Top Bottom
Dan.com

New Namesilo Marketplace

NameSilo

Kuffy

Name Stag
Impact
5,190
Thanks for pointing that out. I've managed to sort out a multi-domain hosting deal, and I've been making my own landing pages with a link to the Name Silo market site page. It's a bit of extra work, but it seems that it could be worth the effort.

There is a danger that Google will penalise me for cross-linking too many domains, so I think it is important to have most of the links going one way, and not to cross-link domains for sale with each other, but to use a domains for sale listing page to give surfers offers.

What structure do other sellers use?
 
Awesome! Thank you! Probably a good idea to add these and other recent changes, such as exporting only selected names to an excel file, to your knowledge base or FAQ sections so that more users can get a chance to take advantage of them. Maybe add a "tips and tricks" section listing such features.

What is preventing the removal of the payment plan option for such sales is that once you get an offer the settings are fully locked in. We are not allowed to edit the settings of a domain sale once there is an active offer. The system completely blocks us from editing settings once there is an active offer. So once I get an offer I cannot disable the payment plan option because the system is preventing it. If the sales listing has the payment plan option enabled, there is just no way for me to disable it for such sales once I get an offer, so it is the system itself that is preventing removal of the payment plan option for offer counter offer sales. Sorry if I have not been clear enough, however, when I first brought up this issue I tried to go into detail as much as I could, and I am not really sure how to elaborate on it beyond what I wrote in my original post:

If you could please review this post again and let me know more specifically what is not clear about this issue I will try to clarify further.

That said, I think the solution you (or someone else from NameSilo) proposed in the initial response to my post would be a simple yet effective solution:

Hi @Arca - I wanted to provide an update on this topic...

We have been internally discussing for several days. We have decided not to permit changing the option for payment plan while in negotiations (open offers) on a sale. We certainly understand and are sensitive to the points you have made regarding having a Buyer ready to pay full price upfront, and then the same Buyer seeing a payment plan is available after agreeing to the full price and the fact that the end result could be payments over a long period of time - and there are people here who argued to allow removing payment plans while in negotiations. However, the consensus internally is that permitting this could lead to a negative experience for Buyers who believed a payment plan would be an option when entering negotiations. To have that Buyer then go to setup a payment plan on a sale only to find that it is no longer available would lead to a bad experience, and possibly even open us to the possibility of charge back in the event that Buyer has a method of payment stored in our system should they not want to complete the purchase and our system bills them automatically.

However, as a possible work around, while not perfect, we would suggest the following:
  • Agree to price with the Buyer
  • Reject their agreed upon offer and include a note that you will place the domain for sale again immediately following the rejection
  • Modify the sale to disallow payment plan and change price to agreed upon price (our system will also notify them a change has been made as they had previously submitted an offer on the domain)
  • Buyer returns to purchase the domain
Again, we understand that adding steps to the purchase process could put the sale at risk. This is however the best option we can think of given the scenario you presented in light of our decision to disallow removing payment plans as an option while active negotiations are ongoing. We just feel that Buyers could have a negative experience if this was permitted - almost feeling as though there was a bait and switch.

We always endeavor to add as much functionality and flexibility as possible for our Sellers to run their sales however they see fit. We would be happy to continue this conversation and are curious as to your response given what we have written here, and invite anyone else on this thread to share their ideas, feedback, etc. as well.

Thanks as always for your suggestions and sorry that we were unable to implement your request at this time. We are always open to hearing back and maybe there is a solution that will satisfy your requirements and our concerns regarding Buyer experience.
 
Hi not sure if this was mentioned, or is in some settings submenu, but I'll mention it here.

Sales landing pages are not indexed by Google - so if I google mysalesexample.com it does not come up.
This is deliberate since the lander pages are telling Google not to index them - this standard code is in the page sourcecode:



What about an option to have the landing pages indexed by Google?

Some time ago Sedo announced that such pages of theirs were now being indexed by Google, not sure about other platforms.

Hi @carob - Are you referring to the pages within our Marketplace, or landing pages for domain sales? Thanks
 
Hi @carob - Are you referring to the pages within our Marketplace, or landing pages for domain sales? Thanks

Hi I meant individual landing page for domain that is listed for sale at Namesilo so in browser address bar you see mydomain.com
 
Hi I meant individual landing page for domain that is listed for sale at Namesilo so in browser address bar you see mydomain.com

Thanks. I see it now. That code was on 2 of our templates, but we have now removed it. May take a week or so to filter out to all caching servers. Thanks for noticing and bringing to our attention!
 

Arca

Top Contributor
Impact
5,830
Hi @Arca - I wanted to provide an update on this topic...

We have been internally discussing for several days. We have decided not to permit changing the option for payment plan while in negotiations (open offers) on a sale. We certainly understand and are sensitive to the points you have made regarding having a Buyer ready to pay full price upfront, and then the same Buyer seeing a payment plan is available after agreeing to the full price and the fact that the end result could be payments over a long period of time - and there are people here who argued to allow removing payment plans while in negotiations. However, the consensus internally is that permitting this could lead to a negative experience for Buyers who believed a payment plan would be an option when entering negotiations. To have that Buyer then go to setup a payment plan on a sale only to find that it is no longer available would lead to a bad experience, and possibly even open us to the possibility of charge back in the event that Buyer has a method of payment stored in our system should they not want to complete the purchase and our system bills them automatically.

However, as a possible work around, while not perfect, we would suggest the following:
  • Agree to price with the Buyer
  • Reject their agreed upon offer and include a note that you will place the domain for sale again immediately following the rejection
  • Modify the sale to disallow payment plan and change price to agreed upon price (our system will also notify them a change has been made as they had previously submitted an offer on the domain)
  • Buyer returns to purchase the domain
Again, we understand that adding steps to the purchase process could put the sale at risk. This is however the best option we can think of given the scenario you presented in light of our decision to disallow removing payment plans as an option while active negotiations are ongoing. We just feel that Buyers could have a negative experience if this was permitted - almost feeling as though there was a bait and switch.

We always endeavor to add as much functionality and flexibility as possible for our Sellers to run their sales however they see fit. We would be happy to continue this conversation and are curious as to your response given what we have written here, and invite anyone else on this thread to share their ideas, feedback, etc. as well.

Thanks as always for your suggestions and sorry that we were unable to implement your request at this time. We are always open to hearing back and maybe there is a solution that will satisfy your requirements and our concerns regarding Buyer experience.
Thank you for seriously looking into it. I’m of a different mind when it comes to what the buyer believe/is lead to believe by the system, when they go into off/counter offer negotiations, but I understand your position and why you feel the need to retain the system in its current form.

I recently had another buyer state during negotiations that he had zero interest in/intention of paying with a payment plan, and that he would pay in full. I accepted his offer based on his “promise” to pay in full. Shortly after he set up a payment plan to pay for the domain over several months. That this kind of thing keeps happening and that we as sellers have no control over it is annoying, but I’ll just accept it as a necessary drawback to an otherwise well-functioning system. Rejecting the offer and relisting the domain for sale at the agreed upon price would be very disruptive and could easily lead to misunderstandings that could jeopardize the sale. Triggering an email with the subject line telling them their offer has been rejected, and then including a small text note inside that email that their offer has actually been accepted, seems like a recipe for potentially losing sales, so that's not a method I would recommend anyone to try (you have no guarantee they will even notice the “acceptance” note included with the rejection notification email, some buyers might "rage delete" the rejection email in a knee-jerk reaction once they see their offer has been "rejected", without opening it).

Again, thanks for giving this issue some serious discussion internally. Maybe if more sellers eventually start to bring it up you might reconsider your position on it down the line.
 
Thank you for seriously looking into it. I’m of a different mind when it comes to what the buyer believe/is lead to believe by the system, when they go into off/counter offer negotiations, but I understand your position and why you feel the need to retain the system in its current form.

I recently had another buyer state during negotiations that he had zero interest in/intention of paying with a payment plan, and that he would pay in full. I accepted his offer based on his “promise” to pay in full. Shortly after he set up a payment plan to pay for the domain over several months. That this kind of thing keeps happening and that we as sellers have no control over it is annoying, but I’ll just accept it as a necessary drawback to an otherwise well-functioning system. Rejecting the offer and relisting the domain for sale at the agreed upon price would be very disruptive and could easily lead to misunderstandings that could jeopardize the sale. Triggering an email with the subject line telling them their offer has been rejected, and then including a small text note inside that email that their offer has actually been accepted, seems like a recipe for potentially losing sales, so that's not a method I would recommend anyone to try (you have no guarantee they will even notice the “acceptance” note included with the rejection notification email, some buyers might "rage delete" the rejection email in a knee-jerk reaction once they see their offer has been "rejected", without opening it).

Again, thanks for giving this issue some serious discussion internally. Maybe if more sellers eventually start to bring it up you might reconsider your position on it down the line.

Thanks for your understanding, and, again, we certainly understand where you're coming from. We remain open to hearing back on any other ideas or also feedback from anyone else on this topic as we continue to strive toward the best Marketplace possible.
 

Arca

Top Contributor
Impact
5,830
I must say I've been very impressed with NameSilo's international wire transfers. With other marketplaces/escrow providers these tend to be slow, and they often come with additional payment fees and/or really bad currency conversion rates. For this reason, I know many sellers, including myself, prefer to receive all payments via PayPal instead.

However, with NameSilo you can trigger an international wire transfer payout, and at least in my case, I often have access to the money in my bank account within hours. And the amount you get is really close to the "ideal" conversion rate. You get the funds nearly as fast as with a PayPal payout sometimes.

It's great to have full control over exactly when/how/how much we get paid for our NameSilo sales. Another great feature of the NameSilo marketplace!
 

anantj

Top Contributor
Impact
3,813
I must say I've been very impressed with NameSilo's international wire transfers. With other marketplaces/escrow providers these tend to be slow, and they often come with additional payment fees and/or really bad currency conversion rates. For this reason, I know many sellers, including myself, prefer to receive all payments via PayPal instead.

However, with NameSilo you can trigger an international wire transfer payout, and at least in my case, I often have access to the money in my bank account within hours. And the amount you get is really close to the "ideal" conversion rate. You get the funds nearly as fast as with a PayPal payout sometimes.

It's great to have full control over exactly when/how/how much we get paid for our NameSilo sales. Another great feature of the NameSilo marketplace!
To confirm, NS does not charge any wire transfer fees like most other services/providers (Typically $25 or more)?
 

Arca

Top Contributor
Impact
5,830
To confirm, NS does not charge any wire transfer fees like most other services/providers (Typically $25 or more)?
That is correct, there is no wire transfer fee:
nsss.png
 
@namesilo - can you please share some trends (if detected) to help with optimal config of payment plans, (in particular, for domains that are currently offered as simple BIN)?

Such as:

- Buyers selecting payment plan (if offered) tend to opt-in for the longest possible term (or not?)

- GEO distribution of buyers selecting payment plans (North America, Europe, Other countries) - do buyers with any particular geo tend to use payment plans less frequently / more frequently (if offered). May be useful to configure domains where a buyer from a particular geo region is more likely to come.

- min. $$$ amount where the buyers tend to opt-in for payment plans (I'm trying to figure out an optimal sale amount to start offering payment plans)

- /If detected/ %%% of unsuccessfully completed sales - where the domain was finally returned to the seller but 1 or more monthly payments still happened

- anything else you find useful in this aspect based on historical stats for sales with payment plans

Thanks a lot.
 
Last edited:
@namesilo - can you please share some trends (if detected) to help with optimal config of payment plans, (in particular, for domains that are currently offered as simple BIN)?

Such as:

- Buyers selecting payment plan (if offered) tend to opt-in for the longest possible term (or not?)

- GEO distribution of buyers selecting payment plans (North America, Europe, Other countries) - do buyers with any particular geo tend to use payment plans less frequently / more frequently (if offered). May be useful to configure domains where a buyer from a particular geo region is more likely to come.

- min. $$$ amount where the buyers tend to opt-in for payment plans (I'm trying to figure out an optimal sale amount to start offering payment plans)

- /If detected/ %%% of unsuccessfully completed sales - where the domain was finally returned to the seller but 1 or more monthly payments still happened

- anything else you find useful in this aspect based on historical stats for sales with payment plans

Thanks a lot.

Real sorry for late reply... had some confusion on our end. The person who normally checks/responds thought someone else already had. In any case, we'll prepare a post before too long with some information regarding the Marketplace since our last big report. Will try to include as much of the information as you requested above as well.
 
Thier expired auction platform is the worst in existence @namesilo

Actually it’s not an auction platform, it’s a buy it now service. They lose thousands of dollars on certain domains while cheating customers out of an opportunity to bid fair market value.

Hi @Keith . We are sorry again that you do not approve of our Expired Domain Auction system. We have noted your feedback on the other thread and in email correspondence. As we replied, our view is that there are pros and cons to different systems. While our system may indeed cost us money in some cases, it does provide buyers with the opportunity to gain security and peace-of-mind by ensuring they will win an auction if it reaches its end. If there is a domain you are interested in, then our advice is to bid the highest amount you are comfortable paying. If you wait until a max bid is potentially lowered and someone then bids that maximum before you bid, then we understand that you would have lost out in that scenario, but the person who did place the bid has the security of knowing they cannot be outbid.

As we have replied to you previously, we do understand this is not a perfect system, and we appreciate feedback to help us improve and continually refine our service offerings. However, for expired domains, we believe our system currently offers a good mix of opportunity to bid, and security to ensure winning if bidding the maximum allowed. You can always bid a "fair market value" as long as someone has not already bid the maximum. Very few people bid the maximum when domains first become available. In most cases, this does not occur until max bids are lowered near the end of an auction. If you bid more than that max would be lowered to, you ensure yourself winning the auction.

Thanks again for all of your feedback.
 
Hi @Keith . We are sorry again that you do not approve of our Expired Domain Auction system. We have noted your feedback on the other thread and in email correspondence. As we replied, our view is that there are pros and cons to different systems. While our system may indeed cost us money in some cases, it does provide buyers with the opportunity to gain security and peace-of-mind by ensuring they will win an auction if it reaches its end. If there is a domain you are interested in, then our advice is to bid the highest amount you are comfortable paying. If you wait until a max bid is potentially lowered and someone then bids that maximum before you bid, then we understand that you would have lost out in that scenario, but the person who did place the bid has the security of knowing they cannot be outbid.

As we have replied to you previously, we do understand this is not a perfect system, and we appreciate feedback to help us improve and continually refine our service offerings. However, for expired domains, we believe our system currently offers a good mix of opportunity to bid, and security to ensure winning if bidding the maximum allowed. You can always bid a "fair market value" as long as someone has not already bid the maximum. Very few people bid the maximum when domains first become available. In most cases, this does not occur until max bids are lowered near the end of an auction. If you bid more than that max would be lowered to, you ensure yourself winning the auction.

Thanks again for all of your feedback.
Why would you operate a platform that costs you money? The idea in any business is to make as much profit as possible. That aside, if customers are allowed to bid against each other, the winner does indeed have peace of mind that they will get the domain at the end of the process. Your max bid model vs open bidding only hurts your bottom line. In either case, someone gets the domain, but only 1 of the biz models costs Namesilo massive amounts of money.

FYI I shared my experience with a few established domainers. They were flabbergasted at how you choose to handle expired domains. It’s almost inconceivable to operate that way.
 
Last edited:
Why would you operate a platform that costs you money? The idea in any business is to make as much profit as possible. That aside, if customers are allowed to bid against each other, the winner does indeed have peace of mind that they will get the domain at the end of the process. Your max bid model vs open bidding only hurts your bottom line. In either case, someone gets the domain, but only 1 of the biz models costs Namesilo massive amounts of money.

Yes, making money is indeed an ultimate goal, and our belief is that long-term happy customers is a good step in doing so. We have many customers who tell us they appreciate being able to lock in a win on an expired domain without having to continually refresh pages, write scripts to bid, use proxy bidding, etc. We believe this is a good way to offer a service that people really enjoy using versus maximizing our profits on just that one sale. Again, we completely understand and appreciate your feedback. It is just a matter of opinion, and our opinion, based on a lot of feedback over the years, is that buyers predominantly like our program.

This is not to say we are correct, and that better alternatives do not exist. We are always open to feedback and changing things when we believe doing so would have a positive impact for our customers and us.
 
I did not yet check the expireds channel at NameSilo. So just one basic question - is my understanding correct that one is supposed to bid just once (their maximum) and the domain will be awarded to a highest bidder? Also, what is the min. bid then? Does NameSilo reward domain owners with account credits etc. if their expired domain is sold (I heard about ~1 or maybe 2 registrars doing this, not too public though)
 
Yes, making money is indeed an ultimate goal, and our belief is that long-term happy customers is a good step in doing so. We have many customers who tell us they appreciate being able to lock in a win on an expired domain without having to continually refresh pages, write scripts to bid, use proxy bidding, etc. We believe this is a good way to offer a service that people really enjoy using versus maximizing our profits on just that one sale. Again, we completely understand and appreciate your feedback. It is just a matter of opinion, and our opinion, based on a lot of feedback over the years, is that buyers predominantly like our program.

This is not to say we are correct, and that better alternatives do not exist. We are always open to feedback and changing things when we believe doing so would have a positive impact for our customers and us.
Customers are happy to bid up to what they feel domains are worth to them. GoDaddy has the auction process about perfected. Let people bid and if nobody bids, offer a low bin.

In my case you sold a domain for $75 that I would’ve easily paid $10,000 for, probably double if need be. Oh well.
 
I did not yet check the expireds channel at NameSilo. So just one basic question - is my understanding correct that one is supposed to bid just once (their maximum) and the domain will be awarded to a highest bidder? Also, what is the min. bid then? Does NameSilo reward domain owners with account credits etc. if their expired domain is sold (I heard about ~1 or maybe 2 registrars doing this, not too public though)
Namesilo sets a max for each expired domain. So let’s say drop.com is expired and they set a max bid of $100. Whoever bids $100 first wins and no one else can bid. Genius idea right?!
 
I did not yet check the expireds channel at NameSilo. So just one basic question - is my understanding correct that one is supposed to bid just once (their maximum) and the domain will be awarded to a highest bidder? Also, what is the min. bid then? Does NameSilo reward domain owners with account credits etc. if their expired domain is sold (I heard about ~1 or maybe 2 registrars doing this, not too public though)

Hello. Our system establishes a max bid for domains when they first enter the auction. People can bid any amount they like and as many times as they like up to the max bid amount. If someone reaches the max bid, no further bidding is allowed. As the auction nears its end, if adequate bids are not made, the max bid gets lowered. You can read more about all of this here if interested:

https://www.namesilo.com/Support/Expired-Domain-Auction-Frequently-Asked-Questions

Thanks
 
Namesilo sets a max for each expired domain. So let’s say drop.com is expired and they set a max bid of $100. Whoever bids $100 first wins and no one else can bid. Genius idea right?!

Right, this would not make sense as the max bi for that domain would likely start in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and remain as such for about 20 days. This would allow bids up to that amount for at least 20 days. Then, if nobody bid more than $50 by 5 days to go in the auction, the max bid would be lowered.
 
If someone reaches the max bid, no further bidding is allowed.

An interesting idea. I think I like it. Very new indeed, and makes some sense. Not to say that it is 100% perfect (no system is perfect, even ICANN is not perfect) but not dealing with hugedomains in either gd expiring auctions as competitors, or at dropcatch as a "house" - this alone is a fresh air.
 
Right, this would not make sense as the max bi for that domain would likely start in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and remain as such for about 20 days. This would allow bids up to that amount for at least 20 days. Then, if nobody bid more than $50 by 5 days to go in the auction, the max bid would be lowered.
Now you’re relying on a team to determine the ultimate value instead of the market. Why do that? You might as well price every domain with a $100,000 max bid, at least people have time to process and bid. But as it stands, most are $50 or basically free, so it’s a matter of who bids the quickest, not the most.
 
biix