.info LR2 registrars

[mole]

Originally posted by snoopy


this kind of argument is nonsense, your basis for arguing that type ins are falling is that you have read "material about what pisses people off"??

would some valid statistics be more appropriate to justify your position?

I maintain, if everyone here has to spend 3 hrs to prepare to post a case here, then this is what nonsense is.

I turn it around to you then, you say you are successful in generating revenue from your dotcoms, please show me the audited figures. Prove it to all of us. After all no one believes anything or anyone on the net nowadays.

 

[Tee]

I would imagine most people are first finding a site in the search engines, and then bookmarking it. You still got to search to bookmark. Find->bookmark. This still means the good position in the search engines, coupled with quality, relevant content are the most important creator of traffic. Especially cost wise.

 

We're not the ones trying to argue something that flies in the face of logic and visible evidence mole.

 

I'm not disagreeing with that Tee about how to *build* traffic. But mole is saying *natural* type in traffic, per se, is a myth.

The majority of domains won't get natural type ins, but thats not what we are talking about.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by safesys


You've just said that type ins are a myth and now you're saying they do happen but its all manipulation.

The cracks in your argument are showing.

Are you following the flow or dazzled or what

No, I said that casual type-ins are a myth propagated by dotcom speculators. There is a big difference between casual type-ins and purposeful type-ins. And purposeful type-ins, don't benefit dotcom one bit.

I said that revenue is earned by traffic manipulation like pops etc, and nothing to do with the dotcom extension.


Need me to repeat that?

No, I said that casual type-ins are a myth propagated by dotcom speculators. There is a big difference between casual type-ins and purposeful type-ins. And purposeful type-ins, don't benefit dotcom one bit.

I said that revenue is earned by traffic manipulation like pops etc, and nothing to do with the dotcom extension.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by safesys
We're not the ones trying to argue something that flies in the face of logic and visible evidence mole.

hmmm, cracking huh?

 

Originally posted by mole
revenue is earned by traffic manipulation like pops etc, and nothing to do with the dotcom extension.

The .com extension is the reason there is traffic in the first place.

"And the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along as before..."

 

[mole]

Originally posted by safesys
The majority of domains won't get natural type ins, but thats not what we are talking about.

Exactly, purposeful type-ins don't need a dotcom extension. .com.au, .co.uk, ne.jp. blah blah blah.

Most dotcom advocates maintain that dotcom's strength lies in its natural type-ins. That is nothing more than taking the cheap credit for the through-the-line push of aggressive above-the-line advertising campaign.

Remember pets.com? Remember the sock puppet? Rememer SuperBowl? That's what drove the numbers in. Not, the dotcom extension.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by safesys

The .com extension is the reason there is traffic in the first place.

"And the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along as before..." [/B]

Try this line on the Japanese and see what they have to say

The internet and increasing access to the internet is the reason there is traffic in the first place.

"And the needle returns to the start of the song, and find that its been replaced with a shiny CD..."

 

[mole]

Okay you win. I need to sleep.

 

[Tee]

Lol. Thats funny. I just got sing.biz earlier to go with some other relevant singing names.

 

Yes, expensive marketing will drive traffic. Nobody is disputing that.

Descriptive .coms get natural type ins. Call them casual (how do you casually type in a url?) or call them purposeful - but people type them on spec and that converts into revenue and/or resale value.

Now you are talking about taking "cheap credit" - with every post you have made you are sounding more and more bitter.

The reason they get type ins is because they are descriptive and they have .com at the end. The weight of adveritsing made the .com part important, the descriptive element comes from timing and selection.

 

[Tee]

The weight of advertising is very heavy, but it is but the smallest feather compared to relevance, logic and sense.

 

Marketing overpowers sense and logic Tee.

Think coca-cola and MacDonalds.

 

Actually here's a link to a company which seems to specialise in traffic/domain development (7000 or so domains) which Simone pointed out the other day. Seems they were planning for an IPO which has been cancelled so that financials page hasn't been updated for a while, anyway its an interesting read..

http://www.digitalcompany.com/investors.htm

 

[Tee]

Good point safesys. Thats true. But if you marketed the sensible aggressively......

Might you want to? Ok, drink water! not carbonated corn syrup might not be the most profitable campaign...

But what if you took advantage of sense and gave it the marketing twist?

 

[beatz]

So they sold Buffy.com for $1000 but getdomains.com for $10000 ?!
Looks fake to me.
LOL - and their asking price for 4textbooks.com is $200000
It's a funny site,yes.

 

beatz,

my first thoughts was that there may have been some legal issues with buffy.com, hence the low sale?

 

My own view is that .com is like .internet so its as relevant as it gets for domain names.

It doesn't matter that its not a word with dictionary definition, the millions of websites using it (including pretty much ALL major advertisers) means it has acquired that meaning.

I'm still keen to see any reliable data that supports the notion that .com is suffering at the hands of new tld's.

 

[beatz]

Yeah,might be,but look at their asking prices and what they claim are recent sales - like payme.com $40000 - dun believe that.
I think all their figures must be fake.