A few years back I built Domain Pigeon, a similar tool, that generated web 2.0-style domain names and made them available to visitors. One of my big lessons learned from that experience was that web 2.0 style domain names are NOT good domain names. More often than not people can't remember them and when they can, they misspell it and if they can spell it, it's only because someone had to spell it out when telling it to them.
I recently launched a follow up to Domain Pigeon called Lean Domain Search which I think handles the problem a lot better [1]. Rather than generating random words, it pairs your search phrase with 1,500+ other keywords and instantly shows you which are available. In this way, every domain it generates is a combination of two or more actual words which makes it much easier to remember and explain to people.
By all means explore and see what your options are, but try to pick a name that will be easy for people to remember and easy to spell.
I just checked out lean domain search, it actually looks pretty handy. I like how fast it is at generating domain names and checking for availability. One feature that would make it much more useful is the ability to specify multiple words and have it do a combinatorial check on them against your other words.
One other thing, the "LDS" favicon took me by surprise. I had tabbed away for a second, then coming back I saw LDS and thought "now how the hell did I get on Mormon church site?". Only after I clicked back to it did I realize it was your site. I live in Utah, and the Mormon church is very prevalent here, so I don't know if others would have the same thought or reaction. Just thought I'd mention it. Good luck with leandomainsearch
Thanks. The multiple queries per search idea isn't a bad one, but not enough people have asked for it where it makes sense to implement it just yet. And as someone else mentioned, the results are already a bit overwhelming. Having 3,000 or 4,500 or 6,000 results vs the current 1,500 isn't going to help that. I think my time is better spent exploring ways to organize the current results. But if there is demand, I'll meet it.
And yeah, agreed about the Mormon association. They really need to change their name =X
Add me to the list of folk wanting to search for multiple/combinations of words. Two would be sufficient for me. There are a lot of noun + verb combinations (and perhaps noun plus adjective) that make for a good base for a domain name.
Regardless, the tool as it stands is excellent. Thanks.
"web 2.0 style domain names are NOT good domain names. More often than not people can't remember them and when they can, they misspell it and if they can spell it, it's only because someone had to spell it out when telling it to them"
Agree 100%.
I'd like to give my positive experience with leandomainsearch.com.
I used it when coming up with potential domains for a client (that was referred by a VC - a startup ready to launch with a new domain basically.).
Although the client ended up buying a domain (for sale) that I also suggested, I didn't tell them which names I found that were "free" essentially and which names they would have to buy from an owner. Or any pricing. I didn't want to color their opinion by creating a halo around the names available for purchase.
The majority of the ideas I got for available domains were from LDS. (In all fairness I also curated that list based on my knowledge since if you've used LDS you know it presents an overwhelming number of possibilities.)
The clients budget was about $20,000 for a domain purchase. In the end we bought two domains (one the one they wanted and one which was a typo of the one they wanted) for about $3500 total.
In my opinion the LDS names were as good as the ones the client wanted to buy. In some ways I thought they were better (but of course it's not my startup and maybe I was rated them higher because I choose them..).
The idea that I gave them when considering the final list (which took them several weeks to decide on) was to go out on the street and run the names by potential clients and consumers on this particular site and to see which names resonated with them. That allowed them to hone in on a great name at a reasonable price.
In any case even though they didn't go with the LDS name it was very valuable in the process.
Thanks larrys, that's some of the best feedback I've received.
I encourage everyone to do this: find some premium domain names that cost $X,XXX or $XX,XXX and mix them in with results from Lean Domain Search and see if people really prefer the expensive ones. (That would actually make a really good marketing tool/game that I could implement on the site itself.)
I've said it before: as word spreads that there actually are a lot of quality available .com domain names out there, I think the premium domain name industry is going to feel it. As it should.
I'm learning so much from this discussion. I'll throw in my data point (I believe it's relevant):
I ran shell scripts on 10 nodes with fast backbone connections, making DNS queries of all possible 4-letter and 5-letter .com's. Obviously, if the domain doesn't NXDOMAIN, it has been taken.
At the time (before domain squatting was shut down) all legal 4-letter domains were taken.
From the NXDOMAINs, I ran a much slower whois script to see if the domain was registered but missing a DNS entry.
From that final list of unclaimed domains, I was quickly able to spot the one I wanted.
No such thing as what you are saying. You are probably referring to the penalties that are assessed for domain tasting whereby a registrar is penalized if they return to many domains relative to the ratio of registered domains (registrars also pay more money to ICANN depending on how they handle this as well).
Much to much work to do the way you are doing it. You need to get a copy of the zone files there are people with access to that (we have access but we don't sell access others do though for nominal charges).
I recently obtained a five-letter domain name (Grovr) in .org/.net/.com, and felt good about doing so on the cheap.
I hit on the that name out of desperation leading to silliness. The idea has to do with directed acyclic graphs of trust relationships, hence trees, hence "grove".
There aren't a lot of real-world analogs, so I'd been struggling to find some short name that explained the concept. I was working with a few others until recently and they had picked names like "layervote" which I never liked much. "Grovr" is obscure, but it makes me happy, and I'll probably make trees the fundamental graphic theme and metaphor.
But now you're telling me that misspellings are actually a big problem? How much of a problem, quantitatively?
Does that outweigh googlability? (On the other hand, if you add one letter, there is a popular children's TV character there which I'll never outrank, so that might be a problem.)
"But now you're telling me that misspellings are actually a big problem? How much of a problem, quantitatively?"
When you verbally tell someone about your site, how do you do it? Do you spell out the domain name? If not, people are probably having trouble finding it because it's not a standard spelling. And looking at the name I'm not even sure how to say it (is it "groover" or "grover"?). If you do spell it out, that should be an even bigger indication that people are going to have trouble because you had to spell it out in order for them to find it.
That's not really quantitative, but I see your point.
Flickr was the prototypical Web 2.0 name, and I always thought the unusual spelling was a plus, since it made it more memorable, but perhaps there were a lot of other potential customers who were lost at step 0.
And I suppose you have similar conclusions about domain hacks, or using dictionary word + obscure TLD?
I suppose I am aware that for the average person, a website address is "www.____.com" or nothing. But I have an irrational love of interesting domain names. Perhaps it's bad to indulge that.
EDIT: The US government has some guidelines for domain name usability here. Usability isn't quite everything, but it's probably worth serious consideration.
Yeah, definitely avoid domain name hacks. It's a huge gamble and even if your product is successful, it probably would have been more successful with a better name.
I thought the 'web 2' domain names came about, as most dictionary words had been taken. Take a dictionary word and make a small alteration - so that it is no longer a dictionary word - and it's likely you have something unique.
Search engine auto-correction must be an issue though!
I'd probably pick obscure word combos, that wouldn't naturally occur together. Good fun trying them out in a search engine too.
No, Lean Domain Search does not support other TLDs for the same reason you shouldn't use domain hacks: it degrades the quality of the domain name and confuses normal people.
I recently launched a follow up to Domain Pigeon called Lean Domain Search which I think handles the problem a lot better [1]. Rather than generating random words, it pairs your search phrase with 1,500+ other keywords and instantly shows you which are available. In this way, every domain it generates is a combination of two or more actual words which makes it much easier to remember and explain to people.
By all means explore and see what your options are, but try to pick a name that will be easy for people to remember and easy to spell.
[1] http://www.leandomainsearch.com