years

Ah, so they're paying you to stay out of their way!

 

[Joe N]

That being said... Would be cool to prove us all wrong. Let's shut up about it, do your thing and let's check how things end up in 5 years or so? I hope for you it's gonna be epic instead of epik.

Here here! Put up or shut up, Rich. 5 years of hot air and zero results is too much even for you.

 

[ThatNameGuy]

You are like a broken record dude.

".LINK is no worse than .XYZ"

"All domains work the same"

"LinkedIn blah blah"

Why are you trying to make the same tired arguments on a forum full of domain investors? No one cares.
Shouldn't you be trying to convince potential end users instead?

.LINK is no worse than .ONLINE. How did the .online binge work out?

Also, actual visionaries do visionary things. They don't talk about being a visionary.

It requires more than just registering a bunch of terms in some low demand extension to be a visionary.

Brad

Thanks Brad.....you'll follow me to the ends of the earth won't you Having started, NAMED and operated a dozen businesses since 1970 most everyone considers me a visionary.

The FACT that you and Brad keep listening to the "broken record" only encourages me. Common sense alone says that Networking.link is technically no different than Networking.com.....they're BOTH a means to an end.

I'm sure you've read here that I've made not 1 but 2 "holes in one" in the last 18 months. To see a feature article all about it you need only Google: "Richard Morris Hole in One Broad Bay". I'd post a "link" to the article like I've done on another message board, but unfortunately I'm unable to do it here on Namepros.

Did you happen to notice how i referenced and highlighted "link" for a reason, and I apologize if it went over your head

 

[ThatNameGuy]

And that's exactly the point. There's no technical difference between yours and networking.horse either.

All of them are crap.

This is not a tech forum. We're talking saleable domains. You may run into some outliers because you reg in bulk but generally speaking, they're all not Investment worthy.

We cannot predict what the future holds. I would've never predicted xyz would take off in a certain niche. So you might get lucky. Not taking away from the fact that networking.xyz is a crap domain no matter how you spin it.

Back to .link. yes, it is worse than XYZ. No adoption, no sales, a mess from a technical pov.

That being said... Would be cool to prove us all wrong. Let's shut up about it, do your thing and let's check how things end up in 5 years or so? I hope for you it's gonna be epic instead of epik.

All good points, but one thing you fail to realize is the "alternative factor". If the .com isn't available for any number of reasons, at least .link, .xyz or even .horse become "alternatives" for a means to an end.

Thanks for chiming in even though the majority of your narrative is pure conjecture and opinion ala, "All of them are crap"

 

[Joe N]

the majority of your narrative is pure conjecture and opinion ala, "All of them are crap"

Come on @branding... You should know by now that Rich relies purely on cold hard facts to make his investing decisions.

Now will someone please partner up with this visionary so he can get his names listed?!

 

[branding]

Thanks for chiming in even though the majority of your narrative is pure conjecture and opinion ala, "All of them are crap"

That pretty much sums it up yes. I do however form my opinion based on data, iow looking at what extensions have proven to be working on a case to case basis.

I will happily recommend a dot something if the situation/audience calls for it.

I can see a use case for networking link. Just don't see any data to support much investment value.

As for the use case, it's actually quite limited. If there was a certain niche fond of .link it might be a cool one. Network in link, even better. Set on the keyword? Why not opt for prefix networking in .com and be trend/fool proof? JobNetworking is currently on auction so within reach, probably for a decent number.

You mention Linkedin a lot. Seems the perfect domain for a recruiting company sourcing from LI.

That would be my advise for the domain to pursue, if my client was asking.

 

[ThatNameGuy]

Come on @branding... You should know by now that Rich relies purely on cold hard facts to make his investing decisions.

Now will someone please partner up with this visionary so he can get his names listed?!

That's a great plug Joe and I do appreciate it. Earlier in this thread I connected with Jean Guillon seen here;

An author: Jean Guillon writes about new gTLDs on several publication platforms such as CircleId (503.507+ views), JournalDuNet (in French), Les Echos, etc... Since 2008: ICANN Working Groups. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has lots of working groups dedicated to preparing the next round of the ICANN new gTLD program:

We actually connected via Linkedin and are now discussing my involvement with the .LINK gtld. You probably know about him, but I just learned about him. Joe, do you remember my involvement with the new gTLD PingPong.gives and when I first clicked on it four years ago I thought WOW!.....how cool

You may also recall my attempts to partner in some capacity with the likes of Donuts and its founder Paul Stahura who it was said, "he never saw a new gTLD he didn't like".

To cut to the chase Joe, as a result of this thread maybe someone will see the value and vision I bring to the table with .LINK. At least I'm HOPEFUL

 

[ThatNameGuy]

That pretty much sums it up yes. I do however form my opinion based on data, iow looking at what extensions have proven to be working on a case to case basis.

I will happily recommend a dot something if the situation/audience calls for it.

I can see a use case for networking link. Just don't see any data to support much investment value.

As for the use case, it's actually quite limited. If there was a certain niche fond of .link it might be a cool one. Network in link, even better. Set on the keyword? Why not opt for prefix networking in .com and be trend/fool proof? JobNetworking is currently on auction so within reach, probably for a decent number.

You mention Linkedin a lot. Seems the perfect domain for a recruiting company sourcing from LI.

That would be my advise for the domain to pursue, if my client was asking.

Thanks branding......as a "Private Investor", see my response to Joe Nichols post just prior to this one. I see your point about Network.link vs. Networking.link, but I'm sure you're not familiar with all the potential uses for either?
That said, I only paid $118 for Networking.link, and it renews for the same amount.

As I'm sure you know I own many more Premium names like Hollywood.link that I've been told should be more valuable than Networking.link. And because I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opinions, what do you think, especially considering that Hollywood is over a TRILLION dollar industry. Thanks

 

[Joe N]

That's a great plug Joe and I do appreciate it. Earlier in this thread I connected with Jean Guillon seen here;

An author: Jean Guillon writes about new gTLDs on several publication platforms such as CircleId (503.507+ views), JournalDuNet (in French), Les Echos, etc... Since 2008: ICANN Working Groups. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has lots of working groups dedicated to preparing the next round of the ICANN new gTLD program:

We actually connected via Linkedin and are now discussing my involvement with the .LINK gtld. You probably know about him, but I just learned about him. Joe, do you remember my involvement with the new gTLD PingPong.gives and when I first clicked on it four years ago I thought WOW!.....how cool

You may also recall my attempts to partner in some capacity with the likes of Donuts and its founder Paul Stahura who it was said, "he never saw a new gTLD he didn't like".

To cut to the chase Joe, as a result of this thread maybe someone will see the value and vision I bring to the table with .LINK. At least I'm HOPEFUL

Rich, why do you continue to drop the names of people in the domain name industry after having an interaction with them that's no more extensive than them sending you one polite response to an intro message? I'm sure they don't appreciate being misrepresented in that way.

Ultimately this approach probably serves to undermine any opportunities you might have to form the meaningful partnerships you seek. Ironic.

 

[ThatNameGuy]

Rich, why do you continue to drop the names of people in the domain name industry after having an interaction with them that's no more extensive than them sending you one polite response to an intro message? I'm sure they don't appreciate being misrepresented in that way.

Ultimately this approach probably serves to undermine any opportunities you might have to form the meaningful partnerships you seek. Ironic.

Oh Joe.....i drop names all the time, even my own when it adds to my credibility. Did you read what they wrote about me in the article i posted about my hole in one;

"More than 50 years ago, he founded a credit control company and eventually sold the business. His car license plate reads “Name Guy,” promoting his current domain enterprise. He’s also been a member of the Kiwanis Club of Virginia Beach for about 45 years."

Joe, just for the record i didn't write the article, but it's all true just the same. And btw, you apparently have some sort of problem with my mentioning Jean Gullion, a contact/connection I made as a result of my starting this thread. Also, your LYING insinuation that our encounter was/is "no more extensive than them sending you one polite response to an intro message?".....is just a BIG FAT LIE.

While Jean Gullion and I may never work together in any capacity....here was just one of several Linkedin message responses he's made to me;

"I think .LINK makes sense so how can I help you with making .LINK the greatest new gTLD in the world?"

Joe....you really need to take a break from me. I know you're doing your best to try and discredit and censor me but it's not working.....maybe you can find a new job at Twitter

 

[branding]

I see your point about Network.link vs. Networking.link, but I'm sure you're not familiar with all the potential uses for either?
That said, I only paid $118 for Networking.link, and it renews for the same amount.

Well, like stated. I can see it in use but you'll have to ask yourself, who will buy it for a decent enough number to make it worthwhile to invest in? Since its $118 a year... Say you sell it for mid $xxx, add 10 year renewals. That's a good budget to get you started looking for a decent .com at the aftermarket which renews at just $10/year with much more certainty when it comes to selling probability.

As I'm sure you know I own many more Premium names like Hollywood.link that I've been told should be more valuable than Networking.link. And because I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opinions, what do you think, especially considering that Hollywood is over a TRILLION dollar industry. Thanks

I dunno... You tell me:
https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/hollywood-chamber-of-commerce-2490482/

 

[bmugford]

Well, like stated. I can see it in use but you'll have to ask yourself, who will buy it for a decent enough number to make it worthwhile to invest in? Since its $118 a year... Say you sell it for mid $xxx, add 10 year renewals. That's a good budget to get you started looking for a decent .com at the aftermarket which renews at just $10/year with much more certainty when it comes to selling probability.

Here is a quick math lesson for @ThatNameGuy on why registry premium domains rarely make sense.

The average STR for domains is around 1%-2% a year.

That STR is generally for extensions like .COM. Secondary extensions are usually lower.

If you have a $118/year fee that means on average you need to sell the domain for $5,900 (2% STR) to $11,800 (1% STR) just to break even.

So you basically need either a much higher STR or much higher sale price for the math to work.

Brad

 

[DrJacoby]

Here is a quick math lesson for @ThatNameGuy on why registry premium domains rarely make sense.

The average STR for domains is around 1%-2% a year.

That STR is generally for extensions like .COM. Secondary extensions are usually lower.

If you have a $118/year fee that means on average you need to sell the domain for $5,900 (2% STR) to $11,800 (1% STR) just to break even.

So you basically need either a much higher STR or much higher sale price for the math to work.

Brad

The math doesn't apply to Rich, because he's a visionary.

 

[ThatNameGuy]

Here is a quick math lesson for @ThatNameGuy on why registry premium domains rarely make sense.

The average STR for domains is around 1%-2% a year.

That STR is generally for extensions like .COM. Secondary extensions are usually lower.

If you have a $118/year fee that means on average you need to sell the domain for $5,900 (2% STR) to $11,800 (1% STR) just to break even.

So you basically need either a much higher STR or much higher sale price for the math to work.

Brad

I'm so happy you follow me Brad. While I barely made it through college, algebra and trig and statistics were some of my favorite courses. Why? Because they were easy, and they came naturally And you know what I learned about the numbers game?.....there are;

Lies, damned lies, and statistics​

Thanks for the lesson Brad, but i think I know what I need.

 

[branding]

A pretty accurate reference to estimate the STR of a secondary successful extension may be XYZ:

https://tldinvestors.com/2020/07/dngear-com-xyz.html

STR way below 1%. Also being lucky enough engaging a niche embracing the TLD. I don't see much reason or signs to support the opinion that .link will become hot and trending anytime soon.

Granted, somewhat dated numbers so the STR may be a bit higher for '21/'22.

If you want to extrapolate on XYZ, it took like what? 5 years to get on track with sales?

Now ask yourself... Can you build a portfolio of that size and quality in link, and hold it for at least 5 years? And will it be profitable enough to make it worthwhile?

Even if you have the funds at hand, won't you be better off spending it on quality domains with at least some inherit value?

 

[Joe N]

The math doesn't apply to Rich, because he's a visionary.

Yes, visionaries always have an expected STR of 100%*

*after their names are actually listed...

 

[Joe N]

Joe, just for the record i didn't write the article, but it's all true just the same. And btw, you apparently have some sort of problem with my mentioning Jean Gullion, a contact/connection I made as a result of my starting this thread. Also, your LYING insinuation that our encounter was/is "no more extensive than them sending you one polite response to an intro message?".....is just a BIG FAT LIE.

While Jean Gullion and I may never work together in any capacity....here was just one of several Linkedin message responses he's made to me;

"I think .LINK makes sense so how can I help you with making .LINK the greatest new gTLD in the world?"

Wow, I stand corrected, Rich. He definitely sounds keen to partner with you! He must have read that article about your thriving domain name enterprise.

 

[ThatNameGuy]

Wow, I stand corrected, Rich. He definitely sounds keen to partner with you! He must have read that article about your thriving domain name enterprise.

Your unprofessional sarcasm is so noted.....remember this Joe?

Holy sh!t…Verisign just called out “Domain Scalpers” and its biggest customers​

Verisign says its biggest customers are engaged in a questionable practice of reselling domain names.

I just registered DomainCorruption.com that I plan to use in conjunction with Verisign's trashing of the "aftermarket", and factual encounters that I've had with the likes of Go Daddy to educate consumers and "end users".

Joe, i don't know yet how I may use this to promote my "domain enterprise", but the domain Capitalism.link
that I registered a few months ago may give you an idea

 

[Joe N]

Your unprofessional sarcasm is so noted....

Rich, my sarcasm is completely professional! I'll have you know that I've started, operated, and yes named dozens of sarcastic ventures in my life, and I'm paid very well for them.

 

[bmugford]

Rich, my sarcasm is completely professional! I'll have you know that I've started, operated, and yes named dozens of sarcastic ventures in my life, and I'm paid very well for them.

I guess sarcasm pays, much to the chagrin of Rich.

Brad

 

[ThatNameGuy]

Well, like stated. I can see it in use but you'll have to ask yourself, who will buy it for a decent enough number to make it worthwhile to invest in? Since its $118 a year... Say you sell it for mid $xxx, add 10 year renewals. That's a good budget to get you started looking for a decent .com at the aftermarket which renews at just $10/year with much more certainty when it comes to selling probability.



I dunno... You tell me:

Rich, my sarcasm is completely professional! I'll have you know that I've started, operated, and yes named dozens of sarcastic ventures in my life, and I'm paid very well for them.

Funny....we've both been paid well for businesses we've started, operated and named. branding was just saying he could see "Hollywood.link in use".......good on him. Could you see it in use Joe? I'm assuming you could, but it's doubtful either you or branding can envision it being used by a Hollywood mogul like George Lucas, Arnon Milehan or Steven Spielberg. You may want to note Joe that Hollywood is not just a few billion dollar industry, but a trillion dollar industry. The potential for HollywoodLink® is huge Joe and it's a pity you don't see it.

 

[ThatNameGuy]

I guess sarcasm pays, much to the chagrin of Rich.

Brad

I do own Comedy.link Brad.....you might say that with 1,500 .link domains I have a lot of bases covered. Do you remember my LaughInn.com domain Brad......i know you haven't stayed at a Laugh Inn recently, but when you do think of me

 

[Joe N]

Funny....we've both been paid well for businesses we've started, operated and named. branding was just saying he could see "Hollywood.link in use".......good on him. Could you see it in use Joe? I'm assuming you could, but it's doubtful either you or branding can envision it being used by a Hollywood mogul like George Lucas, Arnon Milehan or Steven Spielberg. You may want to note Joe that Hollywood is not just a few billion dollar industry, but a trillion dollar industry. The potential for HollywoodLink® is huge Joe and it's a pity you don't see it.

Potential doesn't pay five years worth (and thousands of) domain renewals, Rich...

 

[Chris Hydrick]

The math doesn't apply to Rich, because he's a visionary.