2004 Update: The system that follows was contrived years ago and is no longer applicable. Actually it never worked well, despite months of tinkering, although it’s a list of things to look for in a name. A much better way to appraise domains is to simply use prices-realized of names having similar characteristics sold on the open market.
A do-it-yourself numerical system such as this cannot in any way be comparable to an appraisal by an experienced professional, active in the aftermarket. If for no other reason, only such an individual, rich in specialized knowledge and experience, is best qualified to judge the subtleties— often involving temporal and/or patently-illogical constraints— of the potential uses of and markets for a name.
Even if precision in a domain-name appraisal system were possible, flukes of demand and the market would assure that prices-realized varied widely, depending on the accident of a willing seller of a particular name and its best potential buyer meeting at the same time and place. The connectivity of the Internet itself helps with the place factor, but timing does and will remain a circumstance of luck as well as perseverance.
No more should be expected from this system than very approximate results. While it will have been, and will be, compared with market performance, it is in great measure a product of the personal taste and opinion of its author. Only the user, based on experience with it, is qualified to judge its merits.
One happy consequence of imposed imprecision is elimination of the need to make calculation more complex than that of the old slide rule— in this case, a modified inverse base-2 log. By means of this, a simple numerical score can be generated in ten relatively-straightforward steps by nothing more than the addition or subtraction of integers, finally convertible to a dollar-estimate via a lookup table— the lower the score, the higher the value.
Even though I designed this system to produce conservative results, don’t assume you can necessarily obtain anything close to the estimate in a sale. There are undoubtedly many yet-unregistered names that would appraise in the thousands of dollars even with this system. On the other hand, you might be able to obtain at sale a much higher figure by happy circumstance of timing and demand, not to mention name-virtues too subtle for the rounded edges of subjective classification.
This system is not for names that are trademarks owned by someone else. If these are inadvertently used as examples, it is intended that they be regarded as before they were branded, in their undeveloped state. For that matter if a name bears an already-developed site, the appraisal reached is, of course, exclusive of both the value of the site itself, without the name, as well as the value added to the name of branding already accomplished.
To appraise a name, follow these steps in order to accumulate a running score:
1. Character Count— This represents the effort required to write or key-in the name. Count the number of characters, including the .com (or other TLD). Count dots and hyphens (if any) as one character each. Divide this result by three. If there’s a remainder of one round down, or a remainder of two round up, to end up with a whole number. Example: e-trade.co.uk, 13 ÷ 3 = 4.
2. Syllable and Word Count— This represents the effort required to say and remember the name. Count the number of syllables in the name (again including the dot-whatever) and add to the score. Dots are one syllable and hyphens two. Use the minimum number of syllables required to say the name (‘316’ would be three-one-six or three-sixteen, not three hundred and sixteen) yet in such a way that if you were saying it to people who hadn’t ever heard of it, you’d have reason to think that at least three-fourths of them would be able to key it exactly correct on their first try, based only on hearing you say it.
So ambiguous spellings should be delineated and those syllables counted, and numbers designated either as numerals or words. (Of course if all alternate versions come with the name as a package, this isn’t necessary). Examples:
topdollar.com— top· dol· lar· dot· com = 5;
me-too.net— me· hy· phen· t· o· o· dot· net = 8;
3buddies.tv— nu· mer· al· three·· bud· dies· dot· t· v = 9. (Of course you can use pauses ‘··’ when you say it, in such a way that people won’t think you mean numeralthreebuddies.tv. Ditto for threebuddies.tv— word· three·· bud· dies...etc.)
If the name, apart from the TLD extension, is a one-word, correctly-spelled English noun (no additional words, letters, or numbers) found in many or all dictionaries, subtract two points. If it’s one word but either common-not-a-noun or a less-common technical noun (correctly spelled but listed in few dictionaries) subtract one point. If it’s a correctly-spelled, common, one-word foreign noun in a major non-English language, subtract one point.
3. Dot Value— If it isn’t .com add 3 to the score unless: it’s a name especially well-suited for a networking application and is .net, such as hosting.net, or especially well-suited for an organization and is .org, such as charity.org, then only add 2 to the score.
Note: beyond this point the TLD extension is no longer a part of the evaluation process (except in very unusual situations in Step 9).
4. Sense— Does the name make sense? If it makes perfect sense, don’t add anything. If it makes some— but not complete— sense, add 1. If it only makes a little sense, add 2. If it makes no sense at all, add 3. Misspellings reduce a name to little or, most often, no sense. Some numbers make more sense than others via common, generally-known associations (e.g. 747— but not S48, known only to collectors of early cents). Some single letters make sense if used in a context appropriate for the words they stand for— e for electronic, i for Internet, v for virtual, or u for you. Examples of scoring: names that make—
Complete Sense (add 0)— shortcake, vshortcake, twotogo, 911, 401k, and jrh (or jh— initials);
Some Sense (add 1)— yoshortcake, bshortcake (best shortcake, perhaps), two2go, d365 (New Year’s Eve, maybe), 2870 (address?), and jh3 (John Hancock III, possibly);
Little Sense (add 2)— shortcaike, bshortc, totogo, j3x, and aa66;
No Sense (add 3)— shortcalke, bshrtc, ttwgo, 79j2, and y07gg.
Any widely-spoken language is fine for sense-making, consistent within that language. While things may change in the future as the web becomes more truly world-wide, for now add a reduced-demand factor of 1 for languages other than English, or add a factor of 2 for any but the half-dozen or so most net-used languages— up to a maximum total score of 3 for this step.
5. Confusability— Apart from
spelling (already accounted for in steps 2 & 4), is there some way the name could be easily confused in memory? For example, plural forms. If the name is a singular form where the average person would want the plural, or vice-versa (and the favored form is not included as part of the package) add 1, since with many products you would most likely think of them either in the plural or singular: e.g. ‘carphoto’ could become ‘carphotos’ by the time someone gets around to visiting it. For less likely confusion— say the other way, ‘cars’ becoming ‘car’, don’t add anything.
Another example of an add 1 confusion is word reversal: 4ucars instead of cars4u. The test is always if it sounds a lot righter the other way. (Again, if the form or forms causing confusion are all included in the package being appraised, this doesn’t apply). Also there is the extraneous article, a letter, letters, or word that is unnecessary and easily forgotten. One of the best examples of this is an unneeded ‘the’ at the beginning, as in theautotrader. Add 1.
6. Aesthetic— A company is represented by its name. As all or part of that company’s image, it’s vital to its success. Does it say— pronounce— well? Is it professional sounding? Will it look good in writing? If you answer no to none of these three questions, add 0. If no to only one, add 1. If no to two, add 2. If no to all of them, add 3. Use your own judgment. Most common and many uncommon words and names are both easy enough to say, professional-enough sounding, and design-genic enough (in the hands of a competent artist) to pass with a zero on this one, I think.
7. Legal Issues— A name that is already a well-known, unexpired trademark, whether or not it represents a developed site, should not be evaluated with this system. Apart from that, if a name sounds like a famous brand or incorporates a famous brand within it, it’s probably not brandable, so is worth a lot less— add 6 (e-bay, microsofter). For a situation not quite as obvious, add 4 (mdonalds, amazone). For the most-borderline of situations add 2 (aford, yaoho).
8. Market— Many names do not have even one— much less more than one— obvious market-group classification (than, brese, c76— most initials and numbers). While these miss out on traffic generated by the inclusion within of a generic or other group indicator, they can be branded, promoted, and used in just about any way, limited only by the imagination. Score 0, unless they are all-number addresses (no letters or hyphens) or three character all-letter addresses (no hyphens or numerals). Score minus 1 for these, the former in slightly greater demand because of their popularity in countries using non-Roman characters, the latter for their usefulness as initials. Score minus 3 for two character all-number addresses (no letters or hyphens) or two character all-letter addresses (no hyphens or numerals), both for their rarity and even-more-versatile usefulness. For two-character mixed (one letter and one numeral, either order) score minus 1.
Of the names that are classifiable into a particular industry sector or market group, the ones suitable for the most lucrative endeavors are obviously worth the most. If a name is appropriate for two or three categories, pick the highest value (lowest scoring) for purposes of evaluation. The five main categories, their scorings, and examples are:
Highest (minus 3)— hi-tech, biotech, engineering, large financial, big business;
High (minus 2)— real estate, cars, medicine, law, travel, adult, media;
Above Average (minus 1)— retail, consulting, insurance, medium business;
Average (0)— fine arts, local or regional interest, service, small business;
Below Average (add 1)— housekeeping, crafts, vending, cottage industry.
Some names are by their nature limiting in scope. If in one of the above-average or better (top three) categories, they should be further adjusted for this niche factor by adding 1. For example, muskegontrading would be limited to a company that either named itself that or just traded in or out of Muskegon. The test question: Would a reasonably large company in the category feel constricted with this name?
9. Zest— A few names have an instantaneous pizzazz or coolness (topdog, ewhiz)— minus 2. Those with a lesser yet still distinctly-upbeat or quirky memorability (infina, spacemonkey)— minus 1. A small number of names score for zest in conjunction with their extensions (e.g. tickets.to, fish.net— minus 1 each).
For the great mass of average names, neither particularly zesty nor dull, score 0. For somewhat dull or negative-sounding names (anartshow, slowdeath) add 1. Only for the most dreary or off-putting names (menstrious, alldefunct) add 2. Add 1 or 2 for names saddled with violence or hate implications.
10. Traffic— Some surfers bypass the search engines entirely and try to find the product, service, or information they’re looking for by simply trying an URL that incorporates that particular noun. Some names, like cars.com and sex.com, generate thousands if not millions of visits to a site this way, apart from any other forms of promotion. So names based on these words are particularly sought-after.
For the absolute-best one-word product, service, or information names, without extra letters, numerals, or hyphens (cars, sex, investing) minus 3. For the many more medium-traffic generic names (usedcars, hotsex, bondinvesting) minus 2. For the numerous lower-traffic generics (cheapusedcars, kinkysex, smartinvesting) minus 1. For other names, including names that are meaningless, offbeat, misspelled, or twisty, score 0, although common slang misspellings— like pix for pictures— can be okay, but adjust the score a point.
You’re now ready to convert your score to dollars:
