If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the largest domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 105,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Register Today on DNForum IT'S FREE!
The new weekly domain sales report is out at DNJournal.com, The year's 2nd biggest ccTLD sale and the largest sale ever reported for Brazil's .com.br extension leads our latest Top 20 Sales Chart after the .com.br domain changed hands for $300,000. You can get the details here:
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/dom...0/20100428.htm
DNJournal.com Fly Like an Igal: Lichtman Innovates Again With Dazzling Automatic Website Building Technology at TrafficMedia
NameNewbie.com
Was that substantiated? Or was that just what the alleged seller "reported" to you? After all, you state: "Most of the sales in our report come directly to us from reputable and widely-known sales venues such as Afternic.com, BuyDomains.com, Moniker.com, sedo.com and SnapNames.com among others."
Isn't Snapnames the company which admitted to 4 or 5 years of shill-bidding in thousands of auctions? Is that a company you consider "reputable." HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
What a joke.
Originally Posted by broe-foe
Im sorry but your jabs at Ron are getting old, real old, personal and imo becoming punishable. Maybe you need a little time out to remember there are rules, no personal attacks.
I am not debating your stance just stating my opinion on how its delivered.
Obviously I'm missing some history here? Not sure why you'd make a post like that? Without Ron's reports & DNJournal, this whole industry would be significantly worse off.
Also I don't see why $300K for this domain should be suspected of being fraudulent. One of the best possible domains in a country of 200 million! It's great value IMO. That domain will be worth well over $10m in 10 years - I guarantee it
www.NetFleet.com.au - world's biggest selection of .au domains for sale!
Aren't you getting tired of being told, on a weekly basis, a company that admitted to auction fraud over a period of 4 to 5 years is "reputable?" If you as an individual were convicted of a felony only once, you would be disqualified for many good jobs solely on that basis. So it flies in the face of logic to consider "reputable" a company that repeatedly (perhaps thousands of times), over a period of years, enabled or perpetrated auction fraud. You're tired of my "jabs" at Ron, but you're not tired of being treated like a sucker and an idiot on a weekly basis? If that's your stance, that's okay, you're entitled to your opinion.
Now for my punishment, what did you have in mind?
I am not naive, I said I didnt debate your points but the fact is Ron is not out deceive anyone, he merely reports. If you have an issue with him reporting what you believe are untruths that has been made clear, now what do you want?
As for a punishment it is not up for me to decide, just back off Ron, dont shoot the messenger.
Well, I made a post like that because what I said is the truth. Snapnames admitted to auction fraud/shill-bidding, and DNjournal tells us they are "reputable." I never said the "reported" sale of $300k for Imoveis.com.br should be suspected of being fraudulent. You're the only one who has used that verbage. I merely asked if it was substantiated. The sale was published at DNJournal.com and that publisher has used that sale to draw traffic to his site, as he does weekly here and in other domainer forums. That's the same publisher who tells us weekly that Snapnames is "reputable." I see a great chasm of logic there, so I merely asked if the $300k sale had been substantiated. Additionally, the supposed seller in that transaction is a .com.br dealer/collector of sorts, so there's always the possibly (in the absence of substantiation) of exaggeration, hype, more to it than meets the eye, etc.
It's only prudent to think this way, not cruel, not personal.
---------- Post added at 02:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 AM ----------
Well, you stated I should be punished, now you say it's not for you to decide. Make up your mind, please. As far as backing-off Ron, please note that dnforum.com and other domainer sites are used by Ron to garner our attention, to get us to click to his site, to read the juicy new weekly sales reports. Then when I give my opinion on a weekly basis, you don't like it. That's too bad. In my opinion the "messenger" (your word) shoots us every week by telling us a company that committed auction fraud many times over a 4 to 5 year period is "reputable." There are other arguably sleazy characters highlighted in a positive fashion by Ron, but the Snapnames situation is the most egregious example.
So on a weekly basis we are prompted here to visit DNJournal.com. We are encouraged to post comments on the article. Unless the comments kiss Ron's ass, you (and a few others) don't like it, right?
I can offer you the example of me showing you a sign every week on which the statement "Bernie Madoff is trustworthy" appears. After several weeks of that I'm sure you'd have some choice comments of your own about me and my statement.
Ok, Ill play.
For your constant attacking of Ron ( a member here ) you should be temp banned, I imagine that would have little affect on you though.
As for Ron's reports, imo I see no harm done. Everyone is able to determine what they believe or do not, no different then watching CNN or Fox news. I am sure Ron would agree he has been lied to on occassion but there is no malice on his part so why not take your fight to those you mentiion, or is Ron an easier target for you?
Its gotten to the point you need to put up or shut up, weren't you starting a blog? I am all for attacking scum and exposing truths but you need to focus elsewhere.
Last edited by TheLegendaryJP; 04-23-2010 at 10:00 AM.
I too think that the attacks against Ron are unfair.
Had he tried to cover up (no idea why he would) I would confront him but that does not seem to be the case.
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/dom...9/20091118.htm
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/dom...ded-newtld.htm
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/low...s/20091104.htm
Bottom line, Ron is a reporter, not a columnist for a militant tabloid.
How many times do we need to beat the dead horse ?
One of the things I don't like in this industry (or in general) is the constant whining or victim play.
Don't get me wrong, I think Snapnames hasn't come clear and remains tainted, and anything from Snapnames should be taken with a pinch of salt IMO, but the truth is out (sadly, not all of it), we are adults and able to govern ourselves accordingly.
My thoughts as well
Peace.
NameNewsletter.com - free lists of available domain names
ZoneFiles.net (beta) - ccTLD and gTLD droplists
'
In my opinion, when a "publisher" designates a source to be "reputable", and that source has a substantial history of defrauding clueless bidders at auction, then harm has certainly be done. If you don't agree, then I diagnose your problem as Ostrich Syndrome, where one sticks his/her head in the sand to avioid confronting truth.
Of course you think I should be "temp banned," whatever that means. How 'bout that, 'cause I never defrauded anyone here. You give the criminals a pass, but want a poster banned because he speaks the truth about Ron sucking -up to the real fraudster.
If you had said that from the get-go, you would have never heard from me again, because that speaks negative, disapponting volumes about you, Ron, and dnforum.com. You want no part of me, and I want no part of this vile, incestuous cesspool in which dnjournal, snapnames, Adam Dicker, and other nefarious characters in the industry spend much of their time together.
Last edited by broe-foe; 04-23-2010 at 11:09 PM.
Everyone has to make their own choice, as stated, no one can believe everything they hear/read, dnjournal, CNN or Fox News, they all report on sketchy people but that doesnt mean anything the publisher does is in malice though! Ron isn't the defender of the world, he reports what the world is doing. For all you know Ron may agree with certain points you make about company X but his personal choice is not to investigate. If you changed your approach with how you handle your convictions it may work wonders.
...
Last edited by 500,000; 01-11-2011 at 06:34 PM.
To clear up any misconceptions, yes the Imoveis.com.br sale was verified by us. We required the seller to provide us with copies of the money transfers to prove his claim. This is routine. "Reported" does not mean we take a report of a big sale at face value. Proof is required unless the parties are very well known to us. We use the term reported sales primarily to remind people that most sales go unreported so our charts can only show those that have been made public. For those who want to take the time to read it, there is a link to our verification procedure at the bottom of our Top 20 chart so you can see exactly what our policy is. That page is here: http://www.dnjournal.com/sales-verification.htm
As JP noted many people have tried to get bogus sales past us over the years but I am confident we catch the vast majority of those. We reject sales reports every week because people do not provide the documentation we require.
With respect to SnapNames.com, if the company's contention that the shill bidding was done solely by Nelson Brady is true then SnapNames was victimized by him as were hundreds of other people (including myself) who bid in SnapNames auctions. He certainly sullied SnapNames reputation and it will take a long time for them to repair that damage. However until someone proves otherwise it would be completely unfair for us to label a company that may have been vctimized themselves as being disreputable. Regarding historical SnapNames sales records, when the scandal broke we placed a permanent footnote on our Year to Date charts detailing our position on previous SnapNames sales and placed an asterisk on all of the sales they made prior to Mr. Brady being outed. That statement is below:
** In November 2009 an insider shill bidding scandal was revealed at SnapNames.com that affected as many as 50,000 auctions from 2005 to Oct. 2009. Sales from the tainted auctions were completed at the prices listed however, in an effort to offset some of the damage done, SnapNames offered refunds to those who paid more than they otherwise would have had the shill bidder not been running up the price against them. Some accepted those refunds and other did not, choosing to seek compensation through the courts.
There is no way to know who received partial refunds and on what domains those refunds were issued, or even which reported SnapNames sales over the years were affected by the shill bidder. So, we are advising readers that even though SnapNames sales listed between 2005-Oct. 2009 were completed at the prices shown, some buyers may have received refunds after October 2009 of a portion of the original prices they paid.
DNJournal.com Fly Like an Igal: Lichtman Innovates Again With Dazzling Automatic Website Building Technology at TrafficMedia
NameNewbie.com
Posting Permissions
View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
View Friends
View Blog Entries
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks