Discussion in 'Domain Appraisals' started by xblink, Jun 29, 2013.
Any thoughts on this one people ?
Nobody builds a brand on a .net without owning the .co.uk / .com, which it doesn't look like you own. So the domain has zero value from a brand point of view.
Nobody is searching Google for 'London ads'. So the domain has zero value from an seo point of view.
So I would say this domain has a negative value.
Definitely earning your 'Reds' Monkey
Then feel free to either post your own valuation of the domain, or point out what is wrong with my valuation.
If it was free to register right now, would you register it? If not then it clearly has a negative value - if you registered it you would need to pay for it. And you'd need to pay to renew it.
It could work quite well - It needs, somebody (with the money and the mindset) to latch-on to it. . The domain says "London adverts on the Net".
Would I buy It, The answers No - Good wording has to look 'Good' as well as have meaning is my investment criteria. But that at least that is better than some of your Monkey Criteria.
Come on Bailey.... you're not doing anyone any favours by encouraging them when they've registered a clearly poor quality domain.
Nobody with 'the money and the mindset' is going to buy a .net domain with no search volume and no route to being a brand since its a poor extension.
I've said its a bad domain name, and I've explained why - although a negative opinion, its a million times more helpful than lying and saying 'it could work quite well'.
Sorry to say to a new-poster on Acorn, but you are full of sh#t..
And No - you haven't explained why..it doesn't work as a domain.
You response to the initial post is a random little rant - and that is the way it will be read, why not post constructively instead of being read like a newbie on steroids
I made two clear points - the first being that nobody is going to build a brand on a .net domain without owning the other extensions. If you feel otherwise, feel free to provide examples.
My 2nd point was that the search volume was so low, that it has no real commercial value there. If you feel otherwise, feel free to provide examples.
There is no way to dress this up... it was a domain that wasn't worth registering. Its unfair and unhelpful to tell the registrant anything other than that. It was a £5 mistake, and a lesson worth learning.
You could say this for absolutely any domain. Any domain with money and mindset thrown at it can be successful. That's irrelevant in the appraisal of this specific domain.
So does londonadvertsonthenet.co.uk - should I buy it? It's on free reg...
Domains should primarily be valued on brandability and/or SEO value. This domain has none of those as Monkey has pointed out. I don't consider saying something could "work quite well" if someone put a site on it and thrown money at is a good DOMAIN appraisal which is what this forum is for.
Finally, please don't assume people are newbies because they've only just started posting on the forum. That's twice you've implied that Monkey is inexperienced in the domain industry. Based on what? His Acorn post count? He's given a lot more value and insight to the OP of this thread than you have and if you're experienced as you say you are, you shouldn't be valuing a domain based on how good it is if someone threw money at it.
Carry-on Monkey, Seems like you've been well worked-out by the membership here already.
The better Criticisms of a domain come from an understanding of the market, not the blind-mans reference points, that you seem so apt to quote
Separate names with a comma.