Domain Name Journal
以下でアクセス： 21 7月, 2016
Highest reported domain sales in all extensions through July 10, 2016. These are the highest value cash only sales that have been reported to DNJournal.
DN Journal lists hundreds of reported domain sales each week. To ensure that its weekly reports are as accurate as possible given the flood of data it receives and the time constraints it operates under in order to produce the column, it has developed a verification system that it believes allows it to achieve a high level of accuracy.
Most of the sales in DNJ report come directly to it from reputable and widely-known sales venues such as Sedo.com, NameJet, DomainNameSales, SnapNames.com and several others. The Journal accept their sales reports as accurate since there are three parties involved in every transaction at these venues, the buyer, the seller and the venue that provides escrow services. It would take collusion on the part of all three parties to put out a false sale report without fear of detection and DNJ does not believe that any of these major venues would risk destruction of their business reputation by being involved in fraudulent sales reporting.
The Journal also receives reports of sales made between only two parties, a buyer and a seller. In these cases, unless the parties to the sale are already very well-known to DNJ, it requires that documentation showing proof of the price paid be sent to it. A screenshot or scan from the financial service that handled the exchange of funds is required. If DNJ still has concerns about the legitimacy of the sale it has in the past, and will continue in the future, to contact the financial institution in question for further verification (most will provide such verification with the consent of their customer).
DN Journal recognizes that no system is foolproof and there will always be unscrupulous people who may file false reports and even forged documentation. DNJ does its best to identify and delete such bogus sales reports and believes that it has been very effective in doing so over the years. If proof of a false report comes to its attention it will delete that report from its site and if it confirms that willful misrepresentation was made it will publicly identify the parties responsible.
Users should always keep in mind that DNJ's sales data is meant to be an educational tool, not a complete list documenting all high value domain sales. Such a list is impossible to produce because many sales are kept private at the insistence of buyers, sellers or both. Its data represents a large sampling of the sales activity that takes place each week and it hopes this sample will give its users some insight into overall trends in the domain aftermarket.
Every Wednesday DNJournal publishes the highest reported domain name sales for the previous week. On Mondays and Tuesdays its contributors send it their sales data for the previous 7 days. DNJ then compiles that information and writes the article to give users the most comprehensive sales report in the industry.
Foreign Currency to Dollar conversions based on rates in effect when sales were reported by DNJournal.com.
Date column shows the date (month/day/year) the sale was published in DNJournal.
In November 2009 an insider shill bidding scandal was revealed at SnapNames.com that affected as many as 50,000 auctions from 2005 to Oct. 2009. Sales from the tainted auctions were completed at the prices listed however, in an effort to offset some of the damage done, SnapNames offered refunds to those who paid more than they otherwise would have had the shill bidder not been running up the price against them. Some accepted those refunds and other did not, choosing to seek compensation through the courts.
There is no way to know who received partial refunds and on what domains those refunds were issued, or even which reported SnapNames sales over the years were affected by the shill bidder. So, we are advising readers that even though SnapNames sales listed between 2005-Oct. 2009 were completed at the prices shown, some buyers may have received refunds after October 2009 of a portion of the original prices they paid.