Talk:Domaining

Redirect to Domain Name Speculation
I don't see any difference in between domaining and domain name speculation. It is obvious that both articles even seem to share the same subheadings so there is no point in having two different pages.

Besides the pro domaining arguments are nowhere close to the reality of the domain name industry. Techniques monetization techniques refered to in this article are used by far less than 1% of domainers. For the all other participants domaining simply means buying and selling domain names for a profit. In many cases setting up low quatlity website or even search engine spam in order to make money from a domain until it can be sold is a common practice. However i see this as a negative site effect of domain name speculation and not worthy of its own article.

This entire page is a lame attempt by domainsquatters to rebrand themselfes. Such attempts should not be supported by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.200.52.241 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that you must backup your statements? Please provide a citation for the "far less than 1% of domainers" line. Please provide a citation for the "even search engine spam in order to make money from a domain" line. Please provide a citation for the "entire page is a lame attempt by domainsquatters to rebrand themselfes" line.

None of what you just said is true, and us domainers have provided numerous citations and reputable links to this effect.

You, and the biased Wikipedia admins, are breaking Wikipedia's own policies and aims! --82.15.29.29 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Tristan Perry

Summary

 * Relevant pages
 * Domaining this article (&larr; redirects: Domainer, Domainers)
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Domaining decision to redirect this article to Cybersquatting (now reversed)
 * WP:Redirects for discussion current discussion that is likely to be closed
 * Domain name speculation similar concept to Domaining
 * Cybersquatting related concept, but specifically refers to an activity that is now illegal in the U.S.
 * Spamdexing different concept


 * Description
 * Cybersquatting is the illegal misuse of someone's trademark. Domaining consists of many potential legitimate business practices: predicting trends and ideas in terminology; registering generic domains that could become valuable in the future; buy, sell, and trade valuable generic domains.
 * Trademark attorneys often try to portray legitimate domainers as cybersquatters to make their cases but they often lose and in fact are sometimes guilty of using the portrayal in an attempt at reverse domain hijacking.


 * Links
 * New York Times blog Domainer ... who see buying portfolios of Web sites as a digital form of investing in real estate.
 * Forbes Domainer ... "domain trader". "In addition to flipping, domainers have other ways of making money from their investments. Most domainers post ads on their Web sites, which can generate a decent monthly income."
 * Inc Magazine Domaining ... "Domain speculation" and references domainers.
 * IT Business Domaining: The practice of buying, selling and monetizing domain names.
 * Domainer Trade Publications: http://www.domainersmagazine.com/ http://www.moderndomainer.com/ http://www.domainnews.com/ http://www.dnjournal.com/ http://www.domainnamewire.com http://www.domainertv.com/
 * Domainer Events: http://domainermardigras.com/ http://www.domainroundtable.com/aboutus/index http://targetedtraffic.com/who-should-attend.php http://domainfest.com/who-should-attend http://domainerdinner.com/
 * Domainer Trade Associations: http://associatedcities.com/ http://www.internetcommerce.org
 * Business 2.0 Magazine Article on Domaining: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/06/01/100050989/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.152.62 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have archived the previous discussion which I found confusing, but have extracted the above summary to assist with developing the article (it is not my own work; the "description" is paraphrased from a post by joezeppy, now in Archive 1). Johnuniq (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts
If this article were to be deleted again it should, at the very least, be redirected to Domain name speculation and not Cybersquatting, although that would be a very narrow definition of what domaining actually is. It's quite clear that owning a portfolio of generic domains (e.g. pets.com, dogs.com, cats.com), is very different to owning domains that trespass on trademarks (e.g. nikeshoes.com, buymicrosoftsoftware.com etc.), so why should the first owner be tarred with the brush of the second owner, which was effectively what that redirect did. Clearly, when the previous article was deleted and redirected to cybersquatting, there was some jealousy at work, but it's good to see that common sense has prevailed over those strangely socialist ideologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.253.31 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Domaining Page Receiving Edits & Entries From Uninformed
I am the original submitter of the new page dedicated to Domaining on Wikipedia. I would like to share a few observations based on page edits I have observed over the past 10 days.

First, the archived discussion on the need for the dedicated domaining page contains highly relevant facts and points of contention which are critical to the overall discussion of the domaining page. It concerns me that so much important information is no longer immediately viewable to readers when one clicks on the discussion tab. Would it be possible to unarchive the original discussion comments (add them back) such that reviewers can see a complete chronological overview of the discussion as it has evolved (on a single page)?

Second, the domaining discussion has been subject to serious misstatements and attacks by what I call dissenters (uninformed, biased individuals making a series of false claims about the domaining industry). The overwhelming preponderance of comments by dissenters have been utterly false. It appears that some of this subgroup have made entries to the domaining page that are also false and misleading. I am not sufficiently familiar with the Wikipedia content development process, but it is becoming evident that the development of the domaining page is going to require a fairly high level of policing and correction for quality and accuracy. I have already deleted one sentence and a paragraph that were completely inappropriate entries meant to malign the domaining industry.

Input on protecting the integrity of the content development process would be appreciated. Also, at what point (if ever) does editing of the Domaining page conclude?

It is very important to a great many people that an informative & accurate representation of the domain name industry be reflected here at Wikipedia. Dissent is welcomed and understood as an important part of the overall process, but the degree of misrepresentation being introduced by dissenters here is something which will require very close monitoring. Thank you. Kingwarren (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The text in the archive is generally unhelpful because it involves restating variations of the "Cybersquatting is the illegal misuse of someone's trademark" summary that I put above, together with opinions on the history that are not relevant to what should happen next. Rehashing who is wrong will not help decide the future of the article. Text like "serious misstatements and attacks" and so on is ignored here because you are not suggesting what should occur to the article, and you are not providing a reason for any action that you may suggest later. In every article, there are several people who think one thing, and several people who think the opposite, so most editors have learned to filter out text which does not give a reason (backed by a policy or guideline) for some action to occur. The main problem with this topic is that it deals with a changing area with no reliable sources that I am aware of (a web site promoting domaining is not a reliable source on all aspects of domaining). However, you are free to copy anything you like from the archive and paste it here.
 * Editing never concludes (that is both a strength and a weakness of Wikipedia). It's likely that this article will go through periods of inactivity (weeks/months), followed by a few days of editing that may simply correct typos, or may completely alter content. Disagreements are "resolved" by consideration of policies and guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:UNDUE. It would also be useful to review WP:TALK. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)