I registered a .com domain about a week ago and see that the .org and .net are taken by the same company. I was wondering if there is a way to see who previously owned a domain and let it drop?
-
-
๐ Domain search now with sales history! ๐ฅณ
Possible To See Who Previously Owned A Domain?
- Thread starter Whogister
- Start date
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Check via archive.org to see if it was developed into a site and find some contact info or comparing the design with .net/.org.
Or domaintools.com provide whois history service, it's a paid service and costly. Maybe you can find some forum member (who paid for that service) to do you a favor.
Good luck.
Or domaintools.com provide whois history service, it's a paid service and costly. Maybe you can find some forum member (who paid for that service) to do you a favor.
Good luck.
- Impact
- 14
Sure, any WHOIS archive database should tell you this.
I emailed the last owner to see if he would be interested in purchasing the .com back since he let it drop and owns the .net and .org... Interesting reply I get today.
We let it drop because we are only updating the .org site from now on. But since we got the .net we may as well have the .com too. I will think about buying it. Thank you for the info.
Kind of odd that they would only want to work on the .org when the .com is available.
We let it drop because we are only updating the .org site from now on. But since we got the .net we may as well have the .com too. I will think about buying it. Thank you for the info.
Kind of odd that they would only want to work on the .org when the .com is available.
- Impact
- 95
dreamscape said:
:hi:
It's because of a total lack of understanding about domain names
on their part.
They don't understand that owning the .COM protects their .ORG domain position.
They don't understand that they can protect their .ORG domain for under
$10 a year.
They don't understand that many of their customers will automatically
go to the .COM.
They don't understand that someone else can register the .COM and:
- Put up a porn site or other unsavory site
- Put up a site critical of their .ORG site
- Put up a site that competes with the .ORG for the same customer base
They don't understand that they should have registered the .COM when
they had the chance. If they decide they want it later, it may cost a lot
or may never be available again.
Last edited:
I disagree with Patrick. There is no purpose to registering the .org version of your domain name except as a typo-catcher, but the volume of these typos is minuscule. If it's globally understood you're a non-profit organization, then in less than 1% of cases of cases will your domain name be mistyped. In 99% of these cases, the viewer will realize his/her error and correct it with the .org version. I know these statistics because I have worked and managed websites for several non-profits.
It might not be unreasonable to me to register the .com version of my .org "out of principle" if the .com is available at reg. fee, but if it's going to cost my non-profit $100 to notch its .com counterpart, I would find it much more fulfilling AND practical to channel that $100 into furthering my cause.
The only exceptions to this rule are extremely wealthy, philanthropically-backed non-profits whose acronyms span 5 or more characters (e.g. AIPAC). AIPAC's reach and influence are such that it became necessary to register AIPAC.com and AIPAC.net to prevent those URLs from becoming anti-AIPAC / hate sites. But even global, well-financed non-profits with brief acronyms like the the AJC and the ADL don't own their .com counterparts.
It might not be unreasonable to me to register the .com version of my .org "out of principle" if the .com is available at reg. fee, but if it's going to cost my non-profit $100 to notch its .com counterpart, I would find it much more fulfilling AND practical to channel that $100 into furthering my cause.
The only exceptions to this rule are extremely wealthy, philanthropically-backed non-profits whose acronyms span 5 or more characters (e.g. AIPAC). AIPAC's reach and influence are such that it became necessary to register AIPAC.com and AIPAC.net to prevent those URLs from becoming anti-AIPAC / hate sites. But even global, well-financed non-profits with brief acronyms like the the AJC and the ADL don't own their .com counterparts.
Last edited:
i used to domain 'correctly' - registering the proper typos, shorter versions, .com for my .orgs, etc etc for any developed sites.
when you get a few sites, this all becomes impossible to maintain. i agree - putting your efforts into better content will give you much more traffic than simply registering a typo to catch the odd person, 99% of the time
when you get a few sites, this all becomes impossible to maintain. i agree - putting your efforts into better content will give you much more traffic than simply registering a typo to catch the odd person, 99% of the time
- Impact
- 95
JoshuaPz said:
I suggested registering the .COM if it's available and you have the .ORG
and not the other way around.
I didn't suggest a non-profit or anyone else should pay an exorbitant fee
to get the .COM.
But if a .COM did cost $100 the actual cost diminishes each year you own it.
After 10 years it would have only cost you $10 a year plus renewal fees.
I also did not say anything about typos.
Many people automatically type in .COM.
Typing .COM instead of .ORG is not a TYPO.
It's habit.
Habit reinforced by trillions of $ advertising .COM domains.
If someone does type .COM instead of the .ORG , it would be really good if
the .ORG people could control what that visitor sees.
They can only do that by also owning the .COM.
How can you possibly argue with that?
You really need to research the Dick Cheney fiasco.
During one of the 2004 Vice Presidential debates, Cheney was defending
Haliburton and referred the American public to check the facts at FactCheck.com.
Again, FactCheck.com.
He was supposed to say FactCheck.org.
FactCheck.com was and is owned by Frank Schilling and he directed all
the incredible amount of traffic his domain was getting to an anti-Bush
website run by George Soros.
Cheney did not own FactCheck.org but he made an incredible error
by saying .COM instead of .ORG.
If you own a .ORG and you can get the .COM for reg fee or at a
reasonable price, you should.
It protects your position.
It's insurance.
It would be foolish and short-sighted not to get the.COM when you
have the chance.
You may be very sorry later on that you allowed the opportunity to
slip away.
Anyway, that's just :imho: .
I totally agree with tricolorro here.
Great example with the FactCheck.com slip up!
The thing about this company I am referring to is that they, in fact, owned the .com at one point and just let it drop because they wanted to only use the .org
They are a home improvement business.
Most likely have business cards and other things with their .org url on them.
I explained the importance of having the .com too and even offered them a very low $xx price for it... still haven't heard back from them yet.
Great example with the FactCheck.com slip up!
The thing about this company I am referring to is that they, in fact, owned the .com at one point and just let it drop because they wanted to only use the .org
They are a home improvement business.
Most likely have business cards and other things with their .org url on them.
I explained the importance of having the .com too and even offered them a very low $xx price for it... still haven't heard back from them yet.
- Impact
- 95
dreamscape said:
Of course a company has the right to conduct business as they wish as long as it's legal.
Letting the .COM drop is legal.
But it's shortsighted especially if it's a commercial business (home improvement).
I don't know what the domain is but if it's generic and related to
home improvement someone else can set up shop on the .COM
and take away a portion of their (.ORG) business.
If it's not generic, someone else can still set up shop even
if it would be a trademark infringement and then the .ORG
folk will have to pay $ to defend their position.
And the $ will be a lot more than it would have cost to keep the .COM.
Letting the .COM expire or not buying it back for "very low $xx" is
just not very smart business IMHO.
As I said originally it's just that they just don't understand...and then
it's often too late when they do.
Last edited:
- Impact
- 121
dreamscape said:
:D :D
.
For all your criticism of the non-profit's indifference towards purchasing the .COM version of their name, it looks like the non-profit exercised smart business tactics by acting completely nonchalant when presented with that purchase opportunity. I would have done the same 
Similar threads
New posts โ
-
Ashita.xyz, DotDB:50- Reply by marcoRuth
-
NNNN.com - up to $7000- 4 posters
- Timofey
Polls of interest โ
-
What are your strengths as an investor?- 181 voters
- 26 replies
-
What's your domain portfolio size?
- 448 voters
- 134 replies
-
How do you think a potential buyer first checks if your domain is for sale?- 466 voters
- 52 replies
Hot this week โ
-
What Separates Domain Investors Who Fade Away From Those Who Stay?- 32 comments
- 23 points
-
Reflections on Palindrome Domain Names- 14 comments
- 74 points
-
Green.com domain name changed hands for $7.5 million- 9 replies
- 57 points
Hot this month โ
-
Most Domains Don't Sell Because...- 51 comments
- 64 points
-
Seeking Premium One-Word Domains ( .IO / .AI / .ORG) โ Wholesale Only
- 47 replies
- 42 posters
-
WTB: LWord.com, LLWord.com, LLLWord.com, budget is $10-$3000 per domain.
- 46 replies
- 1 point
-
How do you spot domain trends BEFORE they explode? (like claw keyword did)- 42 replies
- 2 points
Blog favorites
-
Reflections on Palindrome Domain Names
- 14 comments
- Bob Hawkes
-
5 Debates Domainers Will Never Agree On
- 21 comments
- Sully
