7 ms·

Semi-related: I've started several businesses, consulted with other startups...basically spent a lot of time trying to come up with business names only to find

by crikli 14y ago

Semi-related: I've started several businesses, consulted with other startups...basically spent a lot of time trying to come up with business names only to find that a depressingly high percentage of the corresponding domains are being camped on by some clown who wants a ridiculous sum of money. Domain squatting is without worth and indefensible. Squatters create nothing and they provide nothing of value in exchange for the extraordinary premiums they demand. It is a wholly extractive business model that costs entrepreneurs like myself thousand of dollars with no discernable return. I recognize that squatting is the (semi)free market at work and as a pretty hard core libertarian I respect that. This does not, however, make me any less contemptuous of the business model or any less desirous of the opportunity to beat a squatter with a shovel. EDIT: Changed verbiage, replacing the term "domainer" with "squatter."

nahname 14y ago
You mean a domain squatter right? When did we start calling them domainers?
- crikli 14y ago
  Good question. I think the term domainers is me succumbing to sqautters' attempt to sound more legit. I've updated accordingly and will give my brain 20 for falling for their attempted re-labeling.
- scoot 14y ago
  A domain squatter[1] sits on a domain name that relates to trademark (but without abusing the trademark) in hope of a sale on that basis, a "domainer" holds domain names that are brandable, or have keyword value, but are otherwise IP free. They are often "parked" (those god-awful advertising pages, or worse psedo-content wrapped with advertising) which through type-ins and long-tail search can attract enough clicks to cover the annual cost of registration, or in some cases, many times it. In this way, "domainer" will aim to operate at no cost, or modest gain across a portfolio, with domain sales being the core revenue opportunity. [Edit to add a reference] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting
  - wiradikusuma 14y ago
    question: are they still making money from ads after google rolled panda and stuff? directly typing address, yes, but from search result?
    - ericabiz 14y ago
      Panda punishes "thin content" pages, so it's unlikely that they are making any money off Google search results. From what I've seen, all but the most common domains don't make much money off of type-in traffic, either. (Sedo, for instance, shows traffic to the domains parked with Sedo when you run a search for a key term on their site. The traffic is nearly always negligible.) This is probably a consequence of newer browsers redirecting queries they can't understand to search engines vs. auto-completing a domain name. From what I can see, most of these folks are just hoping some sucker is willing to come along and pay money for the domains. Sometimes it works; most of the time it doesn't, but that doesn't stop people from doing it because they figure one "big hit" is worth all the money they spent buying domains. Sort of like buying a lottery ticket, but slightly smarter.
    - ohashi 14y ago
      Most parked pages make very little from search engine traffic. Very few were listed anyways. A couple domain parking solutions were trying to get around this but adding content hurts conversion rates on ads. The better names still get type in traffic and straight ads convert better on that. I don't think search results were ever the driving source of traffic. A lot of places experimented, none really blew it away, so I can't imagine panda had much impact on the bottom line of any major players.
rebelde 14y ago
This would be solved if ICANN raised their fee to $50 per year. Suddenly, domain squatting would not be profitable and it would free millions of domain names.
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  This is the right answer. Domains are too cheap, particularly in bulk. As frustrated as some of us have gotten, on occasion, with domain squatters, it really isn't right to blame people for taking advantage of a system someone else set up.
AJ007 14y ago
I'll take a squatted domain name for $50k any day over a domain name that is taken and not for sale at any price.
- crikli 14y ago
  I'd much prefer to find ways to use that $50K that contribute to the economies that my industry supports and relies upon. I'd rather burn $50K paying on-staff marketing or agencies to work around a sub-optimal domain name. I'd rather buy my staff new MBPs (or I would have before this soldered-in RAM bull). Hell, I'd rather support my local liquor store and buy a few cases of Great Divide and several dozen wings every Friday and invite everyone over for a free gutbombing. Bottom line, I'm not willing to use my funds to perpetuate a business model that relies on a flavor of extortion.
  - ohashi 14y ago
    That's very noble. But if that 50k domain name would beat the returns on all the other ways you are talking about deploying your capital, it only makes sense to buy it.
    - crikli 14y ago
      Yes, if. It's not a matter of nobility, it's a matter of putting my money in the areas where the a) the ROI is highest with b) the highest probability of realizing that ROI. My experience has demonstrated that forecasting the ROI on a domain name is...well, I don't want to say impossible, but the projections are difficult to compose and they've not proven to be realistic. Now, I may just suck at projecting the annualized value of a domain name, in which case the problem is my level of suckage.
      - ohashi 14y ago
        That's an odd response given the way you initially phrased it. It wasn't an economic comparison for your company directly (arguably it was indirect support for supporting industries). You talk about burning cash (which I would read as not spending efficiently at a minimum) and buying liquor. You've rephrased your disagreement now that domains aren't ROI oriented. Is your objection really objective or emotional?
seanp2k2 14y ago
I understand and agree that squatting sucks. Adding new gTLDs will only increase the land to squat upon. ICANN should deal with this problem by mandating that you have content on the site to eliminate squatting. They'd need to keep up on it and stay ahead of those gaming the system so eventually they'd get discouraged and f* right off. Domain squatting is not a legitimate business, and I hate you of you're profiting from just being a dick like that.
- ohashi 14y ago
  Let me begin with this, you hate me. And I think that's ok. I made a living off domains for a while and continue to make money from them. Moving on... I don't think that your solution is a real one. Getting 'discouraged and fucking right off' isn't going to happen as long as there are financial rewards. The best example is actual domain squatting (infringing on a company's TMs). The US implemented some HARSH penalties (up to 100k damages under ACPA) for it. It still exists. It still is PROFITABLE. People just setup empty corps in far away places with different laws. You want to mandate some sort of content law on 200million domains? Here's just a few problems off the top of my head: -new registrations - how long until content needs to be active? -sold/transferred/traded names - same as above -brand protection names without content? -redirects? -pages full of advertising? -autoblogs full of auto content and ads? -aggregators with ads? There are a lot of strange cases and a very slippery slope when dealing with what is and isn't content. Finding someone to enforce that on hundreds of millions of sites? That just isn't going to work. It will mess everything up. And guess what, those guys who are making all the money from domains now? We have the most to lose. We will know the rules the best and get around them. You're not going to legislate it away or enforce it away. It just won't work.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "you hate me. And I think that's ok." (Thanks for stepping in here and supporting the noble fight.) The opportunity to make money in domains actually comes from the fact that not everyone thinks the same way about this. I don't think domain owners worry about this while enjoying the fruits of their business anymore than attorneys care that the much of the world thinks lawyers "suck". Or that the head of a large corporation cares that people think he is overpaid while he is living large and being waited on hand and foot and flying in private jets around the world. If you are running a popularity contest and care what people think you will have a much harder time making money in life.
larrys 14y ago
"camped on by some clown" Why is that language necessary? "Domain squatting is without worth and indefensible." "Squatters" buy something with the hopes of reselling. Exactly what is wrong with that other than you are frustrated that you don't want to pay for what they have to sell? Are you also frustrated that real estate in Silicon Valley or NYC sells for so much money? That some people bought at the right time and can now sell for more? That some people own homes and don't use them full time? That someone should get to use the home and they should give them up? "Squatters create nothing and they provide nothing of value" They can provide a domain name that you want. Read below on what happens when a domain is owned by someone that doesn't care about money (google). I understand that HN is certainly against squatters in the worst way. And that it is frustrating to deal with some domain sellers (this is part of what I do for people). I'm not defending the practices of some who are unreasonable. (I also want to point out that I am both on the buying and selling end just like an attorney can represent both parties in a lawsuit. I also own domain names as further disclosure and I've sold them for plenty of money.) There is a domain I was trying to get for someone that google owned and it was very clear they weren't going to sell the domain. Not for any price. Any price. They don't need the money. It took hours of effort to just track down the person who controlled the domain for google. No dice. Had the domain been owned by a speculator a deal would have been done easily. This happens frequently actually. You have a better chance of getting a domain if it's not being used at all and owned by someone who wants to make money then you do if it's owned by a company that either doesn't need the money or is using it for their bakery and doesn't want to rebrand. "beat a squatter with a shovel" I think you have to think about this. You have a serious anger problem.
- pbz 14y ago
  If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it (probably trademark protection). These cases are rare compared to the number of parked domains that only have the "for sale" sign on them. If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10, not $10K.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it" So you are saying that google can have a "good" use for a domain and speculating "probably trademark protection". Actually the domain that I am referring to was from a company that they acquired that was shut down. And no they don't have a good use for it. They told me that. They just don't care. It is of no benefit to the decision maker to sell the domain. He won't get the money. So why not hold on to it in case they have a use in 10 years? (And all the evidence points in that direction). Additionally: In the case of this particular domain they simply don't want what they feel is a potential competitor to get the domain. "If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10" Absolutely positively the biggest myth out there. Simply not the way any market works. That a domain that you want would be there for you when you want it. Emphasis: You. Not that someone with another idea would have gotten it first and you'd have to convince them to sell.
bradfa 14y ago
Anecdote: I was searching for domain names yesterday on my iPad 1, with my daughter asleep on my shoulder, and found 2 unregistered domains that I am considering buying in about 10 minutes. To say the least, I was not being very efficient and still found 2 domains I liked in 10 minutes where each would cost me under $10. There were a few others that squatters were selling that I also liked for under $20. If you can't find a domain that you like at a reasonable price, you're doing it wrong. There's still a ton of domains not squatted on and squatted domains at reasonable prices out there waiting to be registered.
minimax 14y ago
You're outraged because you'd like to purchase a scarce resource (in this case a domain name) at less than its market value. With that sort of mindset you're gonna have a tough time.
GoodIntentions 14y ago
If you have a legitimate interest in the name and the current owner has no defensible interest/use of the name, you can file an UDRP and generally get the name. If somehow I was able to register "big_company.com", I'd be pretty much destined to lose it to a company with that name, unless _I_ also had that personal name or had made some use of the domain historically in a context predicated use of the name. tldr - you cant really squat something unless it is generic
- pbz 14y ago
  So if I owned example.org, but example.com is used by a squatter -- assuming example is a specific, trademarkable name -- are you saying I could get the .com via UDRP? Have there been cases where this worked?
  - larrys 14y ago
    Yes.
    - crikli 14y ago
      No, maybe. A very qualified maybe. I've tried the UDRP route. You have to have an extremely solid case to get the domain name. Furthermore, the domain name must be very very specific. So if I've got a business called "Chris's Midwest TV Repair" and we've been in business for 25 years. If someone's squatting on chrissmidwesttvrepair.com then yeah, I can probably UDRP them. But I'm in the TV repair business, so I really need to spend my time finding something else to do before I'm buggy whipped, but that's a tangent. If I'm just a startup trying to get a domain name, I have no case for a UDRP, nor should I.
      - larrys 14y ago
        "You have to have an extremely solid case to get the domain name." Actually it's pretty well known within the business that the Plaintiffs win the majority of cases where the facts bear out their rights. "So if I've got a business called "Chris's Midwest TV Repair" and we've been in business for 25 years. If someone's squatting on chrissmidwesttvrepair.com then yeah, I can probably UDRP them. But I'm in the TV repair business, so I really need to spend my time finding something else to do before I'm buggy whipped, but that's a tangent." That's what its like to be a small business person. "If I'm just a startup trying to get a domain name, I have no case for a UDRP" You don't. A startup has no trademark rights in a domain until they establish trademark rights. The first step is to apply to the USPTO for a trademark.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by crikli 14y ago

nahname 14y ago

You mean a domain squatter right? When did we start calling them domainers?

crikli 14y ago
Good question. I think the term domainers is me succumbing to sqautters' attempt to sound more legit. I've updated accordingly and will give my brain 20 for falling for their attempted re-labeling.
scoot 14y ago
A domain squatter[1] sits on a domain name that relates to trademark (but without abusing the trademark) in hope of a sale on that basis, a "domainer" holds domain names that are brandable, or have keyword value, but are otherwise IP free. They are often "parked" (those god-awful advertising pages, or worse psedo-content wrapped with advertising) which through type-ins and long-tail search can attract enough clicks to cover the annual cost of registration, or in some cases, many times it. In this way, "domainer" will aim to operate at no cost, or modest gain across a portfolio, with domain sales being the core revenue opportunity. [Edit to add a reference] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting
- wiradikusuma 14y ago
  question: are they still making money from ads after google rolled panda and stuff? directly typing address, yes, but from search result?
  - ericabiz 14y ago
    Panda punishes "thin content" pages, so it's unlikely that they are making any money off Google search results. From what I've seen, all but the most common domains don't make much money off of type-in traffic, either. (Sedo, for instance, shows traffic to the domains parked with Sedo when you run a search for a key term on their site. The traffic is nearly always negligible.) This is probably a consequence of newer browsers redirecting queries they can't understand to search engines vs. auto-completing a domain name. From what I can see, most of these folks are just hoping some sucker is willing to come along and pay money for the domains. Sometimes it works; most of the time it doesn't, but that doesn't stop people from doing it because they figure one "big hit" is worth all the money they spent buying domains. Sort of like buying a lottery ticket, but slightly smarter.
  - ohashi 14y ago
    Most parked pages make very little from search engine traffic. Very few were listed anyways. A couple domain parking solutions were trying to get around this but adding content hurts conversion rates on ads. The better names still get type in traffic and straight ads convert better on that. I don't think search results were ever the driving source of traffic. A lot of places experimented, none really blew it away, so I can't imagine panda had much impact on the bottom line of any major players.

rebelde 14y ago

This would be solved if ICANN raised their fee to $50 per year. Suddenly, domain squatting would not be profitable and it would free millions of domain names.

ScottBurson 14y ago
This is the right answer. Domains are too cheap, particularly in bulk. As frustrated as some of us have gotten, on occasion, with domain squatters, it really isn't right to blame people for taking advantage of a system someone else set up.

AJ007 14y ago

I'll take a squatted domain name for $50k any day over a domain name that is taken and not for sale at any price.

crikli 14y ago
I'd much prefer to find ways to use that $50K that contribute to the economies that my industry supports and relies upon. I'd rather burn $50K paying on-staff marketing or agencies to work around a sub-optimal domain name. I'd rather buy my staff new MBPs (or I would have before this soldered-in RAM bull). Hell, I'd rather support my local liquor store and buy a few cases of Great Divide and several dozen wings every Friday and invite everyone over for a free gutbombing. Bottom line, I'm not willing to use my funds to perpetuate a business model that relies on a flavor of extortion.
- ohashi 14y ago
  That's very noble. But if that 50k domain name would beat the returns on all the other ways you are talking about deploying your capital, it only makes sense to buy it.
  - crikli 14y ago
    Yes, if. It's not a matter of nobility, it's a matter of putting my money in the areas where the a) the ROI is highest with b) the highest probability of realizing that ROI. My experience has demonstrated that forecasting the ROI on a domain name is...well, I don't want to say impossible, but the projections are difficult to compose and they've not proven to be realistic. Now, I may just suck at projecting the annualized value of a domain name, in which case the problem is my level of suckage.
    - ohashi 14y ago
      That's an odd response given the way you initially phrased it. It wasn't an economic comparison for your company directly (arguably it was indirect support for supporting industries). You talk about burning cash (which I would read as not spending efficiently at a minimum) and buying liquor. You've rephrased your disagreement now that domains aren't ROI oriented. Is your objection really objective or emotional?

seanp2k2 14y ago

I understand and agree that squatting sucks. Adding new gTLDs will only increase the land to squat upon. ICANN should deal with this problem by mandating that you have content on the site to eliminate squatting. They'd need to keep up on it and stay ahead of those gaming the system so eventually they'd get discouraged and f* right off. Domain squatting is not a legitimate business, and I hate you of you're profiting from just being a dick like that.

ohashi 14y ago
Let me begin with this, you hate me. And I think that's ok. I made a living off domains for a while and continue to make money from them. Moving on... I don't think that your solution is a real one. Getting 'discouraged and fucking right off' isn't going to happen as long as there are financial rewards. The best example is actual domain squatting (infringing on a company's TMs). The US implemented some HARSH penalties (up to 100k damages under ACPA) for it. It still exists. It still is PROFITABLE. People just setup empty corps in far away places with different laws. You want to mandate some sort of content law on 200million domains? Here's just a few problems off the top of my head: -new registrations - how long until content needs to be active? -sold/transferred/traded names - same as above -brand protection names without content? -redirects? -pages full of advertising? -autoblogs full of auto content and ads? -aggregators with ads? There are a lot of strange cases and a very slippery slope when dealing with what is and isn't content. Finding someone to enforce that on hundreds of millions of sites? That just isn't going to work. It will mess everything up. And guess what, those guys who are making all the money from domains now? We have the most to lose. We will know the rules the best and get around them. You're not going to legislate it away or enforce it away. It just won't work.
- larrys 14y ago
  "you hate me. And I think that's ok." (Thanks for stepping in here and supporting the noble fight.) The opportunity to make money in domains actually comes from the fact that not everyone thinks the same way about this. I don't think domain owners worry about this while enjoying the fruits of their business anymore than attorneys care that the much of the world thinks lawyers "suck". Or that the head of a large corporation cares that people think he is overpaid while he is living large and being waited on hand and foot and flying in private jets around the world. If you are running a popularity contest and care what people think you will have a much harder time making money in life.

larrys 14y ago

"camped on by some clown" Why is that language necessary? "Domain squatting is without worth and indefensible." "Squatters" buy something with the hopes of reselling. Exactly what is wrong with that other than you are frustrated that you don't want to pay for what they have to sell? Are you also frustrated that real estate in Silicon Valley or NYC sells for so much money? That some people bought at the right time and can now sell for more? That some people own homes and don't use them full time? That someone should get to use the home and they should give them up? "Squatters create nothing and they provide nothing of value" They can provide a domain name that you want. Read below on what happens when a domain is owned by someone that doesn't care about money (google). I understand that HN is certainly against squatters in the worst way. And that it is frustrating to deal with some domain sellers (this is part of what I do for people). I'm not defending the practices of some who are unreasonable. (I also want to point out that I am both on the buying and selling end just like an attorney can represent both parties in a lawsuit. I also own domain names as further disclosure and I've sold them for plenty of money.) There is a domain I was trying to get for someone that google owned and it was very clear they weren't going to sell the domain. Not for any price. Any price. They don't need the money. It took hours of effort to just track down the person who controlled the domain for google. No dice. Had the domain been owned by a speculator a deal would have been done easily. This happens frequently actually. You have a better chance of getting a domain if it's not being used at all and owned by someone who wants to make money then you do if it's owned by a company that either doesn't need the money or is using it for their bakery and doesn't want to rebrand. "beat a squatter with a shovel" I think you have to think about this. You have a serious anger problem.

pbz 14y ago
If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it (probably trademark protection). These cases are rare compared to the number of parked domains that only have the "for sale" sign on them. If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10, not $10K.
- larrys 14y ago
  "If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it" So you are saying that google can have a "good" use for a domain and speculating "probably trademark protection". Actually the domain that I am referring to was from a company that they acquired that was shut down. And no they don't have a good use for it. They told me that. They just don't care. It is of no benefit to the decision maker to sell the domain. He won't get the money. So why not hold on to it in case they have a use in 10 years? (And all the evidence points in that direction). Additionally: In the case of this particular domain they simply don't want what they feel is a potential competitor to get the domain. "If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10" Absolutely positively the biggest myth out there. Simply not the way any market works. That a domain that you want would be there for you when you want it. Emphasis: You. Not that someone with another idea would have gotten it first and you'd have to convince them to sell.

bradfa 14y ago

Anecdote: I was searching for domain names yesterday on my iPad 1, with my daughter asleep on my shoulder, and found 2 unregistered domains that I am considering buying in about 10 minutes. To say the least, I was not being very efficient and still found 2 domains I liked in 10 minutes where each would cost me under $10. There were a few others that squatters were selling that I also liked for under $20. If you can't find a domain that you like at a reasonable price, you're doing it wrong. There's still a ton of domains not squatted on and squatted domains at reasonable prices out there waiting to be registered.

minimax 14y ago

You're outraged because you'd like to purchase a scarce resource (in this case a domain name) at less than its market value. With that sort of mindset you're gonna have a tough time.

GoodIntentions 14y ago

If you have a legitimate interest in the name and the current owner has no defensible interest/use of the name, you can file an UDRP and generally get the name. If somehow I was able to register "big_company.com", I'd be pretty much destined to lose it to a company with that name, unless _I_ also had that personal name or had made some use of the domain historically in a context predicated use of the name. tldr - you cant really squat something unless it is generic

pbz 14y ago
So if I owned example.org, but example.com is used by a squatter -- assuming example is a specific, trademarkable name -- are you saying I could get the .com via UDRP? Have there been cases where this worked?
- larrys 14y ago
  Yes.
  - crikli 14y ago
    No, maybe. A very qualified maybe. I've tried the UDRP route. You have to have an extremely solid case to get the domain name. Furthermore, the domain name must be very very specific. So if I've got a business called "Chris's Midwest TV Repair" and we've been in business for 25 years. If someone's squatting on chrissmidwesttvrepair.com then yeah, I can probably UDRP them. But I'm in the TV repair business, so I really need to spend my time finding something else to do before I'm buggy whipped, but that's a tangent. If I'm just a startup trying to get a domain name, I have no case for a UDRP, nor should I.
    - larrys 14y ago
      "You have to have an extremely solid case to get the domain name." Actually it's pretty well known within the business that the Plaintiffs win the majority of cases where the facts bear out their rights. "So if I've got a business called "Chris's Midwest TV Repair" and we've been in business for 25 years. If someone's squatting on chrissmidwesttvrepair.com then yeah, I can probably UDRP them. But I'm in the TV repair business, so I really need to spend my time finding something else to do before I'm buggy whipped, but that's a tangent." That's what its like to be a small business person. "If I'm just a startup trying to get a domain name, I have no case for a UDRP" You don't. A startup has no trademark rights in a domain until they establish trademark rights. The first step is to apply to the USPTO for a trademark.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]