Until a couple weeks ago, the only domains I'd ever bought were specifically for sites I was planning on developing. Come up with a site idea, go buy a domain. Then I decided to take a crack at domain speculating, so I bought a few here and there, around 30, knowing that most of them are probably worthless but having fun nonetheless. Tonight I stumbled across EstiBot.com and started plugging in my domains. As expected, most are "appraised" at reg fee, a few in the $40 or $80 or $120 range, and one at $4100. How is EstiBot viewed by veteran domainers? Is it generally considered to provide a decent ballpark estimate? Or is it considered way off base more often than not? Because the domain it appraised at $4100 was one I bought ONLY because it cracks me up every time I say it. fungusball.com. Go ahead, say it - Fungus Ball. It's funny! When someone asks my wife what her husband does for a living, I want her to say, "he runs fungusball.com." It IS a medical term... it would make a good directory: "fungusball.com - covering the 'net like a fungus!" But $4100? That's crazy. More like reg fee, right? But back to my larger question: how is EstiBot viewed?
Estibot is pretty bad. I would only take advice from it in terms of traffic values, not based on names.
Then again, I wouldn't trust most people to tell me what my domain is worth either. Most people have no idea what any domain is worth, especially in niches and with the right contacts.
Actually, I was thinking about it and have to amend my statement. Your question was related to "experienced" longtime domainers and what they thought of this tool. I have been buying domains for 5 years so my expectations are much higher than the average user, and for them it actually can sometimes give you a decent ballpark figure. The problem with the tool is it is schizophrenic and for 1 name will give a decent, reliable valuation and the very next domain you enter it will be way, lower than it's market reality. For example I have a .org which is #1 on Google for it's target term, #15 in the world for a MASSIVE keyword term, and is a PR 6 - and it valued it total at what I make in Google ad's in 6 months. Generally accepted valuations on earnings by domainers are 3-5 years of revenue = the total price. So it undervalued it by so much because it was a .org, and not the .com even though the .com is not even a site. In other words, it is not good at valuating a "site", just the domain itself. And even then it undervalues them a lot sometimes, especially if it is a "brandable" name. For instance- if you had entered in something like digg.com before it was an actual site it would be considered near worthless because it is a misspelling of "dig" - without having the benefit of "human" understanding that it is super memorable and brandable. The main names that it does well with are "keyword" domains, where the tool can look up instances of that word on the net and the associated searches on them like "usedcars.com" or something. It is a rough guide, but dont feel badly if you enter a name and it says "reg fee" because you could have the next "ebay" "youtube" or myspace" on your hands- all of which would have been considered practically reg fee by this tool before the sites were built. Hope that is more consise as to what I meant.
If you own 'the next myspace' your domain is worthless. It isn't the domains of those brands that make their website, it's the content and users which do. EstiBot tries to value domain names as you said, not sites. Your domain can be worthless and you can build a bllion dollar site on ANY domain. That's why there is such a huge difference between domainers and seo/developers. Domainers value inherent value of a name often based around type in traffic (there are other factors such as length, memorability, radio test etc) If the tool says your names arent worth much, they probably aren't. Doesn't mean you wont be able to get some decent money for them (it just means you probably will need to do a LOT more work). A domain name isn't the end-all and be-all of websites, but on that note, don't go with 9h8ja34.biz Know your market (.com or ccTLD in almost all cases) and try and avoid confusion (radio test... if I told you my website URL, could you type it in?)
Hi- yes, I was going to go further into that, lest someone misunderstand me but I figured my post was long enough. I agree that inherently what makes the site is the content, a unique CMS/idea etc or lots of money to "brand it" in peoples minds. However, you kind of contradict yourself because you say: But then you say: So thats not really true you can build a billion dollar site on just ANY domain. Unless you have unlimited resources to "brand" kerfugglzyxxxyz.com LOL Something like "youtube" could be worthless, or could be the foundation for a memorable brand name- it's the content that brings that domain to fruition and makes it what it is. Which gets into your point about the contradiction of domainers vs developers. I do both. At one time I owned 500 domains but I also develop and am heavilly into SEO which is my primary thing so I am a hybrid but usually these 2 occupations are at odds with each other. Or not really "at odds", but they have different priorities I should say. Domainers (and estibot) prefer generics e.g. "video.com" - but you dont see google or any other fortune 500 company buying "video.com" do you? In some cases they might, but generally they prefer to create a brand from a memorable name, rather than go for a keyword domain was all my point was and that since it is a "tool" and not a "person" - like all tools, missing the human factor it is not able to imagine branding possibilities so there are limitations to it. Thats all I meant. Dont get me wrong. I have found that it can be accurate, and give people an estimate. I just meant that it's not infallable when it comes to "brandable" names vs. "keyword" domains. I was using a domain I have that it values low just as an example before to illustrate that it is not perfect, but I have many domains that this tool values in the $x,xxx- $xx,xxx range- so I have nothing against it.
I dont think I contradicted myself at all. The worse the domain, the more it costs to brand, not impossible to brand crap domains, just harder and more expensive generally. big companies do buy domains, I don't think a large portion of sales are ever reported.