After I blogged about how Reputation.com called all domainers “squatters” through their definition, a reader (Christine) contacted them via live chat and received canned responses. This approached pissed me off, so I wrote another blog post and got the initial one to rank for their name. Today, Rob from Reputation.com did the right thing by apologizing on DomainingTips.com (he also sent me an email) and editing the previous definition.
As a result, I have edited my initial post as well as the second one so as not to cause harm to Reputation.com’s online… reputation š
They should also apologize to Christine in my opinion (they can easily find her email address via their live chat log or simply request the email address she used when commenting from me and I’ll ask for her permission to share it) because as you can see HERE, she was reasonable to say the least and only received canned responses.
Would they have apologized if my post hadn’t ranked on Google for their name (they’re a reputation management company, so it should come as no surprise that they monitor such terms closely)? Probably not but nobody’s perfect and at the end of the day, what matters is that they finally did the right thing.
The updated definition can be found on this page and here’s Rob’s official response:
Hello,
My name is Rob Frappier and Iām the Community Manager for Reputation.com. I just wanted to say thank you for your critical eye. We recognize the difference between legitimate domain investors and domain squatters and we have corrected our definition to reflect the correct interpretation of the word.
In our original entry, the ābad faithā portion of the ādomain squatterā definition was implicit. However, upon further review, we realize that that distinction should have been explicit in the definition so as not to cast a negative shadow on the many ethical domain investors out there (including the many domain investors who frequent this site).
Thank you for your understanding.
Best regards,
Rob Frappier
Community Manager
Reputation.com
February 18th, 2011 at 8:47 am
Nice effort. Many people might not want to put an effort like you have done.
Thanks
February 18th, 2011 at 9:00 am
“The definition of domain squatter is one who purchases trademarked or branded domain names in bad faith with the intent to sell them later to individuals or companies for a profit.”
“Domain squatters will buy an un-owned domain name hoping that a company or individual will later find it pertinent to their business or simply important to own. The domain squatter can then sell the URL for a profit.”
The second sentence still reads like investors are squatters. Rob needs to add “trademarked names and brands” after “domain squatters will buy”.
Also adding a sentence explaining that generic word domain investing is not squatting would help.
Good effort! Maybe the empty lot in the Bahamas you aren’t using analogy would help everyone understand the value of undeveloped “virtual” generic real estate.
February 18th, 2011 at 9:50 am
Good Job!
I don’t normally tell people what I do for a living because I still get a little bit of flack from some people. Mainly I just consider the source.
Plus I just tell them that I am an Internet Spy, always good for a laugh.
February 18th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Apparently I commented on your previous post a little too soon. Reputation.com’s definition is better, but still misleading and inaccurate. Why don’t they just ask us – actual domainers – for the definition instead of pulling something out of their hind ends? Hello?
February 18th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Thank you for putting in the effort to get them to put the proper terms down! Not many do that, so thanks again for doing it.
February 19th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Squatters? I suppose people who purchase tracts of land are also squatters. These people that make these remarks need their effin heads examined.
All it comes down to is jealousy. Someone got the corner lot in the center of town before they did.
Babies.
February 19th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
A squatter is someone who resides on land or property owned by someone else, so the analogy isn’t even fitting. A domain investor “owns” the land and is not the squatter, per se.
February 19th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
@Christine
Probably because they want some kind of “established, objective source” for lack of a better term. Domainers engaged in the buying and selling of domains for profit aren’t exactly an undetached, objective reference to look to, though somewhat obviously they ought to be since that’s what they do.
Apparently they looked to Wikipedia as previously mentioned, although that’s not exactly an objective and infallible source either. Rather funnily, even ACPA doesn’t exactly define cybersquatting if you look it up, though it describes instances how it occurs.
And ditto what Logan said about squatting. Just happens some people want to take it further than its original definition to suit their bias.
March 4th, 2011 at 7:04 am
Apparently I commented on your previous post a little too soon. š
May 1st, 2011 at 7:57 am
You just have to sign up for a free account and start earning money in no-time.
May 7th, 2011 at 2:06 am
Awesome read , I am going to spend more time reading about this subject