[jasonkester]

This is domain squatting pure and simple. Just because it's dressed up with a pretty design doesn't change the fact that these guys are the exact sort of bottom feeders that we should be blackballing from our industry.

Flagged.

[staunch]

There are domainers that own hundreds of thousands and even millions of domains. Those are the guys making life suck.

These guys are actually helping, by doing the hard work of sifting through the relatively few good ones still available and charging a fair price for the effort.

Save all your outrage for the real scumbags and the ICANN organization that makes them possible.

[ohashi]

I don't think anyone has broken the million mark to be fair. BuyDomains is probably the closest, but even they haven't broken it afaik.

As far as blackballing, I can think of one super well known tech figure who came from the domain industry - Michael Arrington.

[shabda]

1. Not using copyrighted names.

2. Adding value

3. Not using means such as using expiring names

4. Not using "bottom feeder" tactics like parking page advertising.

From wikipedia: cybersquatting:

" or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else"

What goodwill or trademark are they misusing?

[Edit: For formatting, but couldn't get it to look like I want.]

[CognitiveLens]

It appears that they are using parking page advertising - go to any of the available domains and you'll see that they don't just redirect to Stylate.

[mmahemoff]

Point is it's not their primary profit model. In fact, they'll make next to nothing on parking ads for these domains, being made-up names...unless their customers promote the domain before actually executing the transfer (which would not be a smart thing to do).

[stylate]

Not pointing the domains was an oversight. We will fix this soon.

[icebraining]

Not using copyrighted names.

You mean trademarked.

[Robin_Message]

It's annoying that they have purchased the domains, but there is no way to do this kind of boutique, pre-made branding without squatting the domains. So I'm not sure it is that clear cut. The logos and categorisation distinguish it from straight squatting.

[ollie]

I'm not sure it's as evil as you make it out to be. It's certainly not clear-cut domain-squatting.

They're adding value to a domain & selling it at (what I believe to be) a reasonable price. They're clearly investing time coming up with ideas for domains that they can create decent logos for. You would easily pay $500+ for a 'good' logo.

[jonnathanson]

Domain squatting with fancy window dressing is still domain squatting. I'll admit, however, that this is a very clever form of domain squatting. I begrudgingly admire the player here, even if I hate the game.

This is sort of like the domain-squatter's equivalent of department store mannequins: visual aids that help shoppers picture what the items could look like in practice, sparking their imaginations, and thereby convincing them to buy. In this case, the logos are really just giveaways to sell visually and tangibly what would otherwise be abstract names. Again: it's kind of a stroke of genius, but it's a stroke of genius in a questionable profession.

So I end up with very mixed feelings here. Kudos to this guy for innovating, and for doing a good job at it. But I fear the rise of a second domain-squatting gold rush, when/if a bunch of squatters copy this model en masse and set up squat + design sweatshops to crank them out.

[stylate]

Domain squatting has a fairly specific legal definition. We aren't squatting. We actually came up with the idea after being frustrated by domain parking and squatters and frankly the whole domain industry.

[soult]

And you are sticking it to that industry by ... doing the same?

It doesn't matter if you call it squatting or "domaining", in the end you are blocking thousands of domain names on the hope that someone needs that name so much that he will pay ransom for it.

(Kind of related: Anyone interested in a URI-dnsbl of squatted domain names?)

[Isofarro]

"(Kind of related: Anyone interested in a URI-dnsbl of squatted domain names?)"

I'm curious how you think that it's related. A blacklist directly impacts the startup purchasing the domain from purchasing it because of the murky ground involved in removing a domain name from blacklists.

And then, if you have a clear-cut mechanism for getting domain names off a blacklist when they cease to be squatted, what's the point of it? Domainers don't tend to build websites on theses domains, so blacklisting them out of being indexed on search engines is simply fixing a problem that doesn't exist. And as such, it doesn't lower the projected value of the domain in the eyes of either the purchaser or seller.

So it's not clear what purpose a URI-dnsbl would serve in regards to domaining.

[soult]

Thanks for your comment!

> I'm curious how you think that it's related.

It is only tangentially related because it is about domain squatting in general.

> removing a domain name from blacklists.

Of course the list would only carry squatted names, not names that have been brought from squatters. It would have to be regularly updated with a simple way to remove domains.

Some squatted domains do show up in search engines, so it could be used as a filter for that. Even better, when you accidentally land on a squatted domain (by following a link to a now-dead site, or by typoing a domain name) you get automatically redirected to Google or another search engine instead.

Gabriel Weinberg from Duck Duck Go has a similar list that he uses for his search engine, but he also had a Firefox toolbar that would prevent you from visiting squatted domains and instead get you to the correct domain when it was a typo. (The toolbar doesn't exist anymore).

[antihero]

No, they're selling brands that they have made that happen to come with the guarantee of a domain.

[icebraining]

It's only a brand if it identifies a product, service or company. These aren't brands, just names with appropriate icons.