Wow... This in my opinion is asinine... It will result in allot of name sniping, horrible idea if you ask me...
Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to find a few hundred un-used highly profitable names to scoop up =P (kidding of course)
Anand
· 7 months ago
He paid $1000 to get this site developed??? I'd have got it done for less than $150 through GetAFreelancer..
Wim
· 7 months ago
If you want crapy code it's indeed possible to develop this site for $150.
Teezwiebel1441
· 7 months ago
crazy world...
Larkins Dsouza
· 7 months ago
I would really love to buy a few
SocialUprise
· 7 months ago
Wow... let the link hoarding begin...
I'm personally against this. If you want a name that someone has, go ahead and contact that person directly. Twitter should find all the twitter names on this website, especially the ones with a low update count and no followers and suspend those accounts.
Mauricio | BBRocks.com
· 7 months ago
I totally agree with you. Especially after Mashable's post of how 60% of new Twitter members don't stick around.
Lambday
· 7 months ago
"go ahead and contact that person directly"
for example, how do contact @microsoft ? you can't!
EricSusch
· 7 months ago
Name squatting is against Twitter's terms of use. I bet Twitter will shut this site down.
Craig (lapp)
· 7 months ago
Then they need to shut down the cnnbrk account as well. There is no difference if you give someone your password and they pay you a consultant fee to stay on and help.
traeblain
· 7 months ago
The difference is that Twitter's TOS says that you cannot sell or make money off of the username. The guy that owned cnnbrk was given a position at CNN but technically "not in exchange for the username", it was a way around the TOS sure, but this explicitly violates the TOS.
Craig (lapp)
· 7 months ago
Well then anyone selling names on the exchange can exchange their services as well to whomever is interested in the user name. If it works for one it has to work like that for all! They set the standards not us when they allowed it to happen
EricSusch
· 7 months ago
I disagree. The cnnbrk thing was a one on one thing between one person and cnn. That's different than having a marketplace where everyone is doing it.
Also, Twitter is a new type of service. There are going to be mis-steps along the way. Just because something against the TOS happens once doesn't mean "now everyone can do it."
Bill Sodeman
· 7 months ago
Agreed - this scheme seems to violate the Twitter TOS.
anthony
· 7 months ago
there is also the imputed value of the twitter name on comments, social networking sites and other. Therefore, the value of the name itself is worth more given its integration on the entire internet.
Claudio J. Lacayo
· 7 months ago
This reminds me of @cnnbrk who was purchased by CNN for an undisclosed fee. But, with the race against @aplusk to get to a million users - they went ahead and payed massive, im sure. Let's just say, whoever was keeping up with the CNN news, was well off with means of social media to gain a profit. (Like that wasn't what he was gunning for) - http://is.gd/vVBn
traeblain
· 7 months ago
Not sure who your link's sources are, but here's a techcrunch article on the acquisition. They don't reference many sources either, but the information in more complete and I personally trust them more than your link (personal though): http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/15/confirmed-...
Technically, CNN didn't buy the account. Services from James Cox were purchased that included the turning over the account. I believe they sideswiped the TOS language by doing it this way.
Tweexchange will directly violate Twitter's TOS so it shouldn't go anywhere.
Claudio J. Lacayo
· 7 months ago
As it appears, it is indeed against the TOS. Although not stated in the Basic Terms / General Conditions / Copyrights (http://twitter.com/tos) - It is in the helpful resources / Policies. The term they refer to is "Name-Squatting" - and refers to impersonation or trademark violation. There's also helpful information on how to report a name-squatter. (http://twitter.zendesk.com/forums/26257/entries...)
adamjackson
· 7 months ago
This is explicitly against Twitter's terms of service.
John Fernandez
· 7 months ago
"We just hope that putting a price on Twitter usernames doesn’t lead people to hoard thousands in the hope they might sell them later"
Uh, this is exactly what is going to happen now, if it hasn't happened already.
On the plus side, we'll now brag about how many more users Twitter has in a few weeks.
snarky
· 7 months ago
Well, hopefully, thanks to a new system on Yahoo and google, creation of email accounts is now limited to 2 per IP address per day. And since twitter requires (smart) a separate email account for each and every twitter account application (the email is actually required, it didnt used to be - dumb), this should make squatting much more difficult.
TwitrFic
· 6 months ago
this is false. you can sign up with twitter and put anything into email box as long as it is an @whatever.com
there is no email verification
Timothy Sanford Hankins
· 7 months ago
This is expressly forbidden by Twitter's TOS. If someone is squatting on a name that you have a claim on, contact the service and they will make sure the squatter is booted forthwith.
Here is the relevant post from Twitter's support forums:
Note: "Name squatting and "user name for sale" accounts will be permanently suspended. Attempts to sell or extort other forms of payment in exchange for user names will result in account suspension. Accounts that are inactive for more than 6 months may be removed without further notice. Twitter is not currently releasing inactive/squatter accounts unless in cases of infringement."
Craig (lapp)
· 7 months ago
Cnnbrk set the standard. You can always hand it over the member who wants it and get a consulting gig for doing so. Obviously nothing wrong with this, or the CNNbrk would be booted!
Timothy Sanford Hankins
· 7 months ago
I suppose that's true, however, I think that's (a very public) example of Twitter dropping the ball. The CNNBrk account was thought to be an official CNN voice early on. I remember reading about it on Lifehacker.com as a "Twitter account to follow." The implication was that CNNBrk was (and I believe that Gina Trapani believed it to be) an official CNN account at that time. That alone puts the CNNBrk account amiss of the Twitter terms of service. The TOS clearly disallow commoditizing Twitter handles and Twitter should have suspended the account. My guess is CNN didn't report the issue to Twitter, but chose to buy up the name and all the followers that went with it. Dirty biz, but I can see how it would fall through the cracks.
That aside, a service devoted to buying and selling Twitter names is not going to get far. No way Twitter is going to let its service be hijacked for a monetization scheme that flagrantly disregards the service's own terms and conditions.
And beyond that issue, how will "canonical" names be determined? Who will be the "registrar" for Twitter handles? Is Twitter going to license this clown at Tweexchange to be the arbiter of usernames? Forget that idea. Twitter will quash this in short order.
Craig (lapp)
· 7 months ago
Well if twitter decides to be "the man" and become big brother, their users will also revolt. Tim, I am not taking any profit from this site, or looking to monetize it from the actual name exchanges. I am just providing a medium for now for everyone to be able to find the others who hold the names they want. That is all
Timothy Sanford Hankins
· 7 months ago
Fair, enough, Craig. And let me apologize for the ad hominem "clown" statement in my previous post. I applaud your effort to provide a service you feel the Twitter community wants and needs. It's a Very Good Thing to try and fill needs — smart folks start businesses that do that.
What I do take issue with is the Tweexchange's disregard for the existing Terms of Service that Twitter has in place. And the reason I so strongly disagree with Tweeexchange's service offering is that I equally strongly *agree* with Twitter's terms of service. Brand equity, name value and reputation are exceedingly important things, especially in a space like Twitter where so much rides on the quality of the content one provides the community. If someone can squat on a name, maybe *my* name or the name of my blog, publication or business and use my brand equity to get noticed, heard or, worst case scenario, slander my good name by posting bad information or low quality content — well, that's a Very Bad Thing. And, yeah, maybe I'd pay to get my brand back.
And that's why Twitter's TOS is so important. I shouldn't have my good name, my business identity or my reputation held for ransom by anyone. I'm not suggesting that is the intention of Tweexchange; but you have to see how easily that could happen on the site.
Squatted accounts need to be suspended, period. And I submit Twitter needs to develop robust ways of pinpointing potential "for sale" and squatted accounts and implement procedures for claiming them. Perhaps it will impact simplicity of use, but, in a medium where intellectual capital and brand equity are as important as server space and bandwidth, this kind of protection may be key in continuing to develop trust.
snarky
· 7 months ago
twitter is no longer dropping accounts for mere inactivity. And, I just found out from a little birdie, that the use of '_' for usernames is being phased out anyway, so using the undersocre as a way of squatting might be moot.
Luke
· 7 months ago
Seems pretty dumb. But, if I could get the username "luke" I would probably use it :P
J
· 7 months ago
I'd advise anyone who works for an advertising firm or a consulting firm who has clients interested in social media to nab up Twitter names related to their clients while the getting's good.
Nitesh Patel
· 7 months ago
wow this is a great news now you can sell the name you dont even own them with some rights reserved with twitter
josiahstaggs
· 7 months ago
Well, here come the squatters..
Nitesh Patel
· 7 months ago
but what is exchange means here if this is some thing like selling.
snarky
· 7 months ago
Learn English, then come back in a few YEARS.
Lambday
· 7 months ago
wish i won't be suspended again [ like @HashtagColors ] because of Twitter new policy to prevent this kind of fraud.
LeserEins
· 7 months ago
I think that "Social Domains" become as important as conventional domain names. It's straight forward to start trading with these "Social Domains" - e.g. with Twitter accounts. To check the availability of your name as "Social Domain" on a lot of sites simultanously, try http://knowem.com/
snarky
· 7 months ago
The term is not "Social Domains", what we are talking about IS the term "Namespace".
Marsh
· 7 months ago
You know what...doesn't look like Craig is taking in any part of the exchange or money. All he has done is provide a great way for us to find the names we want!
raphaelcaixeta
· 7 months ago
I don't know whether I should be proud for developing this or not...oh well.
Jared Jacobs
· 7 months ago
Are you joking this was great you should be proud!!!! I just saw your profile on Vois.comhttp://www.vois.com/seller/profile/userid/130725/ I see there are tons of people on there like you. I am glad you are in the USA enuf of that work going over to India and the Ukraine. WOw this is different too I went on Alexa.comhttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.vois.com and this website visitors are more than 50% from USA thats interesting for an outsource website
Craig (lapp)
· 7 months ago
One of the best things that happened to me on www.vois.com was finding someone of your talent!
Jared Jacobs
· 7 months ago
I love this story a guy builds a site for $1000 and creates a whole new market - I saw you said he built it through www.vois.com I just looked at their site because I thought it was hard to believe but i saw several projects being done for that price range and then I found the two awarded projects that he used to build this site and it was certainly less than $1000 and the design was just $50 -unbelievable. !!! I know where i am going with my projects ;P
Rachel
· 7 months ago
I don't see what the big deal is. How is this any different then when people were buying up domain names in the '80s and 90's?
snarky
· 7 months ago
VERY distinctively different: Twitter does not sell usernames - YET, and you have no choice of domain (although, I wouldn't mind having snarky.twitter.com instead of twitter.com/snarky - it just looks cooler, but as twitter is not run on Linux, that wont happen - YET). Godaddy sells domain names - they do not sell usernames.
MLDina
· 7 months ago
I can't see this taking off unless Twitter comes up with a monetization method. What's the point of having the name currently, other than for corporations, who can have Twitter give them the name that's already taken.
snarky
· 7 months ago
That's correct, even as a person, you prove you are So-and-so legally to twitter, and they give you rights to that name and its variations - underscores are ignored for futures signups (they have to be, as currently with unclaimed usernames, you can have smith_john, john_smith, _john_smith____ , etc. ) as should be the case anyway, google does this - where you CAN have an '_' or '.' or '-' DISPLAY as part of the username, but anyone can enter the name with or without those and they will still be able to send you an email (and you will still be able to sign in to your account).
And, as mentioned below, selling twitter names is against the TOS (the holder of one name may not sell, lease or otherwise receive compensation for a username). Oddly, but a good thing, personal 'squatting (on one's own usernames and variations) IS allowed.
Claudia
· 7 months ago
That's forbidden in the Twitter TOS.
snarky
· 7 months ago
And of course, we would need to be assured - beyond credulity - that tweetxchange themselves are not hoarding twitter names under other pseudonyms, as well. I'm not convinced they aren't, yet. Very, very fishy.
dryan
· 7 months ago
I went to their Twitter page to send them a message that their typeaheadfind js was implemented incorrectly, only to find their account has been suspended by Twitter.
faeriewing
· 7 months ago
Well, I guess this is good news for Sean Penn! Maybe when he catches up to the craze someone can sell him his name so he doesn't have to have a meltdown like he did when another Sean Penn was registered with the email he wanted.
digideth
· 7 months ago
this guy and his site will be shutdown along any username that gets listed on it.
Its only a matter of time before this all goes down.
If twitter isn't making money on the names why the hell should anyone else be able to.
Anand
· 7 months ago
What? He paid $1000 to get this site developed!??
PaganTemple
· 7 months ago
Sorry, but that site is full of crap. I typed my Twitter name in, and according to them it is "available". Errrrrr, no it's fucking not. This must be some kind of scam.
Susan
· 7 months ago
Who cares of this twitter crap! it's is all hype! Trust me twitter will fade soon! people will get tired following people around. What will never fade will be text messaging which still way better than twitter. At least text messaging no one can follow me hahaha... I prefer it that way. Maybe this will give a shout out to all those stalkers using twitter. ha ha ha...
Read this article why twitter will fade. Also selling twitter name will not make you rich and there will be no profit in this. Once twitter fades who will want to buy twitter names?
---------------------------------
Is quitting Twitter more popular than re-tweeting?
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE AP Technology Writer
Advertisement
Buy AP Photo Reprints
Your Questions Answered
Ask AP: Flags on ships, 'Simpsons' on stamps
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Twitter quitters outnumber the flock of habitual tweeters on the rapidly growing online communications service, a new study suggests.
Most people aren't joining the Web site's jumble of conversations for very long. More than 60 percent of Twitter's U.S. users don't return a month later, based on an analysis of traffic trends unveiled this week by the research firm Nielsen Online.
The lackluster retention rate of 40 percent suggests many people don't see the point in spending time on Twitter, which allows anyone to write about what they're doing or what's on their mind in messages, or "tweets," limited to 140 characters.
While some of the chirping is entertaining, thought-provoking or just downright helpful, much of the chatter can be quite banal as people update when they are eating, drinking and even puking.
Nielsen's conclusions initially were ridiculed by some Twitter fans because the research firm didn't attempt to account for applications on mobile phones and other devices that bypass the Web site.
That limitation raised the possibility that Nielsen was wrongly characterizing some active users as Twitter quitters, prompting the firm to measure the alternative methods for tweeting. Nielsen still found about 60 percent of Twitter users aren't sticking around.
Twitter co-founder Biz Stone didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about Nielsen Online's findings.
Despite the defectors, Twitter is amassing an impressive audience. In March, the San Francisco-based service attracted a U.S. audience of 13.9 million, up from roughly 500,000 users at the same juncture last year, Nielsen said.
Given that Twitter received an endorsement from Oprah Winfrey on her television show in April, that month's numbers will likely be substantially higher.
A high turnover rate isn't unusual when a young Web site starts to catch on, but 3-year-old Twitter is losing users at a quicker pace than Facebook and MySpace did at comparable stages of their growth, according to Nielsen.
Both Facebook and MySpace were retaining about 60 percent a few years ago and now are holding on to about 70 percent of their traffic.
"Twitter has enjoyed a nice ride over the last few months, but it will not be able to sustain its meteoric rise without establishing a higher level of user loyalty," David Martin, Nielsen Online's vice president of primary research, wrote in a blog posting.
Except we don't try to sell names (it's not a market place like this site). We've got a whole bunch (over 80K) available domain and Twitter names which you're all free to explore and register as you please. Or, if its your thing, sell it on Tweexchange :)
Matt
Chris
· 7 months ago
WOW! i have some already! anyone know how i can market them and eventually get the "consultancy fee?". I have like 3 really good ones. So anyone who would like to "consult" with me simply reply here!
Peace out!
Chris
· 7 months ago
Hi There! if ur interested, i got some i would love to "consult" over with you...HEEHEE! no but seriously i do have atleast 3 good ones ;-)
TheJakeasaur
· 6 months ago
Im interested!
chris
· 6 months ago
I had registered a few user names on tweexchange.com, i logged on to one of the twitter accounts today, only to see that it has been "suspended due to suspicious activity!"...well well, i guess twitter won't let users make some cash by "consulting" their accounts! WHAT THE FUCK?
Jack Leblond
· 6 months ago
It does seem that if this becomes even slightly popular (and since it's here it probably will), it will result in squatters grabbing every name they think might make them a buck. Hopefully Twitter will stand by its TOS and squash the squatters before they get too far.
All Comments
Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to find a few hundred un-used highly profitable names to scoop up =P (kidding of course)
I'm personally against this. If you want a name that someone has, go ahead and contact that person directly. Twitter should find all the twitter names on this website, especially the ones with a low update count and no followers and suspend those accounts.
for example, how do contact @microsoft ?
you can't!
Also, Twitter is a new type of service. There are going to be mis-steps along the way. Just because something against the TOS happens once doesn't mean "now everyone can do it."
Technically, CNN didn't buy the account. Services from James Cox were purchased that included the turning over the account. I believe they sideswiped the TOS language by doing it this way.
Tweexchange will directly violate Twitter's TOS so it shouldn't go anywhere.
Uh, this is exactly what is going to happen now, if it hasn't happened already.
On the plus side, we'll now brag about how many more users Twitter has in a few weeks.
there is no email verification
Here is the relevant post from Twitter's support forums:
http://help.twitter.com/forums/26257/entries/18370
Note: "Name squatting and "user name for sale" accounts will be permanently suspended. Attempts to sell or extort other forms of payment in exchange for user names will result in account suspension. Accounts that are inactive for more than 6 months may be removed without further notice. Twitter is not currently releasing inactive/squatter accounts unless in cases of infringement."
of Twitter dropping the ball. The CNNBrk account was thought to be an
official CNN voice early on. I remember reading about it on
Lifehacker.com as a "Twitter account to follow." The implication was
that CNNBrk was (and I believe that Gina Trapani believed it to be) an
official CNN account at that time. That alone puts the CNNBrk account
amiss of the Twitter terms of service. The TOS clearly disallow
commoditizing Twitter handles and Twitter should have suspended the
account. My guess is CNN didn't report the issue to Twitter, but chose
to buy up the name and all the followers that went with it. Dirty biz,
but I can see how it would fall through the cracks.
That aside, a service devoted to buying and selling Twitter names is
not going to get far. No way Twitter is going to let its service be
hijacked for a monetization scheme that flagrantly disregards the
service's own terms and conditions.
And beyond that issue, how will "canonical" names be determined? Who
will be the "registrar" for Twitter handles? Is Twitter going to
license this clown at Tweexchange to be the arbiter of usernames?
Forget that idea. Twitter will quash this in short order.
statement in my previous post. I applaud your effort to provide a
service you feel the Twitter community wants and needs. It's a Very
Good Thing to try and fill needs — smart folks start businesses that
do that.
What I do take issue with is the Tweexchange's disregard for the
existing Terms of Service that Twitter has in place. And the reason I
so strongly disagree with Tweeexchange's service offering is that I
equally strongly *agree* with Twitter's terms of service. Brand
equity, name value and reputation are exceedingly important things,
especially in a space like Twitter where so much rides on the quality
of the content one provides the community. If someone can squat on a
name, maybe *my* name or the name of my blog, publication or business
and use my brand equity to get noticed, heard or, worst case scenario,
slander my good name by posting bad information or low quality content
— well, that's a Very Bad Thing. And, yeah, maybe I'd pay to get my
brand back.
And that's why Twitter's TOS is so important. I shouldn't have my good
name, my business identity or my reputation held for ransom by anyone.
I'm not suggesting that is the intention of Tweexchange; but you have
to see how easily that could happen on the site.
Squatted accounts need to be suspended, period. And I submit Twitter
needs to develop robust ways of pinpointing potential "for sale" and
squatted accounts and implement procedures for claiming them. Perhaps
it will impact simplicity of use, but, in a medium where intellectual
capital and brand equity are as important as server space and
bandwidth, this kind of protection may be key in continuing to develop
trust.
because of Twitter new policy to prevent this kind of fraud.
And, as mentioned below, selling twitter names is against the TOS (the holder of one name may not sell, lease or otherwise receive compensation for a username). Oddly, but a good thing, personal 'squatting (on one's own usernames and variations) IS allowed.
Its only a matter of time before this all goes down.
If twitter isn't making money on the names why the hell should anyone else be able to.
Read this article why twitter will fade. Also selling twitter name will not make you rich and there will be no profit in this. Once twitter fades who will want to buy twitter names?
---------------------------------
Is quitting Twitter more popular than re-tweeting?
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
AP Technology Writer
Advertisement
Buy AP Photo Reprints
Your Questions Answered
Ask AP: Flags on ships, 'Simpsons' on stamps
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Twitter quitters outnumber the flock of habitual tweeters on the rapidly growing online communications service, a new study suggests.
Most people aren't joining the Web site's jumble of conversations for very long. More than 60 percent of Twitter's U.S. users don't return a month later, based on an analysis of traffic trends unveiled this week by the research firm Nielsen Online.
The lackluster retention rate of 40 percent suggests many people don't see the point in spending time on Twitter, which allows anyone to write about what they're doing or what's on their mind in messages, or "tweets," limited to 140 characters.
While some of the chirping is entertaining, thought-provoking or just downright helpful, much of the chatter can be quite banal as people update when they are eating, drinking and even puking.
Nielsen's conclusions initially were ridiculed by some Twitter fans because the research firm didn't attempt to account for applications on mobile phones and other devices that bypass the Web site.
That limitation raised the possibility that Nielsen was wrongly characterizing some active users as Twitter quitters, prompting the firm to measure the alternative methods for tweeting. Nielsen still found about 60 percent of Twitter users aren't sticking around.
Twitter co-founder Biz Stone didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about Nielsen Online's findings.
Despite the defectors, Twitter is amassing an impressive audience. In March, the San Francisco-based service attracted a U.S. audience of 13.9 million, up from roughly 500,000 users at the same juncture last year, Nielsen said.
Given that Twitter received an endorsement from Oprah Winfrey on her television show in April, that month's numbers will likely be substantially higher.
A high turnover rate isn't unusual when a young Web site starts to catch on, but 3-year-old Twitter is losing users at a quicker pace than Facebook and MySpace did at comparable stages of their growth, according to Nielsen.
Both Facebook and MySpace were retaining about 60 percent a few years ago and now are holding on to about 70 percent of their traffic.
"Twitter has enjoyed a nice ride over the last few months, but it will not be able to sustain its meteoric rise without establishing a higher level of user loyalty," David Martin, Nielsen Online's vice president of primary research, wrote in a blog posting.
---
On the Net:
http://tinyurl.com/c3a3la
Domain Pigeon.com
Except we don't try to sell names (it's not a market place like this site). We've got a whole bunch (over 80K) available domain and Twitter names which you're all free to explore and register as you please. Or, if its your thing, sell it on Tweexchange :)
Matt
Peace out!