Misinterpreting Data, Twisting Facts & Baseless Conclusions

[Grrilla]

"Made-up" domain sales are heating up.

I have been picking up on a recent sales trend that I'd like to share. Over the past few months, or so, I have made thousnds of dollars selling made-up, brandable domain names. I have had over 100 name sales, primarily, in .com but, interestingly enough, sales have, also, been good in the other tld's and .us- somewhat, surprising considering the name group- and an encouraging sign for the potential of this category. Sales in this category have, significantly, outperformed all other name categories. In fact, my income from sales in this category more than tripled the profits that I realized from all of my LLL, 3Char and prime keyword domain name sales *combined* and my sales in those groups haven't been too shabby. So, all of you domainers out there who have been registering "made-up" domains, take heart. If my, real world, success and several of the recent sales I've seen at Sedo and Afternic are indicators, than it looks like the market is picking up some speed and I project that there is a very bright future ahead for the category.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Before, I list some of the names that I've sold, reveal my methods for creating and locating good "made up" names and outline the techniques that I use to locate and target the right endusers, I have a secret to disclose. The paragraph above is a hypothetical example of an unsubstiated claim that presents the appearence of being backed up by facts and figures. Here is a breakdown of one of the, several, possible scenarios that this claim,"accurately" represents:

1) "Over the past few months, or so..." - What does this mean? 4 months? 7 months? 11 months? Let's interpret this as 11 mos.
2) "thousnds of dollars" - $2000, $5000, $50,000 ? Let's go w/ $2000.
3) "over 100 name sales"- how many over 100? Let's go w/ 101.
4) "primarily, in .com but, interestingly enough, sales have, also, been good in the other tld's and .us, - somewhat, surprising considering the name group... ". This could mean that there was one .net sale one .us. and 99 .Com sales. What is surprising is that there were any non-.com sales in this category, at all.
5) "sales in this category more than tripled the profits that I realized from all of my LLL, 3Char and prime keyword domain name sales *combined*'" Hmm... What, than, were the profits that were realized from LLL, 3 char and keyword name sales and how many names were sold? Profits could have been anywhere from $0 on up. Lets go w/ just under 1/3 of the $2000 we assigned to the total income of made-up name sales or $665. Let's interpret this statement as a $665 sale of a .us LLL.

All of the values assigned remain true to the parameters of the description and are, therefore, "accurate". If our interpretation is correct, the claim being made would mean that during the past 11 mos, our hypothetical domainer sold 101 "made up" domains for $2000, (roughly, $1.98/name) and had a $665 sale of an LLL .us name. Of the 101 names, 99 were .com, 1 was a .Net and 1 was a .US. I am willing to bet that this is not the picture that came to your mind, after reading the opening paragraph of this post.

Although this "real world" example is based upon "fact" there are so many possible ways that the information can be interppretted that tthe "facts" are, essentially, useless. For the purpose of analysis, my breakdown of our hypothetical domainer's claims went to the extreme end of possibility and it is doubtful that anyone would twist their facts to support their conclusions in such a blatant manner. It's not, usually, the big, black lie that will deceive and mislead you. It's all of those liitlle white ones.

There isn't a day that goes by that I don't see an opinion or an assertion that has been drawn from a conclusion that is based upon the dubious interpretation of information and is, than. proclaimed to be, unequivocal, fact. Questioning, challenging or requesting a poster to expand on their assertion is, more often than not, met with a cry of, "Foul!" or with no answer, at all. There are dozens of examples of this in threads that I have been active in this week, alone. I would provide you with links but, because the practice is so widespread, it would be unfair to single out any, one, particular member. Once you know what to look for, it won't be difficult for you to find your own examples or, if necessary, drop in on some of the threads I have been participating in, take a look around and draw your own conclusions. You might, even, be able to find an example that exposes me slipping up, as well. :hehe:

 

[Ronald Regging]

Just wanted to point out, you stated that 101 domains selling for a total of $2,000 is $1.98 a domain... actually it's $19.80 a domain, which isn't making you a fortune, but at the same time, it's still profit.

I do completely agree with your post, but you find this type of behavior in any walk of life. Politics, medicine, science, religion, etc... Popular theory and fads reign supreme while common sense sits in the backseat. It's the nature of man to want new and exciting things to tear him from the tedium of reality.

What can you do about? Join in... Be the lone objector... Or profit off of it.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

How does this relate to this thread?
Grrilla is talking (I believe) about manipulation of perceived values by people with an agenda.

Pure economics - Supply and demand. Create an artificial shortage in supply, and demand and prices increase. It's happened with gasoline, oil, diamonds, gold, and most recently copper and other metals. Domains aren't much different. When you could easily find a LLL.info unregistered, they were valued at $8 to $25. Once all were registered, they increased immediately to about $25 to $50. As some have become developed or dedicated to PPC pages, they have increased further.

I myself will manipulate supply somewhat with domains. If I see a good single word or great two word generic domain, I look to see the demand for other extensions. Say com/net/org are taken, I may pick up info/us and biz if all fit the term. Why? Because when someone wants the .info I really wanted, they won't have the alternative of the others. I can then package them to get a higher price on the .info. I have also given hints to others of the one TLD version left of a domain I have that's unregisterd. By them taking it, the perceived value of mine is higher because all TLD's are taken. Even if they sell first for less, my better extension gains long term value in having a lesser extension developed by an end user. Everyone wins.

R

 

[Treacle]

Wow. I would love to pick your brain. It would be interesting to get a pros-eye view of statistical analysis and the influence of "framing" the parameters and shifting the weight of values, (in my layman words) can influence the results. Manipulating statisics to make them say what one wants them to say in support of one's argument is a popular topic of discussion here and it would be enlightening to hear from someone who has had formal training and who works in the field.

Thanks Grrilla - there is a quote "Lies damn lies and statistics" meaning that statistics are open to intepretation. I deal with MPs and Government Ministers and one of the most important things I have learnt is that statistics should have integrity, with methods for producing them being open and transparent. There have been many instances where "Official statistics" have been misinterpreted simply due to a change of definition - e.g. change what is meant by "unemployment" . I think you may be right about shifting parameters and goalposts and it would be interesting to look at the issues people have raised in more detail..

 

[Grrilla]

Just wanted to point out, you stated that 101 domains selling for a total of $2,000 is $1.98 a domain... actually it's $19.80 a domain, which isn't making you a fortune, but at the same time, it's still profit.

I was, starting to wonderi if someone was going to catch that:

You might, even, be able to find an example that exposes me slipping up, as well. . :hehe:

Moving the decimal may have been pushing the envelope, a bit, given the nature of the topic but, I couldn't resist the irony and I didn't feel that the difference was signicant enough to impact the points that I was making, so I included a "mistake". Plus, I did leave a clue. :hehe:

This reminds me of high school and what some of the mathematics professors would say when they made a mistake: "I was just testing to see if the class was awake." I'm sure some of them did, indeed, err on purpose to test the class but, I was never able to tell, for sure, because I would be one of the students who, actually, was asleep, (or thinking about football practice or fantasizing about Julie in the front row, 2nd seat over.)

I'm glad you caught it. I was getting a bit, concerned that nobody was paying close attention to the post and the deceit was beginning to weigh, heavily, upon my heart.

Goodness, I almost forgot my follow-up! Nothing was mentioned about the original registration dates, so let's assume that all 99 .com names were registered 10 years ago. A conservative estimate, (<-Another qualifier that is worthy of a 2nd glance), of the yearly registration fee would be $6.95/ year or, $69.50 total fees for each name over the 10 year period. 69.50 -19.80 = <49.70> x 99 = <4,920.30> So, our domainer friend, Hypothetical Harry, is, at least, $4,920.30 into the red, despite his cheery outlook. This leaves me to conclude that I want, whatever, it is that he's taking!

 

[Kenny]

Pure economics - Supply and demand. Create an artificial shortage in supply, and demand and prices increase. It's happened with gasoline, oil, diamonds, gold, and most recently copper and other metals. Domains aren't much different. When you could easily find a LLL.info unregistered, they were valued at $8 to $25. Once all were registered, they increased immediately to about $25 to $50. As some have become developed or dedicated to PPC pages, they have increased further.

I myself will manipulate supply somewhat with domains. If I see a good single word or great two word generic domain, I look to see the demand for other extensions. Say com/net/org are taken, I may pick up info/us and biz if all fit the term. Why? Because when someone wants the .info I really wanted, they won't have the alternative of the others. I can then package them to get a higher price on the .info. I have also given hints to others of the one TLD version left of a domain I have that's unregisterd. By them taking it, the perceived value of mine is higher because all TLD's are taken. Even if they sell first for less, my better extension gains long term value in having a lesser extension developed by an end user. Everyone wins.

R

AD, scooping up all the extentions and faking sales are two different matters.
What you are talking about is ethical from any standpoint, wow!'s accusations/theory
speak of a whole different level of manipulation, and are in fact plausable.
I'm thinking nobody wants to address/discuss this and wondering why.

And for the record, this is OnTopic according to Grrillas first line.

 

[Grrilla]

Grrillas Positions:
1) All contributions, thus far, have been excellent- way++ the averege. (or is that higher than the norm? or the mean? or the median? help! someone! please help!)lol
2) I'd like to keep the discussion, fairly, wide open. (as opposed to a .us BC CF)
3) My next position is horizontal. g'night :zzz:

 

[Treacle]

1) Perhaps they were (statistically) significantly higher than the average response at the 0.05 significance level lol

Nighty night

 

[dan_Vt]

And look at how much money that made the 'medicine men' in the old Wild West

Advertising ( e.g. lying ) has been around for as long as records go back

You're right. Just now it's a lot easier, access to the internet being so much more widespread than access to a printing press.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

...of the yearly registration fee would be $6.95/ year or, $69.50 total fees for each name over the 10 year period. 69.50 -19.80 = <49.70> x 99 = <4,920.30> So, our domainer friend, Hypothetical Harry, is, at least, $4,920.30 into the red, despite his cheery outlook. This leaves me to conclude that I want, whatever, it is that he's taking!

You couldn't get $6.95 more than about 5 years ago, when the average price was more like $10-15. At about 8-10 years ago, it was $35/year. Also, about 8 years ago, you couldn't register a name without DNS servers. You had a choice of purchasing hosting at an average cost of $20/month, or paying about $10/year to park the domain.

Things have really changed in 10 years.

 

[Grrilla]

You couldn't get $6.95 more than about 5 years ago, when the average price was more like $10-15. At about 8-10 years ago, it was $35/year. Also, about 8 years ago, you couldn't register a name without DNS servers. You had a choice of purchasing hosting at an average cost of $20/month, or paying about $10/year to park the domain.

Things have really changed in 10 years.

That ?conservative estimate" will get you every time. My first domain was registered @ Register.Com and was $65/yr, as I recall. My b in law registered it for me and I don't recall if hosting was included or not. Somewhere along the line, $35 sounds familiar, also. (you can tell I was only dealing w/ a couple of domains, at the time.) Register.com- now, that's a blast from the past. NetworkSolutions and Register.com. NetSol was a bit slow on the uptake but made some changes and adjustedw/ the times. Last I heard, Refister.com was still lost somewhere in the last century.

In this case, I erred on the sife of caution and was, overly, conservative but figured that 10 yrs was beating Hypo Harry up, enough, and didn't want to rub his face in the mud and overdo it, too much.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Last I heard, Register.com was still lost somewhere in the last century.

Some of you newbies may not know that Register.com purchased Afternic.com before the dot-com bust for $millions. Then dumped it, for a tiny fraction of that to the current owners, who purchased just the name and intellectual properties.

 

[Grrilla]

Some of you newbies may not know that Register.com purchased Afternic.com before the dot-com bust for $millions. Then dumped it, for a tiny fraction of that to the current owners, who purchased just the name and intellectual properties.

Not just newbies. I knew that Roger and partner, (brother?) had purchased it but I didn't know the rest of the story.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Not just newbies. I knew that Roger and partner, (brother?) had purchased it but I didn't know the rest of the story.

Register.com purchased it for 48 million in 2000. $10 million cash plus stock.
NY Times story:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E5DC1E38F935A2575AC0A9669C8B63

Here's a very interesting version of the story as well. It also mentions buydomains having only 17,000 domains.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/461201

2 years later:
http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/1469711

NameBuySell buys afternic name:
http://www.afternic.com/content.php?p=pr2003-01-08

I diverged off topic a bit, but thought some might find the history interesting.

 

[Grrilla]

Kenny's post approaches the theme of the topic from a different angle :

This was from another thread titled "The "real" value of LLLL.com domains" started by member accentnepal:
http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-discussion/207497-the-real-value-llll-com-domains.html

Member wow! states:
Originally Posted by wow!

If some speculators would want, they'll reg all LLLL .com names and sell each other for $xxx-$xxxx
Now the worth of LLLL.coms will be higher.
Thats what happened to the LLL .coms.
1-2 years ago LLL .coms value were $1k
No reason for them to worth these days $5k-50k.
Demand could be a creation of fake sales...

Just my 2cents opinion...

My reply then:

Originally Posted by ~ Cyberian ~

I have wondered that myself. This would be the same as stock manipulation.
If this is in fact the case, we (the small players) are in real trouble.

When you see a sale of $10,000-$20,000 for a name and 6 months later it still sits
on a Reg House parking page, or worse, Page Not Found, you have to wonder about
the agenda of both buyer and seller.

This is not only LLL .com sales that could be suspect under this scenario... hmmm.

Your 2cents opinion is scary, wow!, but worth much more if true.

Peace,
Cyberian

How does this relate to this thread?
Grrilla is talking (I believe) about manipulation of perceived values by people with an agenda.

As I said, wow!'s 2cents opinion is scary, and under different scenarios... a horror movie beyond belief.

Peace,
Cyberian

ps, It's not that I'm paranoid, it's just that everyone is out to get me.
I mean seriously, how many times can Tide be new and improved? :hehe:

(NB. wow! is a respected, trustworthy, long time NP member and this is not a reflection on him or his business practices. By the luck of the draw, it is his post that is being used as a subject and not one of my own. Cyberian, I'll get to you in a moment. :hehe: )wow!'s resonse represents an interesting mix of opinion, projection and assertion. (hey wow! you're hard to pin down! ) wow! doesn't assert that domain name speculators are, more or less, "ramping" the LLLL market ("ramping" is an illegal, but common technique in the stock market. A few big players will inflate a stock's value, in order to, draw in money from alot of little players and, than, jump out with a profit, before the stock drops. http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials/market_manipulation.html) wow!'s preface, "If some speculators would want" does, however, *imply* that this is happenning and the implication is bolstered by his assertion or claim:"Thats what happened to the LLL .coms." He closes w/ "Just my 2cents opinion..." which, IMO, is the right way to frame a post that is based upon a projection or opinion.
The problem that this, particular, issue presents is that it is difficult, (almost impossible) to prove or disprove the asserion because, at this point, there has been no unequivocal evidence to support the "ramping" of domain name prices and/or intentionally inflatiion of their value through supply side control Maybe, this evidence will be forthcoming. As it stands, the practices can't be proven and, likewise, there is no evidence availble to defend the position that these techniques are not in practice.

I want to reply in more detail my time is getting short. In a nutshell, (and, obviously, Kenny wouldn't fall into this category- he's one of the good guys), In a nushell, while we should remain on the alert for false claims being made by sellers and advertisers, we don't want to fall into some kind of domain name McCarthism, either. Both proponts and detractors have the smae tools at their disposal.The fact that illegal and/or unsavory practices are taking place in a, particular, domain name category or area of web development doesn't indict everyone who is practicng or specializing in that market area..
☮... and when you're kicking out the bad guys, make sure that you are not booting out the good guys, as well.

 

[Grrilla]

:bingo: I went-a-searching for some expert analysis and organization of the concepts we have been discussing. (It is typical of me to try to work out my own analysis when the ideas are new to me [or when I haven't, yet, tied them together under a subject heading] and, than, later, move on to the experts to learn more about the concepts that I have been struggling with and to get the scoop on how the ideas are formally organized, analyzed and definied. This is, more, the product of not knowing what to look for and not knowing how to construct my inquiry than, it is, a case of hubris. )

These are the definitions, that represent the formal analysis of the subject of our topic. I have gone to a number of sources, but, as is, often, the case, Wikipedia, offers the most concise and accesible breakdown of the material http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias ):

Selection Bias-
sometimes referred to as the selection effect, is the error of distorting a statistical analysis due to the methodology of how the samples are collected. For example the sample selection may involve pre- or post-selecting the samples that may preferentially include or exclude certain kinds of results.
Selection bias is closely related to:

* sample bias, a selection bias produced by an accidental bias in the sampling technique, as against deliberate or unconscious manipulation.
* publication bias or reporting bias, the distortion produced in community perception or meta-analyses by not publishing uninteresting (usually negative) results, or results which go against the experimenter's prejudices, a sponsor's interests, or community expectations.
* confirmation bias, the distortion produced by experiments that are designed to seek confirmatory evidence instead of trying to disprove the hypothesis.

Overcoming selection bias

Concern about selection biases generally cannot be overcome with statistical analysis of existing data alone...

______________________​

A loud, ring of familiarity sounded out as I read the definitions of publication bias, confirmation bias and the difficult, (if not impossible), job that is involved in attempting to overcome selective bias' when the discussion is limited to the speaker's matrix and the issue is confined to a sinle context.

The cries of, ""These are the FACT's!", "The fact's support my conclusions!", "Open your eyes!", "Didn't you read my post?"" Prove me wrong!" wernt dashing through my head as I recalled countless argument's and p~ssing matches that had resulted from disagreements over the sampling methods and interpretation of the "FACTS", that had been, "Clearly stated". The intranscience displayed by the participants, on both sides of an issue, in discussions that closed with bad feelings and results that were dissatisfying that failed to move the topic forward, much less, provide a deeper or broader understanding of the issues involved.

It would be Pollyanish to think that discussion could evolve to some perfect plateau and fullfill a level of potential that was based in upon these idealistic standards. But, there is a h~ll of alot of room around here for an improvement in the selection methods and the interpretation of the facts and figures that are being used to support positions and opinions, IMHO.