SnapNames Discussion

[HeyNow]

Published results from Snapnames? You must be joking. sounds like a farce to me. Considering Snapnames has a history of shill-bidding within its tent, and DNJournal.com IMHO has never called into question the credibility of Snapnames, in fact, rather DnJournal.com refers to Snapnames as "reputable."

I'm trying not to spew my soda out of my nose from bursts of laughter.

 

[JB Lions]

Published results from Snapnames? You must be joking. What a farce.

Shocking to see you in this thread, yes domains are sold there.

 

[HeyNow]

Shocking to see you in this thread, yes domains are sold there.

Yes, and there is a history of defrauding customers there. You know about that, right?

 

[JB Lions]

Yes, and the offending person is gone right? Do you actually have any current info on this type of activity? I've never seen it. Almost half your posts have something to do with this.

 

[HeyNow]

Yes, and the offending person is gone right? Do you actually have any current info on this type of activity? I've never seen it. Almost half your posts have something to do with this.

Well, Snapnames blamed massive fraud in hundreds or thousands of auctions, over a period of years, on one VP, Nelson Brady, username "halvarez." IMHO, which seems to run parallel with the industry prevailing wisdom, the excuse floated by Snapnames for the mass-scale defrauding of regular domainers (and end users) like you and I is highly unlikely.

For theft on a mssive scale, no one went to jail. If you or I stole millions of dollars from thousands of people, we'd be in the early stages of our 30 year sentence right now.

If you want "current info" on this story, just Google "Snapnames Scandal," or "Nelson Brady," or something like that.

Of course there is a 2nd cesspool furnishing to us what are perhaps spurious "sales results" on a weekly basis while pinning a badge of integrity on Snapnames.

As the saying goes, "I was born at night, but not last night."

 

[Kate]

For theft on a mssive scale, no one went to jail. If you or I stole millions of dollars from thousands of people, we'd be in the early stages of our 30 year sentence right now.

I don't think anything is going to happen until somebody files a lawsuit. Will you ?

 

[freezer]

Shouldnt Godaddy sales be included? Or Godaddy keep them private?

 

[DU]

I don't think anything is going to happen until somebody files a lawsuit. Will you ?

It should be a criminal not civil case. Most people impacted probably took the settlement.

It is therefore unlikely anything will happen so the only tactic left is to remind people that history tends to repeat where there's money to be swindled, i mean made.

 

[JB Lions]

Well, Snapnames/Oversee did file against him for 33 million in damages (settled) and they had a class action against them as well. Were you apart of that? Was this one lone person, was there something more to it, who knows. When something like that happens, I'm sure they took extra measures so it doesn't happen again, I imagine that would be pretty devastating for the company. And I'm sure other people are keeping an eye as well. I just know I haven't had any issues with them and they're not exactly running the sales chart up, only had 1 out of 20 this week.

 

[HeyNow]

I'm glad you're sure. Keep deluding yourself. When the money flows freely, it's easy to look the other way.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm the only participant here who reminds others here about the Snapnames shafting of thousands of innocent bidders. Otherwise, no one really seems to give a crap and the whole episode fades into the distance. In fact some here in this thread never even knew Snapnames perpetrated massive fraud, blaming one lone employee in a ridiculous fashion. Snapnames is given a pass by most participants here, and certainly by DnJournal.com as they continue to tout Snapnames as "reputable," almost like the fraud never happened.

I won't forget. I neither have the time nor resources to vigorously go after the fraudsters for civil penalties. My goal is to remind those participants here of the reality of:

1) How Snapnames financially raped its customers, and

2) How DNJournal seems to not give a flying-fk about its readers, including naive "newbies." In fact, all DNJournal.com seems to give a crap about is how much traffic it can generate through domain sites.

 

[JB Lions]

/eh pointless

 

[HeyNow]

/eh pointless

For someone who considers this topic "pointless," you sure seem to feel the need to minimize the gravity of felony on a mass scale. Seems like you feel the need to sell us the BS that this is "pointless." I don't believe you, not for one minute.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

Hey Now might have a point; I tend to trust Snapnames less than I used to, and I believe that it pays to keep one eye open and one's hand firmly on one's wallet.

But I don't know that insinuating that Ron Jackson is a part of a conspiracy by reporting on sales is helping Hey Now's cause.

Jackson did report on the scandal when it occurred:

DNJournal: Photos of Alleged Snapnames Shill Bidder... ​

I have won a few domains from Snapnames (although not lately), so I know they do sell domains legitimately.

We'll probably never hear the entire shill bidding story, but if it does surface, I believe that Ron Jackson will report it.

Meanwhile, if you (Hey Now) feel so strongly about the scandal, why not start or revive the old halvarez thread?

*

 

[JB Lions]

For someone who considers this topic "pointless," you sure seem to feel the need to minimize the gravity of felony on a mass scale. Seems like you feel the need to sell us the BS that this is "pointless." I don't believe you, not for one minute.

More you than the topic. Half your posts here are about this, in different threads and not once have you offered up anything new. And this isn't helping newbies out any, passing on your paranoia. I haven't had any issues with them myself.

This whole post is crazy:

2) How DNJournal seems to not give a flying-fk about its readers, including naive "newbies." In fact, all DNJournal.com seems to give a crap about is how much traffic it can generate through domain sites.

Reporting sales, not giving a cake about it's readers?

When this happened, you took no legal action? Did you jump on the class action? Did you contact the FTC via - http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/contact.shtm

What? Point is, this is old news, what does this have to do with the here and now?

 

[carob]

I have won a few domains from Snapnames (although not lately), so I know they do sell domains legitimately.

I even won uncontested domains there, meaning no one bid against me, but I am still wary of Snapnames- there is no way of knowing if they truly cleaned the place up. Dnjournal just report sales, they don't try and assess the credibility of auction houses. So that's up to us.

 

[DU]

*
But I don't know that insinuating that Ron Jackson is a part of a conspiracy by reporting on sales is helping Hey Now's cause.
*

I don't think he's insinuating that Ron Jackson is part of a conspiracy. On his part Ron Jackson is very clear that his list is just for informational purposes only.

The bone of contention is just that "Most of the sales in our report come directly to us from reputable and widely-known sales "...

Obviously Snapnames has a reputation and it is not considered reputable by a lot of people.. but it is DNJournal.

I don't know how valuable DN Journal is to anyone - it's a basic aggregator of "reported" sale. It is what it is, no more no less. I personally don't see the point of slamming DN Journal for reporting what's reported... the issue is clearly with SnapNames... that said, I have no issue with someone saying things the way they see them. Do I think Snapnames has cleaned up? Not sure. I know it's made itself "look" better...

 

[.X.]

I'm glad you're sure. Keep deluding yourself. When the money flows freely, it's easy to look the other way.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm the only participant here who reminds others here about the Snapnames shafting of thousands of innocent bidders. Otherwise, no one really seems to give a crap and the whole episode fades into the distance. In fact some here in this thread never even knew Snapnames perpetrated massive fraud, blaming one lone employee in a ridiculous fashion. Snapnames is given a pass by most participants here, and certainly by DnJournal.com as they continue to tout Snapnames as "reputable," almost like the fraud never happened.

I won't forget. I neither have the time nor resources to vigorously go after the fraudsters for civil penalties. My goal is to remind those participants here of the reality of:

1) How Snapnames financially raped its customers, and

2) How DNJournal seems to not give a flying-fk about its readers, including naive "newbies." In fact, all DNJournal.com seems to give a crap about is how much traffic it can generate through domain sites.

I admire you for sticking to your guns and not backing down regarding the matter, I can say this, I do not attend any auctions there, And a couple of more auction sites as well for the very reasons you speak about.

I agree with Ms Domainer, You feel very strongly about this, Why not open and revive a thread on it.

 

[HeyNow]

On a weekly basis we are told by that Snapnames is "reputable." That's not my word, that's a quote from DNJournal's site. When you read at DnJournal.com that Snapnames is "reputable," do you ask Ron Jackson why he feels the need to remind us that his sources are "reputable?" The truth is the truth. The truth about Snapnames's history is relevant now.

I like to see criminals do their time. I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is for grand theft, but I'm sure it's more than a couple of years.

I like to see newspapers that give felons a pass, in fact claiming yesterday's felon is today's "reputable" entity, be held accountable for essentially helping to sweep inconvenient shortcomings under the rug.

I read that Snapnames "came to a settlement" with Nelson Brady. I never read that Brady was sent to jail for fraud, theft, or any other crime. IMHO Brady wouldn't be the only one in jail. The whole story stinks.

You can give criminals a pass if you want, that's your right. I won't be taken for a fool, victimized, then told to shut up about it after you're sick of hearing about it. If you're sick of hearing about it, remember no one is forcing you to participate in this thread.

 

[JB Lions]

On a weekly basis we are told by that Snapnames is "reputable." That's not my word, that's a quote from DNJournal's site. When you read at DnJournal.com that Snapnames is "reputable," do you ask Ron Jackson why he feels the need to remind us that his sources are "reputable?" The truth is the truth. The truth about Snapnames's history is relevant now.

I like to see criminals do their time. I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is for grand theft, but I'm sure it's more than a couple of years.

I like to see newspapers that give felons a pass, in fact claiming yesterday's felon is today's "reputable" entity, be held accountable for essentially helping to sweep inconvenient shortcomings under the rug.

I read that Snapnames "came to a settlement" with Nelson Brady. I never read that Brady was sent to jail for fraud, theft, or any other crime. IMHO Brady wouldn't be the only one in jail. The whole story stinks.

You can give criminals a pass if you want, that's your right. I won't be taken for a fool, victimized, then told to shut up about it after you're sick of hearing about it. If you're sick of hearing about it, remember no one is forcing you to participate in this thread.

Right, same stuff. You'll post about it all day long on a message board but won't take any real action on it. If you feel this is an issue, again, have you contacted the FTC? The time it takes you to make another reply, you could do that.

You post stuff like:

IMHO Brady wouldn't be the only one in jail.

And I'll ask, who else? Right now, we know 1 person was definitely at fault but you seem to think there is more? Right now you're just throwing around allegations/hinting at it, but not backing any of it up.

You mention newbies but what is the real result of this? Probably stuff like this:

"I do not attend any auctions there, And a couple of more auction sites as well for the very reasons you speak about."

Scare them enough to not participate at places where they can get some better domains. I guess that's better for me and other domainers, less competition, so go for it.

The reality is, we can't see what's happening on the other end. I have no idea if there is shill bidding, there is some employee bidding like GD in the past, what's happening at NJ etc. In the end, I'm the one bidding and am only going to spend what I think is good. And yes, I do believe because of this things would get tightened up a bit, unless you think SnapNames wants another episode like this.

And yes, I know I don't have to participate in this thread, if you scroll up, you'll see I said it's pointless, but you wanted to continue. Like I said, I said it is pointless because I know you're going to run around the forum, hinting at things you can't back up, living in the past. If you had something current on them, I would support you 100%. If somebody is out there up to no good, they should be outed.

 

[HeyNow]

there is some employee bidding like GD in the past,

Yes, Adam Dicker, former VP at Godaddy was stealthily bidding against real customers while VP at Godaddy. That's how he procured SPYWARE.US. At very least he drove up the prices. Can yo imagine a Godaddy VP sitting in his Godaddy office, bidding against real customers? Driving up prices? Having access to information about the auctions other bidders weren't privy to? Happy to screw hard-working, retail-paying Godaddy customers? Godaddy supposedly banned the practice of employees screwing real customers after Dicker was exposed. By the way, I only saw Dicker held up to us in a positive light at DNJournal.com. Again, the lowlife gets kudos and accolades from the domain press.

Dicker dicked you and me. When I posted about it at Dicker's site (DNF, (username "broefoe"), my posts were deleted and I was eventually banished. How's that for transparency? I expected that. IMHO the last thing Dicker wants is to have the truth out about his ethical shortcomings.

There are scumbags running some of the games in domain land. I have no problem harping on the issue.