Didn't get what I was shown

[cyphix]

Ok.. I brought a domain off a member here a short while back for $250 & the domain was said to have a average of 90 uniques/day.

I seen the sites webalizer stats & everything & it was consistently getting between 75-100/day.

I got the domain & tested it for 12 days to make sure all the DNS has propogated for everyone before I said anything as I have had DNS issues myself of up to 10 days with some sites.

Well, it's 12 day average is 14/day.

The traffic was apparently all type-ins which was looking for the developed site of the same name which had a hyphen. eg; myname.com - real site ='s my-name.com . I checked on this & sure enough.... the sites webazlizer stats weren't showing a great deal of referrers.

Now, I can accept that the traffic might go down over time as that is possible.... but it seems pretty funny that as soon as I get the name BAM!.. the domain is averaging 14 uniques/day instead of 90.

I have discussed this with the member but they utterly refuse to give me a refund.

He has tried to tell me my tracking is off along with other things.

I said to him, if the name is really getting that many uniques day then, then you should have no problem giving me a refund & selling it again as you said to me you had another interested patry before? He chose not to answer that question convieniently.

Now, I could involve my lawyer but would prefer not to over such a small amount. Also looked into Paypal's buyer protection policy but that doesn't appear to cover intangible goods.

My question is.... is there anything I can do? I know of small claims court, but I don't think that would be an option as we both live in different countries.

Thansk for any help!

[TurNIC.com]

I think the only solution for these kind of problems is to establish a DNF rule like this;

1. The name is marketed at Traffic Domains for sale section.
2. By marketing the domain in the section the seller advancely accept that the prospective buyer will test the traffic of the domain before payment for 7 days.
3. Then if the numbers are true as stated the deal is go through. If not they either agree on different terms or the buyer can use opt out alternative.

TurNIC

[JuniperPark]

... and THIS stuff is exactly why I don't ask or report the traffic of any name. Most folks are honest, but the whole thing is just a bit shakey, especially when most people assume (incorrectly) that no refer-back is a 'type-in'.

[GeorgeK]

Well said, JuniperPark. Using Javascript popups from other domains, one can inflate the traffic of another domain, to make it seem like type-ins.

That's why it's important to 1) do your own independent research and 2) know who you're dealing with (seller reputation).

[mole]

Caveat emptor. Type-in traffic is a tricky animal and to buy something based on a claim or webstat snapshot at a point in time is being naive at best. There are many techniques to make it go up and down at will . I think the experienced domainers here will know what I mean.

[LewR]

Originally posted by GeorgeK
Well said, JuniperPark. Using Javascript popups from other domains, one can inflate the traffic of another domain, to make it seem like type-ins.

That's why it's important to 1) do your own independent research and 2) know who you're dealing with (seller reputation).

Exactly George ...

[DaddyHalbucks]

Stats are hard to decipher.

That is why I am always skeptical.

It sounds like it's close enough to a simple due diligence problem or software deviation matter to get chalked up to experience.

However, the right thing to do would be for the seller to make good. He promised one thing and he delivered another.

[David G]

Originally posted by JuniperPark ... .... especially when most people assume (incorrectly) that no refer-back is a 'type-in'.

Please explain what a "no refer-back" is :huh:

Perhaps general confusion over Weblizer stats is a reason the seller misstated type-ins, for example, I am confused when I look at my weblizer stats, especially when I see this:

# 75.50% - (Direct Request)
# 15.41% http://www.domain*name.org/
# 4.27 http://www.domain*name.org

Are all 3 of these categories type-ins? If so, what is the direct request? :huh:

P.S. It's tough to say for sure the seller committed misrepresentation in this case since there are in fact type-ins, just less than expected.

[HOWARD]

If you bought upon a verbal promise, you're out of luck. However, if you had a written transfer agreement and that agreement provided for a guarantee of X number of uniques a day, and that agreement further indicated in what jurisdiction it was enforceable, you would have a case fo return of the domain and refund of your money.

[cyphix]

Thanks all for the posts!

Howard: All I have is him saying in his sales thread that it has 90 uniques/day. Seems pretty unfair when I get it it changes to an average of 14.

The member has apparently been in domains since 1999 & has sold over 10,000 domains; doesn't seem to act like it... seems any normal person would give a refund to make the customer happy, I mean if they sell that many names.... what's the big deal with refunding one name & keeping customers happy & keeping your reputation as a reputable business person who you may do other deals with in the future?

Guess the measly $250 is worth more to them.

[DaddyHalbucks]

All I have is him saying in his sales thread that it has 90 uniques/day. Seems pretty unfair when I get it it changes to an average of 14.
++++++++++++++

Well, then you can clearly document his representation, which was off by 7X.

The seller should refund you.

[Rocket2Uranus]

The other option is to threaten to "out" this member to the community. As DCC has so aptly demonstrated in another thread, that is an effective method of applying pressure. If this person is as prolific a domainer as he says he is, then the avoidance of that bad exposure should be worth a measly $250, especially if he can resell the name to somebody else.

[ToastyX]

Well, before blaming the seller, make sure you are tracking visitors correctly. Make sure you are tracking EVERYTHING, including subdomains and subdirectories, so if people visit http://asdf.ghjkl.example.com/qwerty/uiop.html, it should count them. Also make sure the domain works with and without the www. If you are using a service such as DomainSponsor, keep in mind they don't count some foreign traffic.

I don't know how you have it setup, but those are the most common mistakes.

[cyphix]

Yeah...Toasty, I am pretty certain it is counting everything.

I have it setup so it works with & without the www & my stats show how many hits to the front page & anything else. I used the higher number when working out the average.

It is tracked by wusage off my server stats.

[HOWARD]

If you buy an automobile because the salesman says that it gets 30 miles to a gallon of gas, and after you drive it you find that it only gets 18 miles to a gallon of gas, are you entitled to a refund? It's called "puffing" or sales "hype" and is not something that you can rely upon, UNLESS it is included as a term of the contract to purchase.

[Steen]

I bought a domain (not too much) that the seller cliamed to get 30 daily and since I have owned it it has gotten an average of 3 a month

[WebCat]

Personally, I think it is in the interest of all who buy and sell here, for claims (especially re: traffic) made at the time of sale be able to be documented and demonstrable. Otherwise we could have people claiming the moon BEFORE a sale, but not delivering, and we become just another "used car lot".

And perhaps we need to insist that a seller provide definitive explanations of how traffic was measured and exactly what any claim of "unique type-ins" really means from an ongoing or long-term traffic perspective.

[jberryhill]

I bought a brand of shaving cream that was supposed to make me irresistible to women...

[cyphix]

Originally posted by jberryhill
I bought a brand of shaving cream that was supposed to make me irresistible to women...

Don't they come with money-back guarantee?! :-D

[cyphix]

The thread/domain in question is here:

http://www.dnforum.com/t42768

Note: It is in the adult section.