DNForum SLD Checker vs dotDB: a transparent test, real gains and issues to fix

[birajstbirajst is verified member.]

Hi

be glad you still have manual control, somewhere

once agents start to discover and self-configurate on their own, then what will they need you for?

just saying/

imo...

Fair point. I think we should make it easier for agents to discover and use SLD Checker, while still keeping a clear manual setup option for users who want it.

 

[HelmutsHelmuts is verified member.]

Works great. Didn't know about the tools @Helmuts .

You should put them in the Top Navigation Bar.

SLD Checker

DNForum SLD Checker checks an exact second-level name across TLD extensions and shows total matches with Active, Parked, and Inactive status.

www.dnforum.com

Hi, had in the top menu > more tools were there and it was becoming clustered. We have this other menu here:

.. keep improving, and improving .. 1 steady step at the time

 

[SteveNguyen]

Fair point. I think we should make it easier for agents to discover and use SLD Checker, while still keeping a clear manual setup option for users who want it.

I tested SLD Checker with several names, and the Active, Parked, and Inactive categories made the cross-TLD footprint easy to scan.

For acquisition screening, I still needed more context. An active independent business and a redirect to another domain can represent very different buyer signals. The observation date also matters because status can change, and some of my test results were partial, so an uncertain classification would be useful to distinguish from a confirmed one.

Which classification do you think should actually change an investor’s acquisition decision, rather than merely add information?

 

[HelmutsHelmuts is verified member.]

I tested SLD Checker with several names, and the Active, Parked, and Inactive categories made the cross-TLD footprint easy to scan.

For acquisition screening, I still needed more context. An active independent business and a redirect to another domain can represent very different buyer signals. The observation date also matters because status can change, and some of my test results were partial, so an uncertain classification would be useful to distinguish from a confirmed one.

Which classification do you think should actually change an investor’s acquisition decision, rather than merely add information?

Thank you. Which additional data would you suggest? CPC, global monthly searches (search volume)? or, something else?

.. I can add that @DNF Admin is currently looking into the possibilities of integrating some Google data in our auction feed. Just need to make sure how to get this data for free (as our tools for our members are 100% free)

and, @birajst is working on a clean integration of '_for.sale' txt records in the SLD checker > more on this at https://rfc10023.nl/

so, which data would be crucial for you at the SLD Checker?

 

[SteveNguyen]

Thank you. Which additional data would you suggest? CPC, global monthly searches (search volume)? or, something else?

.. I can add that @DNF Admin is currently looking into the possibilities of integrating some Google data in our auction feed. Just need to make sure how to get this data for free (as our tools for our members are 100% free)

and, @birajst is working on a clean integration of '_for.sale' txt records in the SLD checker > more on this at https://rfc10023.nl/

so, which data would be crucial for you at the SLD Checker?

Thanks, Helmuts. For acquisition screening, I’d prioritize these before CPC or search volume:

1. Separate developed sites from redirects. “Active” is more useful when I can see whether the domain hosts a business-looking site, redirects elsewhere, or has unclear usage.
2. Show when it was checked, plus an explicit uncertain/failed state. A partial or failed lookup shouldn’t look like confirmed “Inactive”—missing evidence and observed inactivity are different.
3. Make the classification inspectable. Show the final destination URL and, where available, a small supporting observation such as the page title. A functioning website alone shouldn’t be treated as proof of an independent company.

CPC and search volume would be useful secondary keyword context, but they don’t establish a credible buyer for a particular domain.

I’d also keep _for.sale as a separate sale-status signal, rather than evidence of business use.

 

[KarmaDomains]

Thanks, Helmuts. For acquisition screening, I’d prioritize these before CPC or search volume:

1. Separate developed sites from redirects. “Active” is more useful when I can see whether the domain hosts a business-looking site, redirects elsewhere, or has unclear usage.
2. Show when it was checked, plus an explicit uncertain/failed state. A partial or failed lookup shouldn’t look like confirmed “Inactive”—missing evidence and observed inactivity are different.
3. Make the classification inspectable. Show the final destination URL and, where available, a small supporting observation such as the page title. A functioning website alone shouldn’t be treated as proof of an independent company.

CPC and search volume would be useful secondary keyword context, but they don’t establish a credible buyer for a particular domain.

I’d also keep _for.sale as a separate sale-status signal, rather than evidence of business use.

for expired and auction names id want a short domain history: how many times it dropped, when it last had a live site, and whether there was spam on it. CPC and search volume are useful but more for fresh regs. with a drop the main risk is usually in the past, not in the keyword