More than lucky

[Mrtrueman]

Hasn’t it already been established that people have got multiple tags.

Regards,

MrTrueman

 

[Paullas]

Hasn’t it already been established that people have got multiple tags.

Regards,

MrTrueman

sssssshhhhhh

 

[retired_member11]

OK, so the 21st looks like a good day to become the proud new owner of some prime UK domain real estate.

To test the hypothesis of this thread why not publish here the name of one of these domains in advance so that everyone goes for it on the day? If one of the two celebrity catchers still gets it we will know for certain that statistical probability has nothing to do with succeeding and thus the random nature of the automaton is just theoretical PR speak by Nominet.

 

[renesisx]

There will be enough people going for them, as there are every day.

On days when there is only one really good domain, I'm sure there must be a large number of people all hitting the DAC trying to get it. Yet everyone still fails, except the usual suspects

 

[Admin]

Hasn’t it already been established that people have got multiple tags.

Regards,

MrTrueman

Just a polite reminder to everyone to please not make accusations against any particular person or Tag on this site. Any such posts will be removed.

This general discussion to date is fine.

Admin

 

[fred]

I will publically state that Rob has multiple TAGS


Not that it would help in any way as what you would need is multiple DACs and therefore multiple memberships

 

[retired_member11]

Hasn’t it already been established that people have got multiple tags.

Regards,

MrTrueman

No. If it had been then they would have been merged by Nominet. That hasn't happened, has it?

 

[FC Domains]

And anyway I don't think that multiple TAGs is the answer here.
There are probably dozens of systems hitting DAC as hard as they can, so one person owning say 10% of them wouldn't see this sort of advantage.

To win every time (or in this case 90% of the time) you would have to know when a drop will happen, to within about a second.
I think some serious studying of the timing is called for.

 

[Admin]

I'm no coder and am in awe of you guys who do this scripting.

Where do you even learn to write such things, such as a "DAC response analyser" ? It sounds great!

 

[monaghan]

To win every time (or in this case 90% of the time) you would have to know when a drop will happen, to within about a second.
I think some serious studying of the timing is called for.

Presumably if you can time the drop more or less to the second, then you could pre-load a few REQUEST messages in the Automaton email queue without breaking the AUP.

Use of REQUEST and QUERY operations on already registered names

The acceptable limits are set per registrar, per rolling 24 hours and apply to operations attempted on names that already exist. The limit is:

* the combined number of REQUEST and QUERY operations attempted on names that already exist must not exceed 1,000 in any 24 hour period.

This would allow you to put through quite a number of well timed request storms in order to get the name you wanted without breaking the AUP.

 

[renesisx]

This would allow you to put through quite a number of well timed request storms in order to get the name you wanted without breaking the AUP.

Indeed. But Jay has apparently checked the logs and I'm sure he said it doesn't appear that anyone is using "psychic" knowledge to send in REQUEST emails before the domain actually drops.

It would be fairly easy for Nominet to notice that - unless they have been bought

 

[Paullas]

I think some serious studying of the timing is called for.

you will need a lot of data to study

 

[deconstruction]

seems like the 21st is a bit of a bust now.. most of the names have been renewed today

most i think are owned by one company..

 

[retired_member11]

And anyway I don't think that multiple TAGs is the answer here.
There are probably dozens of systems hitting DAC as hard as they can, so one person owning say 10% of them wouldn't see this sort of advantage.

To win every time (or in this case 90% of the time) you would have to know when a drop will happen, to within about a second.
I think some serious studying of the timing is called for.

All 'Digital Darwinism' I'm afraid Colin. It is statisticaly unlikely that you would have been the one to sit atop the domain food chain. It can be a little crushing to come up against such harsh realities of life, but there it is. Try 'mutating' in reaction to this environmental threat.

Denys and Jonathan are where they are because they did react.

 

[bluerock]

seems like the 21st is a bit of a bust now.. most of the names have been renewed today

most i think are owned by one company..

Interesting as the registrant does not legally exist. The company dissolved over 4 years ago !!
Apologies if this is off subject

 

[philipp]

Interesting as the registrant does not legally exist. The company dissolved over 4 years ago !!
Apologies if this is off subject

That is interesting, isn't it. Perhaps it has to do with the registrant type being 'Unknown' rather than explicitly a UK Limited Company? Maybe that makes it debatable as a trading name?

P.

 

[renesisx]

Darn it.

All these now renewed. OK, who tipped them off?

breaking.co.uk
changing.co.uk
creating.co.uk
laughter.co.uk
making.co.uk
removing.co.uk
styling.co.uk
delivering.co.uk
sending.co.uk

 

[gimpydog]

Interesting as the registrant does not legally exist. The company dissolved over 4 years ago !!
Apologies if this is off subject

They all appear to be connected entities.....

http://whois-search.com/whois/indigo.uk.net

http://whois-search.com/whois/removing.co.uk

http://whois-search.com/whois/beverley.com

...so perhaps not so sinister after all?

 

[retired_member11]

That is interesting, isn't it. Perhaps it has to do with the registrant type being 'Unknown' rather than explicitly a UK Limited Company? Maybe that makes it debatable as a trading name?

P.

If you're referring to Indigo then it is explicitly stated as an Ltd. in the reg field.

 

[Beasty]

If you're referring to Indigo then it is explicitly stated as an Ltd. in the reg field.

True - but registrant type is unknown - which may be where they check.