With so much negativity going on this week, I always think it’s right to find balance and highlight some good.
The work Michael Sumner (Namebio) has done as an unrelated, unbiased participant in the NameJet situation has been excellent.
Here is the latest research he put together
I think most on Namepros have come to appreciate the time he has put in to help those who really don’t understand all the nuances of auction bidding.
Thanks Michael
Agree, great analytical job indeed, he has all the tools to make it quickly, kudos to Michael. 🙂
Some of the research or should I saw thoughts are flawed, sorry, it neglects to take into account human emotion. He states a case where a 3rd bidder enters a battle after a shill has bid it up makes it ok.
We all know that a lot of time people only want what others have or want and that 3rd bidder may never have jumped in if they knew the demand (shill) was truly not there.
So you are saying his work is shit?
I think most think it’s exemplary, but there is always one in every bunch, in this case a bunch of bananas.
I never said that, I said some conclusions are flawed such as the one I mentioned. A clear case can be made and proven that the 3rd bidder or whomever may never have wanted the domain should the shilling not taken place. Therefore you cannot justify it by stating them simply bidding more showed they always would have.
His work and site are A+ no question but the human nature element needs to be included.
You bring up an excellent third scenario that I hadn’t even considered… that Bidder XYZ (see below) wouldn’t have even joined if the shill hadn’t started a war. So really Bidder ABC might have won it for $500 in that scenario. So how do you calculate a refund for Bidder XYZ who won the name?! And ABC is just SOL.
See why I left this scenario out of the calculations? It’s really messy.
Ignore Josh.
He is a close associate of the shill brothers and been defending them all the time.
https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/23/see-3l-com-prices-going/
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say a third bidder joining after a shill runs it up makes it OK. I was just pointing out that my method wouldn’t account for that situation, and even if I tried I wouldn’t know how to put a number on that. Let me give you an example with concrete numbers to clarify:
Bidder XYZ 1,750
Bidder ABC 1,500
Bidder SHILL 1,250
Bidder ABC 1000
Bidder SHILL 750
Bidder ABC 500
How can you say where it would have ended up if the shill bidder wasn’t there? Let’s say it could be this:
Bidder XYZ 1,250
Bidder ABC 1000
Bidder XYZ 750
Bidder ABC 500
Or maybe ABC would keep going to $1,500. Or maybe XYZ would keep going to $1,750 just like he did in the past. Maybe ABC would back down after XYZ bid $750. It’s impossible to say.
I opted not to invent numbers in murky situations like this, and rather focus on the hard numbers that could be 100% conservatively justified as far as how much it will cost for NJ to make this right. Numbers I can back up carry weight, I didn’t want to weaken my findings by fudging numbers and reaching. Hopefully NJ would find a way to make these victims whole too, maybe splitting the difference?
Make sense?
I understand what you are saying and my point exactly, there is no way for you to account for the human element/train of thought “oh look other people are bidding”, “I if that guy wants it I want it too” or if that name is getting bids or bid up it must be good. An element that has as much of a real dollar and cents impact as the math therefore we ever know the real $ impact.
I would submit the “real” $ impact is somewhere between your math + an emotional tack on to be determined.
If you have a concrete method you would like me to try I’ll be happy to code it up and post the results. My programming language of choice doesn’t have any functions to add an emotional tax 🙂 Wouldn’t it be the reverse though? Without the shill heating things up I’d expect the results to be even lower than my estimate.
Anyway, the whole point behind the exercise was to get a rough idea of the scope of the damage. As I mentioned people were throwing around guesses in the eight and nine figures, just wanted to show it wasn’t remotely close to that (at least for the accounts we know about).
lol I have no such formula 🙂
I wouldn’t however be shock to hear someone has done a study on added value when you are led to believe there is demand. I’d google it but too lazy atm.
These connections he is uncovering need to be explained by the parties involved.
Michael.. Great work and Investigation. You put a lot of work and effort into your analysis. Thank You.
You were proactive and used your own time and own resources to investigate some of these issues with real data. At least you have put time and effort into researching this matter.
Namejet and their GM with all the data, resources and real-time information in front of them just continue to look like complicit clowns.
I frankly see Namebio data very faulty, unreliable, lots of domains show as sold are renewed by the owners hence nullifying any auction win, I also know of domains shown as sold at auctions but for whatever reason (legal), they get taken away and given back to the original owner that let it drop.