- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Messages
- 1,255
- Reaction score
- 5
Although it is far too early to draw definite conclusions, there are some early results from the first 15 votes in the DNF poll on domain selection/acquisition strategies: http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=88571 . The poll asks the question ââ¬â ââ¬ÅWhich Domain Selection Strategies are Good?ââ¬Â ââ¬â and allows forum members to vote for more than one strategy.
The strategies listed in the poll include selecting/acquiring: domains with a documented history of type-in traffic; domains with a documented history of search engine traffic; .COM domains that are very short (with only 2 or 3 letters); short, pronouncable, brandable .COMs (with more than 3 letters); domains that are one or two dictionary words or key words; domains that are made-up words based on expected future trends such as new technologies or products; domains in the roll out (introduction) of a major, generic TLD (Top Level Domain) like .INFO or .BIZ; domains in the roll out (introduction) of a major restricted TLD like .PRO wherein the restriction is not clear; domains in the roll out of your own country code; or domains in the roll out of a major country code such as .US, .CN, or .IN which is not your native country but where registration is allowed for non-natives.
Based on early results from the first 15 voters, domain selection strategies based on type-in traffic and high-profile .COMs are dominant. Documented type-in traffic is the most popular basis for selecting/acquiring domains, attracting votes from 80% (12 out of 15) of voters. The second most popular strategy, coming in at 66% (10 out of 15) is based on one or two word .COMs. Selecting very short (2 or 3 letter) .COMs is in third place with 60% (9 out of 15) of voters selecting it. In a tie for fourth place (60%), are documented history of search engine traffic and short, pronouncable, brandable .COMs with more than 3 letters.
It will be interesting to see whether these results continue as poll numbers increase. When we reach a large number of votes (at least 75), we will write up the results for submission to DNJournal. Some initial thoughts on these results are that they reflect the dominance of lower risk strategies. Type-in traffic seems to be becoming more of a commodity in the sense that it is easier to project returns than subjective ââ¬Åpure domainââ¬Â appraisal values and the market for type-in traffic seems to be becoming relative efficient. The same is true to some extent with short .COMs. In some respects, it is difficult to precisely separate the value of a domain name itself from the value of a related site or traffic ââ¬â- a subject of continuing debate by domainers. There may also be parallels between domain selection and investment portfolio theory, wherein a diversified portfolio of low-risk and high-risk domains (a mix of the strategies mentioned in this poll) may be worthwhile.
I welcome your thoughts and feedback on these results. Also, please vote if you have not already done so. It will be interesting to see how the results change with increased participation.
The strategies listed in the poll include selecting/acquiring: domains with a documented history of type-in traffic; domains with a documented history of search engine traffic; .COM domains that are very short (with only 2 or 3 letters); short, pronouncable, brandable .COMs (with more than 3 letters); domains that are one or two dictionary words or key words; domains that are made-up words based on expected future trends such as new technologies or products; domains in the roll out (introduction) of a major, generic TLD (Top Level Domain) like .INFO or .BIZ; domains in the roll out (introduction) of a major restricted TLD like .PRO wherein the restriction is not clear; domains in the roll out of your own country code; or domains in the roll out of a major country code such as .US, .CN, or .IN which is not your native country but where registration is allowed for non-natives.
Based on early results from the first 15 voters, domain selection strategies based on type-in traffic and high-profile .COMs are dominant. Documented type-in traffic is the most popular basis for selecting/acquiring domains, attracting votes from 80% (12 out of 15) of voters. The second most popular strategy, coming in at 66% (10 out of 15) is based on one or two word .COMs. Selecting very short (2 or 3 letter) .COMs is in third place with 60% (9 out of 15) of voters selecting it. In a tie for fourth place (60%), are documented history of search engine traffic and short, pronouncable, brandable .COMs with more than 3 letters.
It will be interesting to see whether these results continue as poll numbers increase. When we reach a large number of votes (at least 75), we will write up the results for submission to DNJournal. Some initial thoughts on these results are that they reflect the dominance of lower risk strategies. Type-in traffic seems to be becoming more of a commodity in the sense that it is easier to project returns than subjective ââ¬Åpure domainââ¬Â appraisal values and the market for type-in traffic seems to be becoming relative efficient. The same is true to some extent with short .COMs. In some respects, it is difficult to precisely separate the value of a domain name itself from the value of a related site or traffic ââ¬â- a subject of continuing debate by domainers. There may also be parallels between domain selection and investment portfolio theory, wherein a diversified portfolio of low-risk and high-risk domains (a mix of the strategies mentioned in this poll) may be worthwhile.
I welcome your thoughts and feedback on these results. Also, please vote if you have not already done so. It will be interesting to see how the results change with increased participation.
