.net and .org domains available for reg fee: Are they all worthless?

[Neophyte]

I recall this topic being brought up before, but of course I cannot find it now when I need it.

I know that some domainers say that they will not purchase a .com domain unless it has at least 1000 exact local searches according to GAKT. What about .net or .org domains? There are a lot of names that can be purchased in these extensions (that have over 1000 exact local searches) for reg fee--are they all worthless?

FOR EXAMPLE: I noticed a .net with 12,100 exact global searches, but only 4400 exact local searches. Does such a name have value, or is it worthless because it is not a .com?

What is the minimum number of exact local searches in GAKT must a .com, .net or .org domain name have before your would consider registering it at reg fee or backordering it?

Thanks for your help in answering this perplexing question.

 

[bmugford]

The search volume is only one indication of commercial value.

"How to make pasta" for example has 40,500 global exacts where "Injury Attorney" only has 2,400.

However "Injury Attorney" has far more commercial usage.
It has high competition and a $20+ Cost per Click.

A term like "Injury Attorney" is still worth a lot in .NET or .ORG where a term like "How to Make Pasta" really only has value in .COM.

Brad

 

[Fonzie]

What is the minimum number of exact local searches in GAKT must a .com, .net or .org domain name have before your would consider registering it at reg fee or backordering it?

The answer is: who cares what the GAKT says?

The Google Adwords Keyword Tool is a false god. It's caused more money to be wasted than anything else in domaining.

Yes, it's a fine general indicator as far as what sort of commercial pulse a given keyword might have but the idea that domain investing is a game that revolves around how many searches the GAKT says a given term has will guarantee you wind up buying a ton of worthless garbage.

 

[mwzd]

Fonz, I agree that it's not the only thing you should follow, but totally disregarding it is what you advise?

.net / .org domains are a lot tougher to sell, though if you're developing it doesn't matter that much, though clickthroughs can be lower than .com, which is why you should only get those w/ 10x the same metrics you apply to .com domains.

At least imho, good luck!

 

[999names]

I totally agree with Brad. I see many domainers fascinated with exact searches. If domaining was so black and white then it would be extremely easy to look at stats and pick domain names. That should be part of the evaluation of a domain name. Do not be so so hung up on the exact searches. Also I have found that .net names are very hard to sell. I have lucks with .coms and .orgs

 

[Fonzie]

Fonz, I agree that it's not the only thing you should follow, but totally disregarding it is what you advise?

Yes. Totally disregard it, if successful domain reselling is your objective.
I haven't consulted the gakt PRIOR to buying a domain name in the past 2 years. The only time I gave a shit about it is when I was robbing Google with splogs and needed an exact matching domain to black-hat my way to adsense gold. That game died.

"Searches" were a relevant metric when the available .com space was still wide open, consumer behavior on the internet was immature as hell and people were still typing in and bulk domain name speculating was a viable option. The idea that a ton of people searching for (X) would translate into them typing that in and attaching .com to the end of it was viable. Register (x).com, park it, profit, repeat.

That model does not carry over to all these stupid chimps buying HomeBrewingBeer.info on the basis of 'searches'. Even those types of names in .com can be tenuous enough, as something like eBrewing.com is probably a better bet. In backwater TLDs? Haha, no chance.

We now have extremely robust sale reporting from most of the major marketplaces. One would have to be a complete fucking retard to see those lists and keep buying names on the basis of what the "keyword tool" says, but "complete fucking retard" is about 50% of people who do this.

 

[DU]

We now have extremely robust sale reporting from most of the major marketplaces. One would have to be a complete fucking retard to see those lists and keep buying names on the basis of what the "keyword tool" says, but "complete fucking retard" is about 50% of people who do this.

Robust reporting..lmfao

 

[Fonzie]

Robust reporting..lmfao

You certainly do make a compelling case.

 

[DU]

You certainly do make a compelling case.

Your robust reporting is a cross section of sales not indicating actual platform mostly without indication of type of sale. No real confirmation. No public records. Many based solely on industry standards and transparency that doesn't exist with a history of non-payment, shill bidding, insider "deals". Some independently "verified" by one individual who has no qualms considering Snap Names a reputable source.

More compelling? I feel like something is missing... let me think on this...

One would have to be a complete fucking retard to see those robust reports and buy names solely on the basis of the content but most people are fucking idiots.

There. That does it.

 

[Fonzie]

There's no doubt whatsoever that this industry is a cesspool of dishonesty. It's always been that way.

There's also no doubt that the information presented isn't universally comprehensive and at times, is imperfect. Hell, the domain I use for my email was acquired as a Godaddy closeout for $10, in spite of the fact that it was reported as being sold at Sedo for thousands of dollars a year earlier.

That said, for whatever imperfection exists, there is still a ton of highly relevant, very credible data there. One needn't look further than Whois history (which you "free" Domaintools users do not get) to verify most of it.

So, your 'point' is stupid. It's like saying that 10-K's are without value because LOOK AT ENRON!!!!! I realize some people are conspiratorial-minded to the point of crippling hysteria but all flaws included, the reporting is a pretty damn accurate reflection of what actually sells.

 

[DU]

There's no doubt whatsoever that this industry is a cesspool of dishonesty. It's always been that way.

But apparently, as you state later, this dishonesty and cesspool can often be simply traversed via whois history.

Hell, the domain I use for my email was acquired as a Godaddy closeout for $10, in spite of the fact that it was reported as being sold at Sedo for thousands of dollars a year earlier.

Do you have a degree in language? psychology? or are you just naturally gifted at what you do?

There is a certain uniquely malignant form of narcissism in you that makes me wonder if your a genius or a psychopath. I meant that in a sort of complimentary way.

You throw these things in because what the naive readers sees is: "Fonzie has such a pulse on the market that he is able to capture an AAA rated name for nothing and then use it for his email".

It's brilliant.

That said, for whatever imperfection exists, there is still a ton of highly relevant, very credible data there. One needn't look further than Whois history (which you "free" Domaintools users do not get) to verify most of it.

So information provided by a company that is responsible for much of the indexing, crunching of the internet data so that it can be searched by the majority of internet users despite imperfections has no highly relevant, credible data?

So, your 'point' is stupid. It's like saying that 10-K's are without value because LOOK AT ENRON!!!!!

Perhaps your 'point' here would be with more value if there was a 10-K equivalent for the domain market? Or a Domain Exchange Commission which actually tries to manage some kind of market transparency.

Nice misdirect though. Both demeaning and cleverly avoiding the actual point. Kudos.

Of course, a whois history says everything.. because we all know how hard it is to forge or manipulate that information with the big internet watchdog overseeing thing ;0)

..but all flaws included, the reporting is a pretty damn accurate reflection of what actually sells.

The keyword tool while being discredited by many..with all flaws included, is a pretty damn accurate reflection of what people are looking for and what people are advertising. That fact seems relevant to me.

 

[Fonzie]

There is nothing- and I mean nothing- worse than parsed down, quid pro quo replies. It begets the same thing, and eventually, the entire point of the conversation is lost as cogent paragraphs are parsed down into sentence fragments, each receiving an incongruous reply.

The people who do this are idiots, even though they don't realize they're idiots and here I am being an even bigger idiot by wasting time to play this idiots game.

Anyway, ya gotta speak German to Germans, so lets roll...

But apparently, as you state later, this dishonesty and cesspool can often be simply traversed via whois history.

You're the one who seems to think that everything in domaining is a giant conspiracy. Is there some devilish undercurrent of masterminded plotting and machinations that drives the industry? LMAO. No. Is there dishonesty still ongoing? Hell yes. Fuck, I could call out certain well known 'whois entities' that are complete figments of someones tax-evading imagination, but I won't...

The point being, your implication was just stupid. Many (if not most) of the reported sales can be verified via an ordinary whois as having gone to an end user.

Of course, as we all know, talking to 'conspiracy minded' folk can be a pointless endeavor. There's always that Building 7...

Do you have a degree in language? psychology? or are you just naturally gifted at what you do?

There is a certain uniquely malignant form of narcissism in you that makes me wonder if your a genius or a psychopath. I meant that in a sort of complimentary way.

You throw these things in because what the naive readers sees is: "Fonzie has such a pulse on the market that he is able to capture an AAA rated name for nothing and then use it for his email".

It's brilliant.

What you said here is just stupid.
You seem to live in your own little world and comprehend things not on the basis of apparent fact or reason (as most people do), but by forcing the conversation to answer to your own bizarre internal monologue.

I pointed that out to reaffirm at least a portion of what you were saying was true; that sometimes, those sale reports are indeed absurd and incorrect. The domain in question is not a "AAA Rated" domain. Those are your words, not mine. It's definitely great for an email, though, and if for whatever reason you think what I'm saying isn't true, please propose how much you're willing to wager. I preemptively accept. I predict you will artfully ignore, distract or change the topic, as far as this goes.

So information provided by a company that is responsible for much of the indexing, crunching of the internet data so that it can be searched by the majority of internet users despite imperfections has no highly relevant, credible data?

I'm sure that paragraph made sense in your mind, but it came out garbled. Please retransmit in English.

Perhaps your 'point' here would be with more value if there was a 10-K equivalent for the domain market? Or a Domain Exchange Commission which actually tries to manage some kind of market transparency.

Nice misdirect though. Both demeaning and cleverly avoiding the actual point. Kudos.

Of course, a whois history says everything.. because we all know how hard it is to forge or manipulate that information with the big internet watchdog overseeing thing ;0)

Not at all.
Your premise is that the domain industry is a gigantic conspiracy because some people operate fraudulently. I pointed out that some people operating fraudulently does not imply that the domain industry is a giant conspiracy, no more than the existence of Enron and fraudulent accounting practice implies that all accounting practices are fraudulent.

It couldn't have possibly been more clear, but keep dancing. It's funny to watch.

The keyword tool while being discredited by many..with all flaws included, is a pretty damn accurate reflection of what people are looking for and what people are advertising. That fact seems relevant to me.

The Google Adwords Keyword Tool is not an accurate reflection of what most people want in a domain name (as measured by the people buying domain names), which seems far more relevant to this conversation than your own personal theories as developed via your extensive experience operating on Namepros.

 

[DU]

To avoid quid quo pro, parsed, sentence fragments I'll skip over commenting on all your point. I'll conveniently ignore the put downs and decline the forum wager (really?, a forum wager).

I'll agree that we're both idiots.

The Google Adwords Keyword Tool is not an accurate reflection of what most people want in a domain name (as measured by the people buying domain names)

This is where we agree. The Adwords Keyword Tool has not been developed to allow people to make judgments on buying a name. It is a tool for customers to supposedly make more educated and informed decisions on advertising and marketing campaigns. It has sadly been crudely reverse engineered to provide domain value feedback and Google's tool has been picked up by everyone as some sort of evaluation Oracle. In a pure search-term = keyword = predictable traffic interpretation it probably, as you said, has more value. I don't believe that the numbers should be the basis for making a decision. Where we disagree on this tool is that I believe there's no harm - and there is in fact value - in using it as part of an evaluation.

The advice to ignore it totally is not sound for anyone who is looking for something analytical and something statistical to base their domain decisions on. When you say skip google analytics you are potentially ignoring a very important aspect of what potentially makes a domain desirable. That said YOUR personal experience may well make it redundant - no doubt you could have an idea whether a term is highly sought after and have a feel for CPC without even looking. With experience the reliance would be less and less. For non English speakers in particular you can at least avoid buying nonsense which would save countless 1,000 of bad registrations.

When comparing 700 searches to 3500 searches does it even matter?
Outside of some ridiculous long tail search terms that people should not hang their hat on... this seems to be the sweet spot that most domainers are working in when they are not buying expensive names in the aftermarket (a speculative guess based on what I've seen and not statistically measured). For localized terms MiamiLawyer.com vs. generics Lawyer.com (granted an extreme example) it is important because your searches are inherently more market targeted. Therefore the tool doesn't provide answers but it can give you some insight. That said - purely looking just at EXACT searches and correlating to value? In my opinion this doesn't work.

I don't think this view is too different from yours.

Where we differ is on the analytical value and proof provided by robust reporting. I don't believe there is robust reporting, and what there is certainly provides nothing for the idiots (include me if you want) to get an advantage from in an analytical sense and for certain segments of the market you're still looking at a keywords being important. While this is the case you'd be a fool to not make it part of your consideration.

Many sales ARE keyword driven contrary to your point: Headphoneamps.com, propertymanagementcompany.com, over50lifeinsurance.co.uk all scroll on this screen as recent sales over X,XXX.
Many are simply always with value LLL.com, etc.

But what the prices don't really reveal is: Why are the names valued to the buyer what they are? And the just as important, why did the seller not sell for less.

Do some have traffic? Do some have meaning? Do some belong to a marketing campaign? Are some more defensive? Are some true business names? Some sellers ALWAYS sell high even crap names - and this people still struggle with. They don't get certain market dynamics based on the sellers position, liquidity, reputation and sales platform. Most importantly, and what I didn't say but thought would be understood, is that your "robust reporting" is missing a HUGE volume of sales data. I would guess that under 10% of sales are reported. Hardly robust.

That said I think where the divide is that we are trying to fit one solution into two different markets:

Consider NFC names. There are a number of NFC keyword sales but looking through history of sales you can see a dearth of RFID and other similar technology sales despite large search volume. I would barely recommend buying many .COM with high search let alone a .NET. If you shift to the more brandable Tap/Wave/MobileWallet names then you will see that there are nice sales despite the search numbers.

That analysis would 100% support your view that the comparables is far more useful than any keyword search numbers.

So I don't buy into discarding one vs the other but understanding the value that each source of data provides. I think MWZD has it right though - if you DO use the keyword tool you have to account for whether you are .COM, .NET, .INFO. You would need far higher numbers to justify a .NET gamble based on those numbers alone. I would not even bother with a .TV, .INFO based on those numbers alone. I also wouldn't use sales figures to determine what is and isn't valuable but to simply provide input.

Finally (if you made it this far which I wouldn't blame you if you stopped because I'm rambling):

A forum wager? Really?