Originally posted by safesys Realnames, to my mind your comments do contradict each other. Afternic midcap names are "average" names - yet you said if it were an average name you would tell us and that it is "so good" etc. The reason why people are interested in the name is because of the way you have repeatedly posted in a "tease" like way suggesting you got a real gem and have since back pedalled. If you don't want to divulge the name, just say so and then we can all move on. BTW, might I remind you, that you have been happy to question my own posts (5k a a day to make money from ppc etc) - this is normal in a forum where not everything is taken or accepted purely at face value. Questioning is healthy but it cuts both ways.
I don't recall saying Midcap Names were only Avergage, when did I say that? If I did that it must have been a typo or was misstated somehow, as Midcaps are well above Average, just below top-tier names.
I like to think there are 5 levels of names -
1. High Profile, names like Business.com Loans.com Drugs.com Stocks.com Art.com Sex.com Amazon.com RealEstate.com AOL.com Travel.com
2. Top Tier, names like StockMarket.com eBusiness.com Commodities.com Reservations.com Webhosting.com
3. Midcap, names like StockTrading.com CommodityTrading.com FuturesMarkets.com Websites.com WebsiteDesign.com
4. Average, names like JohnRSmith.net AutoPriceQuotations.com
5. Worthless (most non-developed brandable names & trademark issues fall in this category), OnlineInternet-iBizness.com todaysgaggles.com 1234wxyz.com AmezonBooks.com AOL-News.com
I may be wrong on the names in those categories as its subjective of course. Anyone here have feedback on my quality ranking theory or a better one??
Regarding the questioining of your Post regarding you saying '5,000 uniques a day are needed to generate worthwhile profits by selling high-ticket products.' That was questioned as it was obviously incorrect, as you did say high-ticket products, not just PPC.
In a post I made a short time earlier I mentioned how I have a few websites only getting 50 to 150 a day and it was enough to support my family well and be 100% web-based since 1997, yet you posted that 5,000/day were really needed, approx' 50 times the volume of traffic. Perhaps that post of yours was in error or misstated at the time. We all make errors in posts oocasionally, I know that for a fact
Safesys, thanks for your contributions, help and feedback on many subjects. You are very knowledgable on most issues and well respected.