WLS test

[JMJ]

I posted this on another forum and decided I wanted more people to see this.

A little test of random words ran for snaps at snapnames. Now the likelyhood of these being caught by snapnames if expired is what 10%? (probably less) Think about what these numbers will be if it's 100% guarantee. Also have a look at some of the expiration dates.

These snaps are on .com's during the checking some had snaps on .net, .org, and even .co.uk.

If you don't like my results try it yourself I've done this more than once and get pretty much the same reults each time.

Two letter 3 out of 10

ac.com snaped expiration 2008
ah.com snaped ex dec 2005
ai.com snaped ex 2008



Three letter 3 out of 10

aoc.com mar 2005
aod.com mar 2005
aol.com sept 2004



Two word casino 2 out of 10

casinogame.com 20-nov-2004
internetroulette.com 17-apr-2004



Random top 500 keywords 4 out of 10

blink.com 11-oct-2005
gamecheats.com 24-jan-2005
puppies.com 01-sep-2013
wallpapers.com 26-jun-2005


List of names ran
onlinedegrees
sensual
gamecheats
legs
wallpapers
Blink
puppies
people
swimwear
musicvideos



Animals 4 out of 10

cat.com 26-mar-2005
chicken.com 28-dec-2004
cow.com 18-jan-2006
crocodile.com 24-mar-2004



Colors 5 out of 10

blue.com Oct 29, 2004
brown.com Nov 26, 2004
crimson.com Apr 27, 2004
gray.com May 05, 2004
indigo.com May 06, 2005




Random one worders 2 out of 10

boring.com Apr 19, 2004
colorful.com 19-jun-2004




names ran
boring
brave
bright
calm
cautious
clean
clever
cold
colorful
complete


Womens names 3 out of 10

catherine.com 12-apr-2004
cheryl.com 29-jul-2004
christine.com 31-oct-2006

 

[Anthony]

I don't understand what your research shows. Can you expand on your results? Thanks.

 

[JMJ]

What is it you would like explained? It's pretty simple. I took 10 random word or terms from my lists. Ran the 10 domains at snapnames for snaps and these are the results.

Everyone who claims they are for WLS states that people won't place subscriptions on domains that aren't expiring or close to expiry. My point above is that snaps (which cost more than wls) are placed on 20-50% of the above domains and none of them are expired or in redemption.

Now the likelyhood that these domains would be caught by snapnames IF they were expired is probably less than 10% so my point is when the guarantee of being caught is 100% then the above numbers will 100% +.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by JoltHost
Everyone who claims they are for WLS states that people won't place subscriptions on domains that aren't expiring or close to expiry.

I believe http://www.nextregistrationrights.com will give you a better picture of the WLS situation.

Snaps are only indicative of the big players with too many snaps remaining on their hands and don't know what to do with them.

I'm convinced Snapnames (who will provide the backend for the WLS system if you don't already know) will only convert remaining snaps into WLS applications only after the rest of the registrars (and Netsol in particular) have had first dibs.

 

[TheWatcher]

Re: WLS test

Originally posted by JoltHost
I posted this on another forum and decided I wanted more people to see this.

A little test of random words ran for snaps at snapnames. Now the likelyhood of these being caught by snapnames if expired is what 10%? (probably less) Think about what these numbers will be if it's 100% guarantee. Also have a look at some of the expiration dates.

These snaps are on .com's during the checking some had snaps on .net, .org, and even .co.uk.

If you don't like my results try it yourself I've done this more than once and get pretty much the same reults each time.

Two letter 3 out of 10

ac.com snaped expiration 2008
ah.com snaped ex dec 2005
ai.com snaped ex 2008



Three letter 3 out of 10

aoc.com mar 2005
aod.com mar 2005
aol.com sept 2004



Two word casino 2 out of 10

casinogame.com 20-nov-2004
internetroulette.com 17-apr-2004



Random top 500 keywords 4 out of 10

blink.com 11-oct-2005
gamecheats.com 24-jan-2005
puppies.com 01-sep-2013
wallpapers.com 26-jun-2005


List of names ran
onlinedegrees
sensual
gamecheats
legs
wallpapers
Blink
puppies
people
swimwear
musicvideos



Animals 4 out of 10

cat.com 26-mar-2005
chicken.com 28-dec-2004
cow.com 18-jan-2006
crocodile.com 24-mar-2004



Colors 5 out of 10

blue.com Oct 29, 2004
brown.com Nov 26, 2004
crimson.com Apr 27, 2004
gray.com May 05, 2004
indigo.com May 06, 2005




Random one worders 2 out of 10

boring.com Apr 19, 2004
colorful.com 19-jun-2004




names ran
boring
brave
bright
calm
cautious
clean
clever
cold
colorful
complete


Womens names 3 out of 10

catherine.com 12-apr-2004
cheryl.com 29-jul-2004
christine.com 31-oct-2006

Well done Mole ... amazing research.

TheWatcher

 

[g0ldy]

i still dont get it? ???

 

[mole]

Re: Re: WLS test

Originally posted by TheWatcher
Well done Mole ... amazing research.

:notme:

 

[JMJ]

Originally posted by mole


I'm convinced Snapnames (who will provide the backend for the WLS system if you don't already know) will only convert remaining snaps into WLS applications only after the rest of the registrars (and Netsol in particular) have had first dibs.

I did this same research over six months ago and had the same results.

It's not about the snaps it's about the fact that there are people willing to spend $40+ a year for a domain not even close to dropping and you're fooling yourself if you really think a few big players are snapping 20-50% of these domains.

Originally posted by g0ldy
i still dont get it? ???

Now

20-50% snapped with less than 10% chance (if the domain ever expired).


Post WLS

Multiply each result by 10 and this in theory would give you the number of domains that will be snapped after WLS. Why? The chances are less than 10% with snapnames but lets make it simple and give verisign/NRR (which will be 100% catch rate) some undeserved credit.

So you came up with more than 100%? Hmmm what does that tell you? Here's some senarios.

1. More than just these domains will have WLS.

2. If mole's assumption proves correct cut your number in half. You're still over or at 100%

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by JoltHost
What is it you would like explained? It's pretty simple. I took 10 random word or terms from my lists. Ran the 10 domains at snapnames for snaps and these are the results.

Everyone who claims they are for WLS states that people won't place subscriptions on domains that aren't expiring or close to expiry. My point above is that snaps (which cost more than wls) are placed on 20-50% of the above domains and none of them are expired or in redemption.

Now the likelyhood that these domains would be caught by snapnames IF they were expired is probably less than 10% so my point is when the guarantee of being caught is 100% then the above numbers will 100% +.

Okay, I understand now. So you don't think WLS is a good idea?