Domain name sale reporting and publishing process

[vivid]

It's no secret that different domain sale venues report sales to domain sale data aggregators like namebio. However, it's not quite clear to me what kind of logic some of them use when deciding which name to report and which not. E.g., namebio can publish a $100 sale and skip a $400 one for two Godaddy expiring domains auctioned the same day. Is that data missing issue actually related to the sale reporter or the publisher?

Also, GoDaddy tends to report sales which are actually not completed yet, as the previous owner can still renew the name within a few days. One of the known recent examples is OrderFlowers.com, which is still listed at namebio as sold, although the sale was reversed. This is not a unique case, I've encountered such situations on my own, when a name I bought was renewed, money returned, but the sale still shown at namebio for quite a time. Are such discrepancies expected to be fixed in some automated or manual way, or such sort of data is deliberately preserved as the one reflecting the market conditions (a sort of domain value index)?

 

[Biggie]

It's no secret that different domain sale venues report sales to domain sale data aggregators like namebio. However, it's not quite clear to me what kind of logic some of them use when deciding which name to report and which not. E.g., namebio can publish a $100 sale and skip a $400 one for two Godaddy expiring domains auctioned the same day. Is that data missing issue actually related to the sale reporter or the publisher?

Also, GoDaddy tends to report sales which are actually not completed yet, as the previous owner can still renew the name within a few days. One of the known recent examples is OrderFlowers.com, which is still listed at namebio as sold, although the sale was reversed. This is not a unique case, I've encountered such situations on my own, when a name I bought was renewed, money returned, but the sale still shown at namebio for quite a time. Are such discrepancies expected to be fixed in some automated or manual way, or such sort of data is deliberately preserved as the one reflecting the market conditions (a sort of domain value index)?

Hi

not to discredit any of these entities for what they do, however one shouldn't really rely on third party reporting to begin with.


the more reliable exchanges happen outside of gd, particularly because of the volume of domains that get pulled-back, the number of "newbies" who participate in their auctions and the constant 'account phishing' that exists there.

one member posted the other day, about his issue with delayed payments (45 days) for sold domains.

and my response to that was "it ain't sold, till you get paid"


so that too could be reason for what you see as missing data


sill, in defense of sites that report sales, sometimes they may "delay" reporting until that sale is confirmed, either because of price, venue, turn-over time, etc, etc.

they have to maintain a level of accuracy, to be credible.

imo...

 

[Jack Gordon]

I do not know the answer to your question, but I can speak as someone who aggregates data many companies rely on in a completely unrelated industry.

The fact is, when aggregating and reporting data, that data is only going to be as reliable as the worst process you have in place will allow it to be. Sort of like how a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

If there are limitations, as you described above, they are likely institutional. Without adequate quality control, those problems will continue to taint the data indefinitely.

I have always believed that situations like this are best viewed as opportunities for entrepreneurs to find smarter, cheaper and better ways to undermine the old guard. If there is a viable business model in being THE source for more accurate domain sales data, someone will come along and do it right.

And if they don't, why not you?

 

[vivid]

Hi Biggie,
As to the data missing for domains still not paid for, this not the only case. I can also observe that for the domains I have acquired at GoDaddy as well. Both of them were expiring, both were auctioned within a few days, both were paid for the same day the auction ended. One of them is in my possession now and it was never reported as sold. Another was reported as sold the same day it was paid for; it was renewed by the owner a week later but the sale still remains published. So, two similar cases with different outcomes and both are incorrect .

Hi Jack
I understand the weakest link concept, just want to figure out if that's a weakness indeed and how common it is.
Actually I'm more interested in this from the point of further name reselling (it's actually nice when my acquisitions aren't reported ) rather than the sales data analysis as the initial acquisition decision taking factor. From the point of analysis, reporting the domain sale after it was paid for has the definite indicative value for similar name potential domain investors, even when the sale is cancelled afterwards - as someone in the market was ready to pay that much for a name. But as a buyer of the particular name, I would be happy to have an opportunity to pay some small percentage for non-disclosure (yes, this may seem selfish a bit, but I believe this can play an important role during the negotiation). I heard this option exists at Sedo (never bought anything there though), but I heard nothing similar about the expired domain platforms. But again, I often see not reported sales on all major venues, not just GoDaddy (typically in XXX range).

BTW, one more issue with the too hurried reports from GoDaddy, I guess they can even make a former owner to change his mind sometimes and renew the name he was letting drop intentionally.

 

[Biggie]

From the point of analysis, reporting the domain sale after it was paid for has the definite indicative value for similar name potential domain investors, even when the sale is cancelled afterwards - as someone in the market was ready to pay that much for a name.

i'd still be cautious of using that "data" for any measure of ''indicative value" beyond what the "minimum value" for similarities would be.


as you have to consider experience, negotiation skills and "flipper versus investor" mentality, that would apply to each respective seller, along with or in comparison to, those closing prices.


everyone's opinion of value for any specific domain may never be same, which means everyone would not set or accept the same price for it.


such a variable is too expansive to ignore



imo....

 

[vivid]

Well, if to speak about historical sales data usage overall, then it is definitely just a part of the equation. It’s clear that each sale is unique and you can't expect a nearly the same price someone has paid for a "similar" name (putting "similar" in quotes as a dangerous word). But, if you see a number of high-value sales reported in the same niche, it can show at least that there is probably a demand for such names. So, past domain sales data is one in the set of indicators that's worth to use if possible in my opinion. Namebio, DNJournal and other data publishers provide great value in this aspect, it just should be used in proper way. The entire domain investing concept is based on probability of course; you can never be sure in selling the name at least at the price of its acquisition in some predictable time span.

 

[amplify]

BTW, one more issue with the too hurried reports from GoDaddy, I guess they can even make a former owner to change his mind sometimes and renew the name he was letting drop intentionally.

This is the problem I have with some domainers these days. I emphasize some, will use this as a practice to valuate their domain names, though don't respect that others are actually bidding and using their time to research the market. They will purposely let it expire to see if it has value to someone else, then renew it for the $89 or so fee. I actually contacted one domainer after they "accidently" let one expire and they came back with high $XXXX for a LLLL.com that I "won" for $700. They said 'cause it had a high number of bidders, there is a perceived need for the domain and they were looking for an end user sale after I offered them the $700 that I would have paid to GD, to them.

I called GD about this practice and they proclaimed that everyone has the right to renew the domain for 7 days after the auction ends, so it can be a tactic used to get a real end user or reseller valuation on a domain you own rather than an appraisal service... but you're going to piss people off doing it. I suggested that GoDaddy should take ownership of the domain before bidding begins (since they can always dump it and get a refund if it's not worth their renewal), but that's not their auction policy.

(I believe that person is a member of this forum as it's an exact match to their username and what the domain had on it prior is on it today... )

 

[vivid]

This is the problem I have with some domainers these days. I emphasize some, will use this as a practice to valuate their domain names, though don't respect that others are actually bidding and using their time to research the market. They will purposely let it expire to see if it has value to someone else, then renew it for the $89 or so fee. I actually contacted one domainer after they "accidently" let one expire and they came back with high $XXXX for a LLLL.com that I "won" for $700. They said 'cause it had a high number of bidders, there is a perceived need for the domain and they were looking for an end user sale after I offered them the $700 that I would have paid to GD, to them.

Well, although this is a sort of another topic, but I also received a reply from the owner of my recently "won" domain. I’ve approached him with my $500 winning bid (without any hope really, just for the case, although could've go a bit higher for that name) – and was counter-offered with high $XXXX. Looks like a standard pattern… lol. I don’t know for sure of course whether the name was let to expire intentionally.

 

[amplify]

I only brought this up as the name was reported to be sold at $700 as well. Which shows flaws in the system. Sorry to not mention that portion, seemed as if I hijacked the topic...

Maybe it'll devalue or add value to the name for him now? Who knows?

 

[vivid]

David, I didn't mean that we shouldn't discuss that aspect here anyway; it was really interesting to learn your experience of approaching the "auctioned" name owner and to compare the outcomes, so thanks for sharing that

As to devaluing or adding value to the name by that report, from the point of the original owner, I personally wouldn’t want the name I expect to sell for medium - high $XXXX (I actually consider the counter-offer I’ve received reasonable from the point of a potential end user) to be mentioned as recently sold for $500. Maybe this fact matters nothing for a good salesperson, but it definitely doesn’t do any good IMHO, so in their place I would ask to delete that sales record if possible.

 

[Theo]

There are so many sales that go unreported, for various reasons (including not being bothered) that I would not rely on reporting venues to form an overall picture about the market conditions.

 

[vivid]

In fact, I agree that the reported sales are simply the top of the iceberg, and are just a hint to what is going up. But what for do we have these venues then if we can't use that info in any reasonable way?

 

[amplify]

Only source of reported sales I follow is DNJournal to see which $XXX,XXX sales come out as the next start up.

 

[vivid]

Ok, looks I have to scale up a bit

 

[amplify]

Yes, probably the most reliable source (DG covers some of their sales as well) for reported sales as I believe they're verified by DNJournal and all parties involved before publishing (correct me if I'm wrong)... but it's not machine aggregated content (except for the smaller XXXX sales possibly).