So, every day I get emails from both SnapNames and Pool trying to get me interested in their auctions or their drops. I actually like the formatting and messaging of Pool’s email quite a bit more than the SnapNames one. However, I am definitely bothered by many of the names that Pool chooses to feature in its email to me.

Here’s a sample from the last two weeks:

edmontonoilerscountry.com
coccast.net
cartoonnetwokgames.com
disneychenal.com
nordictrac.com
guitarhero2.com
mictosoft.com
dineycannel.com
daysinns.us
googlefoto.com

In contrast, I can’t remember ever seeing a questionable domain name in an email from SnapNames.

Now, I am cognizant of a the following facts:

1) The definitions of “typosquatting” (and “cybersquatting”) are legally murky.
2) It would be an impossible job to seperate the few “offending” names from the large number of “non-offending” names at the time of the drop.
3) It might also even be unreasonable to have Pool try to police and judge all the sales that take place on its platform.

But, keeping questionable domain names out of their daily emails should be pretty simple and definitely should be an industry “best practice”.

Many folks see “Domaining” as the same thing as “Cybersquatting”. The Domain Industry is fighting a fierce battle for its legitimacy and the Pool.com emails are terrific ammunition for other side. Pool has plenty of quality domains in its “pool” that it can feature without using the sort of names that I gave as examples. Such an act would be great public relations for the Domain Industry.

Todd Mintz
Todd Mintz knows PPC...knows Social Media...knows SEO...knows Blogging...knows Domaining...and knows them all real well. He is the SEM Consigliere for 3Q Digital and is also a Director & Founding Member of SEMpdx: Portland, Oregon's Search Engine Marketing Association, and he can be found here on Twitter and Facebook.
Todd Mintz

Latest posts by Todd Mintz (see all)

Share This