Moniker now unsafe for name searches??

SpaceshipSpaceship
Watch
Impact
338
it's been a while that i searched for names but a couple days ago i started to search again and i used Moniker for it since i never had issues in the past...but shockingly i discovered that one of the name i searched for but didn't reg was registered just short after i searched:o

Who the F you can trust these days....dang, it was some good name IMO...i hope it will drop tomorrow, thought "tasting' is gone...well at least for the small domainer i guess....

Anyway, need your opinion on "THE ONE" trusted registrar.....

Cheers

Liquid
 
1
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
GoDaddyGoDaddy
Thx for all your responses and insights/suggestions/ideas:)

I was just surprised that this happened to me with moniker since it never did in the past...i will try all you guys mentioned....

Cheers

Liquid
 
0
•••
Well, Today's Moniker is not the Moniker of old. Just look at them as part of the Oversee behemoth now.
 
0
•••
Doesn't anybody understand that it is Verisign themselves are selling their searches?
 
0
•••
whenever I come across a good unregistered domain @ Godaddy, they say it is a "premium" name, and want $1K+ to register it....

I usually do most of my searching @ namecheap.

I like the suggestion to search for a different extension then the one you want just to throw them off.... for the uber paranoid.

Thats the name of the game though, I suppose.
 
0
•••
Doesn't anybody understand that it is Verisign themselves are selling their searches?

Link? Secret Spy Photographs? Hacker Logs? or it never happened :)

Seriously though. Is there documentation that states they are selling root DNS lookup data and/or whois seartch data to others?

Many articles circa 2007 quoting the well respected "sources".

If this is the case then we should at least rule out particular registrars as being evil.
 
0
•••
I think all the major players are selling the search lists.
I'm pretty sure they "taste" based on the search trends.
Just as all the major players added the premium listings
as well .... That gave them a stealth market to launder
those names they've "tasted".

Run the analytics tool ahead of time then buy when in
your cart. They have the stats to always stay ahead of
the majority. Your searches compile the market info "they"
need to circumvent "domainer"s. "We" are a target market
niche to them .....

It's a nice little package really. Find the trend. Control
supply, Establish a secondary aftermarket (distribution)
and channel the buyers to the product.


NN
 
0
•••
You cant trust nobody these days :) but your self using ton of different tools
 
0
•••
Link? Secret Spy Photographs? Hacker Logs? or it never happened :)

Seriously though. Is there documentation that states they are selling root DNS lookup data and/or whois seartch data to others?

Many articles circa 2007 quoting the well respected "sources".

If this is the case then we should at least rule out particular registrars as being evil.

Sorry defaultuser. I knew I was letting myself in for this criticism, without any links. But I believe it is well documented, that they have a business selling these searches. I think it is even documented on their convoluted website as well. It also makes a plausible explanation as to why so many disparate registers get accused of this. I think it was in defense of a criticism that GoDaddy were selling their searches, that somebody from GoDaddy pointed out that it was Verisign selling their searches, about 18-24 months ago. I'm sure something could be found on Google if you really wanted to do the research.

---------- Post added at 11:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------

Here was one link as far back as 2007 ... http://www.domainnamenews.com/editorial/verisign-to-profit-from-rootserver-data/889
 
0
•••
Sorry defaultuser. I knew I was letting myself in for this criticism, without any links. But I believe it is well documented, that they have a business selling these searches. I think it is even documented on their convoluted website as well. It also makes a plausible explanation as to why so many disparate registers get accused of this. I think it was in defense of a criticism that GoDaddy were selling their searches, that somebody from GoDaddy pointed out that it was Verisign selling their searches, about 18-24 months ago. I'm sure something could be found on Google if you really wanted to do the research.

I was just curious - it wasn't a criticism. I had already found this link and of course the 3000 variations of the same post. I was hoping there was some definitive comment.

Let me tell you where I stopped really caring:

According to sources, Verisign, the operator of the generic TLDs .COM & .NET registry, is considering...


Domainers have too many conspiracy theories in general imho

Reminds me of the great Bobby Knight:
- Quizzed in 2000 about a report claiming he choked ex-Hoosier Neil Reed, Knight asked a media gathering:
"It amazed me in this TV thing, what is an 'unnamed source?' Is an unnamed source me standing up here and saying, 'I was just told outside by somebody not wishing to be named that 65 percent of the men in this room are having extramarital affairs with sheep'?"

You probably had to see it :)
 
0
•••
They actually wound up doing just what they were considering.
 
0
•••
They actually wound up doing just what they were considering.

According to some guy that stands outside that claims that Verisign is run by aliens?

Any evidence at all? First or Second hand?

I know they give traffic stats of expiring names and some registrars actually choose to reveal that... but I've not heard of anyone selling the "Top 5000 searched names not found" or to who.. and what they ultimately use it for.

I don't doubt it. I just get tired of the fact that the most useful site on the web is Snopes. :)
 
0
•••
Dynadot — .com TransferDynadot — .com Transfer

We're social

Spaceship
Domain Recover
NameMaxi - Your Domain Has Buyers
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back