Full auction data now available.
Responding to requests from customers to show complete auction history in order to check for auctions against bidder halvarez, SnapNames has updated the system with complete data. Company spokesperson Mason Cole wrote:
There has been quite a bit of back-and-forth on your blog and other places about access to SnapNames bidding and order history. The truncated system, which limits view to the 24 months prior to whatever date the lookup is being performed, has been in place for the past four years, since June 2005. This was not changed recently or in response to the recent announcement.
That aside, to make sure no one thinks there’s an attempt to shield data, SnapNames technical staff has adjusted the existing system so order and bid histories are available back to August 2004, when auctioning began on the SnapNames system.
In other words, the bid history has only shown 24 months since the middle of June 2005. A number of people assumed this was a recent change, perhaps because they had never tried to look up data from so long ago.
Acro says
This is outright false and conveniently so. The data was available in 2006 and 2007 and perhaps as late as in 2008. But that’s irrelevant right now. Oversee succumbed to pressure from domainers via blogs, emails, forums and tweets. It’s a small but definite move towards transparency in this mess.
Gazzip says
“This is outright false and conveniently so. The data was available in 2006 and 2007 and perhaps as late as in 2008.”
I would agree Acro with that Acro but at least its back up now 🙂
Gazzip says
oops, slight crew up with my typing 🙂
Gazzip says
balls, I give up !
Anon says
I’m old enough to remember Tylenol bottles getting poisoned. They came out, admitted it, got respect and survived a disaster.
McDonald’s a few years ago completely blew off the documentary “super size me” and survived by not being defensive.
SnapNames is clearly trying to take a play from those books and attack with truth and honesty. The problem is, there is a fundamental difference. SnapNames is guilty of more than 100 million dollar of negligence. They can’t win. The PR firm they hired was wrong trying to tell them to pretend they are Tylenol or McDonald’s. In reality, they are OJ Simpson. They need to deny, deny, deny and hope to god they can do good enough in court to survive. More than likely, Monte’s tendon will be ironically linked to Oversee’s Achilles tendon, class action law suit.
Oversee can’t win. We all know that they suck at due diligence. They can’t argue that they thought everything was fine and did enough homework to know better. There is historical proof that they didn’t do homework, ever.. If that company was good at checking records, they wouldn’t have bought snapnames when they didn’t have an air-tight contract with NetSol or Moniker when they didn’t have the TRAFFIC trade shows locked down. History has already proven they never did homework which means they are negligent and guilty.
The house is burning to the ground for all of us to watch.
Adam says
This is not false Acro. The history has been on a rolling 24 month for a long time if you were paying attention. I noticed awhile back and asked Halvarez about it myself.
Greg says
Acro is right this is total BS. I started after 2005 and had access to several years of history for a while.
Rob Sequin says
FYI, I’m surprised that out of 362 auctions I was in going back to 2004, Halvarez didn’t win ANY but he did cost me over $1000 in inflated pricing according to Rust.
So, to me this seems to be a clear case of shill bidding to inflate prices which means higher revenue figures therefore inflating the valuation of Snapnames prior to the Oversee purchase. Also, perhaps he got bonuses based on revenue targets.
Did he act alone? Maybe but if he was inflating the revenue then I would think the VP of Sales and/or the CFO and/or the CEO would have known or perhaps should have known.
Assuming he had stock, raising the valuation of the company would put more money in his pocket than whatever domain sales revenue he got from selling to iReit.
I would think Oversee would want some money out of Brady and maybe others.
John Berryhill says
“I would think Oversee would want some money out of Brady and maybe others.”
That’s one of the interesting angles on this thing. For as much fun as everyone seems to have beating up on Oversee, the extent to which Oversee was itself ripped off by the inflated sales figures is not known.