Update: Reputation.com has apologized for what happened (Rob from Reputation.com posted an official apology on DomainingTips.com) and they did the right thing by editing the definition. Apology accepted!

Remember the post I’ve written on the 14th about the pathetic Reputation.com definition of the term “domain squatter” and how they were basically calling all investors squatters? A DomainingTips.com reader, Christine, confronted them via their live chat (I’m posting the transcript) and deserves to be congratulated. Want to laugh at the Reputation.com representative’s arrogance and lack of common sense? Read the transcript to find out how he made himself look ridiculous:

Please wait for a site operator to respond.

You are now chatting with ‘Chris’. How may we help you?

Chris: Hello

Chris: Thank you for contacting Reputation.com

Christine: The definition of “Domain Squatter” posted on your website is erroneous.

Christine: A domain squatter is someone who buys misspellings of trademarks.

Christine: Your website is perpetuating a faulty belief.

Chris: Here is the definition of “Domain Squatter” by Wikipedia: Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.
Chris: The term is derived from “squatting”, which is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use. Cybersquatting, however, is a bit different in that the domain names that are being “squatted” are (sometimes but not always) being paid for through the registration process by the cybersquatters. Cybersquatters usually ask for prices far greater than that at which they purchased it. Some cybersquatters put up derogatory remarks about the person or company the domain is meant to represent in an effort to encourage the subject to buy the domain from them.[citation needed] Others post paid links via Google, Yahoo!, Ask.com and other paid advertising networks to the actual site that the user likely wanted, thus monetizing their squatting.

Christine: Please note the Wikipedia definition specifies “with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.” That is, in fact, correct. However, the definition on Reputation.com is maligning the domain investor community by insinuating that investors are the same as domain squatters/cybersquatters.

Chris: It is not saying that at all.

Christine: A domain investor does, indeed, “own, rent or otherwise have permission to use” the domain names.

Chris: It is merely stating that people that buy domain names to sell to companies that they are not using in order to profit from.

Christine: Perhaps you need to read what is in the glossary again: “The definition of domain squatter is one who purchases domain names 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.” That is a very clear slam at the domain investing community, and it is erroneous.

Christine: So should we start calling real estate investors “real estate squatters?”

Chris: No it is not.

Christine: Ask domainers if they agree with Reputation.com’s definition. I am absolutely certain that whoever wrote that definition does not have a clue what they are talking about.

Chris: We are stating that 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.”

Chris: Which is people who buy a domain name in hope that someone will need it so they can profit. The same that is listed on Wikipedia.

Christine: No, there is a major difference. That is NOT a “domain squatter.” I have been in the industry for 11 years.

Christine: I am not “squatting” on anything, except maybe on Reputation.com’s faulty definition of the term “domain squatter.”

Chris: It is not a faulty definition.

Chris: Thank you for contacting us and if you have any questions about our services, I will be happy to assist you further.

Christine: The domaining industry has been fighting against this type of false information for years. Reputation.com is doing a grave disservice to the domain investing industry.

Chris: I’m sorry that you feel that way.

Christine: Again, I am part of that community and have been for 11 years. The person(s) who wrote your definition are clearly clueless. I ask that the definition be changed to reflect the truth, not some myth.

Chris: Great! Send us an email with your email address and contact number and we can address your questions in a timely manner.

Christine: You must admit that people within the industry could advise Reputation.com how better to provide a clear and accurate definition. By refusing to consider revising your definition, Reputation.com is giving itself a very bad reputation.

Chris: You can contact us at helpdesk@reputation.com

Christine: Are you saying that you can’t address this concern?

Chris: We have a wonderful reputation. Our customers and ratings on our services are very high in regards to what we do.

Christine: As are the vast majority of people involved in the domaining industry.

Christine: It’s a shame that you are apparently so averse to giving us the same respect.

Chris: You can look at our site and see who our Board Members and Managers are.

Christine: Yes, thank you for your time. I will do that.

Chris: You will see that we have a long history within the Internet Industry and companies involved.

Chris: Thank you as well. Have a lovely evening.

Christine: But probably very limited experience in domaining.

Chris: You do not know that Christine.

Chris: Thank you once again and have a great night.

Chat session has been terminated by the site operator.

My conclusion:

1) The Reputation.com representative is quoting a Wikipedia article which actually contradicts their definition

2) Instead of acting with professionalism, he offered canned responses and terminated the chat session abruptly (Christine informed us through the comments section of my previous Reputation.com blog post that she was typing a message when the operator closed the session – and in case some of you didn’t know, operators can see when the other party is typing) even though Christine was being very reasonable

3) They do not care that they are causing harm to the reputation of an entire industry through their carelessness

The shorter conclusion:

Reputation.com = EPIC Fail!