For Sale Threads Shouldn't be Indexed in Google

[MerlinK]

I'm sure this has been brought up before -- but I think it would be beneficial to buyers/sellers in this forum to restrict Google and other search engines from accessing threads in the For Sale section of the forum, via Robots.txt.

It's quite aggrivating to be able to see every price for which a domain has sold -- especially if you get a good deal, and you want to make a substantial profit without letting the buyer know how much you actually paid for it.

Anybody else agree?

 

[Str]

I strongly agree.

 

[DomainTurn.com]

I agree

 

[GT Web]

I agree

this has been brought up before but the Mods and Admins never did anything

 

[HHH]

I agree - I had listed an ecomm site for sale a while back. Google picked it up and eventually a customer called to cancel their order (and have me purge their info) because they were afraid of who would have their CC info if I sold the site. I don't know why they were searching for the domain name after they made a purchase, but they did and they found dnforum...

 

[MerlinK]

This was what I wanted to happen -- an open petition to make a change.

Moderators: care to comment?

 

[Anthony Ng]

I'm sure this has been brought up before ...

Yes, it has been discussed before.

 

[MerlinK]

I think that as the users and life of DNForum our request should be honored. Without us, this forum couldn't exist.

 

[Anthony Ng]

You are correct in saying that members are of utmost importance to a forum. HOWEVER, it would be oversimplified to talk about 1 single membership and/or its request, when there are more than 10,000 members (incl. 1,300+ Platinum/Exclusive and 2,700+ Gold). Please also bear in mind that a more vocal minority does NOT automatically become the majority. Anyway, thanks for your suggestion.

Thread MOVED from "Platinum Lounge" to "Suggestions and Feedback".

 

[Cash Is King]

You are correct in saying that members are of utmost importance to a forum. HOWEVER, it would be oversimplified to talk about 1 single membership and/or its request, when there are more than 10,000 members (incl. 1,300+ Platinum/Exclusive and 2,700+ Gold). Please also bear in mind that a more vocal minority does NOT automatically become the majority. Anyway, thanks for your suggestion.

Thread MOVED from "Platinum Lounge" to "Suggestions and Feedback".

If DNforum removed all members that have not posted in the last 6 months, that would probably represent well over 50% of the total membership. If you took a more conservative approach and used 12 months, it probably would still be 50%.

If the basis of the argument is going to be the total membership, please use an explanation that can be backed up by the top leadership here at the forum.

With this being said, I am recommending dnforum shows active memberships by type, with some kind of posting threshold requirment.

 

[Domagon]

I'll throw my 2 cents in ... continue to allow Google to index all boards.

For sellers who want to keep sale prices secret, don't post the prices to begin with on message boards, chats, etc...

Even if Google didn't index the boards, there's a good chance others will continue to; not every bot obeys robots.txt - on a publicaly available web site one can never be sure what's being archived by various parties ... there are all sorts of bots, some of which have nothing to do with search engines, such as marketing research bots, copyright compliance bots, etc. Who knows, maybe there's a domain sale price bot out there indexing ask/sale prices posted on various boards.

Lastly, real estate prices are often public record and yet lots of folks still make a bundle speculating in it ...

Ron

 

[Str]

Real estate prices never fluctuate as much as domain prices do. I don't personally care about other bots....but google should be kept off from sales thread IMHO. Google is what most if not all endusers would use to search regarding the domain. Maybe block Msn as well? lol

 

[MerlinK]

If DNforum removed all members that have not posted in the last 6 months, that would probably represent well over 50% of the total membership. If you took a more conservative approach and used 12 months, it probably would still be 50%.

If the basis of the argument is going to be the total membership, please use an explanation that can be backed up by the top leadership here at the forum.

With this being said, I am recommending dnforum shows active memberships by type, with some kind of posting threshold requirment.

I also agree with this. The active members are the members whose opinions' actually count.

Can we please have Adam officially comment on this matter? And also, it should be pointed out: we are more than just members, we are actually paying customers.

This is a great forum and it serves as a great venue for the domain name industry; however, I feel a lack of support/care/responsiveness from the people who actually run the forum. Can you guys please take our needs into account?

I guess that index'd pages in Google does boost DNForums PR, or whatever else, but it's really creating an archive of what should be private sales. Isn't this considered a "wholesale" forum? (like, domain industry insiders?). If it was a retail marketplace, it would be a different story.

I also felt the urge to add: Shortwinded and seemingly intollerant attitudes from moderators are like a slap in the face to those who are asking for change. I know that it's "your" forum, and you call the shots ultimately; but I think that paying customers and users deserve to at least have their ideas considered without arbitrary and irrelevant stats being thrown at us in an attempt to diminish the value our suggestions as the "vocal minority". If we are vocal, then we obviously care enough to ask for constructive and beneficial changes and thus, you should value us above those who use the forums without any beneficial input.

I don't want this to become a huge argument -- I just want harmony and cooperation. Can't we at least consider each other's stances in all matters and see eye to eye with mutual respect, even though we are on different sides of the table?

Thanks,
Merlin Kauffman

 

[fryman04]

I agree with this. I once posted a site for sale, and then felt like crapwhen I saw that that post was showing up as a backlink for my site.

I guess the only solution is to post all the details you have of your site, but don't post the URL and ask people to PM you for it. Yes, it is a pain in the butt, but at least you will avoid this problem.

 

[Mr Webname]

I also agree with this. The active members are the members whose opinions' actually count.

This is of course a valid argument, however at this point it is worth noting that just 9 members have contributed to this post, a quorum maybe but not a significant number.

Can we please have Adam officially comment on this matter? And also, it should be pointed out: we are more than just members, we are actually paying customers.

This is a great forum and it serves as a great venue for the domain name industry; however, I feel a lack of support/care/responsiveness from the people who actually run the forum. Can you guys please take our needs into account?

This assumes that there is no support/care/responsiveness and that statement is a bit harsh - not making changes does not necessarily mean that people are not listening. Sometimes consideration leads to change but other times it leads to a decision to stay with the status quo. My wife keeps complaining that the supermarket keeps moving the goods from one area to another - however nothing changes, why? - the management has its own reasons for this marketing activity.

I guess that index'd pages in Google does boost DNForums PR, or whatever else, but it's really creating an archive of what should be private sales. Isn't this considered a "wholesale" forum? (like, domain industry insiders?). If it was a retail marketplace, it would be a different story.

I also felt the urge to add: Shortwinded and seemingly intollerant attitudes from moderators are like a slap in the face to those who are asking for change. I know that it's "your" forum, and you call the shots ultimately; but I think that paying customers and users deserve to at least have their ideas considered without arbitrary and irrelevant stats being thrown at us in an attempt to diminish the value our suggestions as the "vocal minority". If we are vocal, then we obviously care enough to ask for constructive and beneficial changes and thus, you should value us above those who use the forums without any beneficial input.

No one is slapping anyone in the face - but sometimes it is necessary to just state the facts without becoming emotionally involved. The Moderators here are not here to cause you grief and you might be surprised to know of the discussions that take place "off page" in your behalf. Remember too that the Moderators have limited "authority" on this forum - we cannot change how it operates any more than you can!

I don't want this to become a huge argument -- I just want harmony and cooperation. Can't we at least consider each other's stances in all matters and see eye to eye with mutual respect, even though we are on different sides of the table?

I can assure you that we do that - but as in all aspects of life someone has to make the decisions and not everyone will agree with the decisions made.

Thanks,
Merlin Kauffman

 

[Anthony Ng]

Let me clarify a bit: no matter how you define membership (or "active" membership), the vocal minority is still a minority. Remember, the silent majority are paying members as well, and I don't see why they could be left aside.

AGAIN, there is NOT 1 single membership and/or its (singular) needs. There are different interest groups within our membership with conflicting vested interests: e.g. some will find Google indexing beneficial to their business, some don't. (Hey, this is just like anything else in this world, right?) So while we take ANY individual feedback seriously, please don't speak like you are representing the majority here (which will NEVER be the case, trust me).

The bottom line is: when I post a domain for sale in a forum, I don't expect it to be a "private" sale.

 

[MerlinK]

Let me clarify a bit: no matter how you define membership (or "active" membership), the vocal minority is still a minority. Remember, the silent majority are paying members as well, and I don't see why they could be left aside.

AGAIN, there is NOT 1 single membership and/or its (singular) needs. There are different interest groups within our membership with conflicting vested interests: e.g. some will find Google indexing beneficial to their business, some don't. (Hey, this is just like anything else in this world, right?) So while we take ANY individual feedback seriously, please don't speak like you are representing the majority here (which will NEVER be the case, trust me).

The bottom line is: when I post a domain for sale in a forum, I don't expect it to be a "private" sale.

Nameslave,

You seem so set against the idea of restricting the robots from accessing and indexing the for sale section -- can you please justify why
"the unspoken majority" would prefer to have their threads publically searchable and archived?

The bad nature of indexing sales threads seems to by far outweigh the good. Can you please give me a post-conventional answer which has valid rationale for the general defense of not making this change to stop the indexing?

Thanks,
Merlin

 

[JEsports]

Well make it ten then ... I really don't see how any logical domain buyer would want there purchase details displayed through search engines.

 

[Anthony Ng]

Nameslave,

You seem so set against the idea of restricting the robots from accessing and indexing the for sale section -- can you please justify why
"the unspoken majority" would prefer to have their threads publically searchable and archived?

The bad nature of indexing sales threads seems to by far outweigh the good. Can you please give me a post-conventional answer which has valid rationale for the general defense of not making this change to stop the indexing?

Thanks,
Merlin

The truth is: I don't have any strong feeling against Google indexing. Personally, I am slightly leaning towards it, but that doesn't really matter because it's Adam (DotComGod) who makes the call here.

I also NEVER say that the silent majority is for Google indexing; I only said the vocal minority against it was ... a MINORITY, and we shouldn't mistake that as THE membership because it isn't.

 

[smub]

me neither i dont have any thing against it