Numismatics.com

[jaggy 528]

This domain is up for auction at Heritage. Interested?

http://domains.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1115&lotIdNo=26001&ctrack=2795324&type=featured-13-ip-domain-tem102113

[Peckris 579]

This domain is up for auction at Heritage. Interested?

http://domains.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1115&lotIdNo=26001&ctrack=2795324&type=featured-13-ip-domain-tem102113

The trouble is, it's too generic. It says nothing about the owner's name and/or business or what particular aspect of coins the website is about. IMO it would be like someone specialising (either as collector or dealer) in vintage BMWs, having a domain name of "automobiles.com".

It would be good for a general educational site about coins, their history, etc .. if Wikipedia didn't already exist

[scott 144]

wikipedia is rubbish

it depends what you do with it, could make it an educational resource, and make a part that sells items etc to pay for the upkeep.

[Paulus 1,975]

wikipedia is rubbish

it depends what you do with it, could make it an educational resource, and make a part that sells items etc to pay for the upkeep.

Go for it Scott! I don't agree that Wikipedia is rubbish at all! Anyone know of a better (free) on-line encyclopedia? It has some errors yes, but much of what we thought was true 10 years ago is now incorrect.

[Coinery 1,156]

This domain is up for auction at Heritage. Interested?

http://domains.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1115&lotIdNo=26001&ctrack=2795324&type=featured-13-ip-domain-tem102113

The trouble is, it's too generic. It says nothing about the owner's name and/or business or what particular aspect of coins the website is about. IMO it would be like someone specialising (either as collector or dealer) in vintage BMWs, having a domain name of "automobiles.com".

It would be good for a general educational site about coins, their history, etc .. if Wikipedia didn't already exist

Totally on the ball, PK, a useless search term for coins! You may as well have AUTOmatic.com, for all the good it would do you as a search term!

It's an academic site name, which could be acquired for pennies, if you were happy with numis-coins.com or numismatic-history.com, etc.!

[Peckris 579]

wikipedia is rubbish

it depends what you do with it, could make it an educational resource, and make a part that sells items etc to pay for the upkeep.

Go for it Scott! I don't agree that Wikipedia is rubbish at all! Anyone know of a better (free) on-line encyclopedia? It has some errors yes, but much of what we thought was true 10 years ago is now incorrect.

My feelings exactly. It's very difficult indeed to get errors past the Wikipedia editors as they require everything to be "cited" and will flag up all instances where "citation needed". It seems a lot more stringent than your average published 'pedia.

[HistoricCoinage 147]

I don't agree that Wikipedia is rubbish at all! Anyone know of a better (free) on-line encyclopedia? It has some errors yes, but much of what we thought was true 10 years ago is now incorrect.

Same here! The sources/reference section at the end of each page is exceptionally useful and the articles are perfect for a general overview of a topic. Far from rubbish.

[Rob 3,152]

I consider Wikipedia a take it or leave it site. I remember a few years ago checking three numismatic terms and finding that two of the three were wrong. Brockage was one thing that was wrong then and is still wrong. Read the first line which clarifies what a brockage is - not. I can't remember what the second was now, but given that success rate, Wikipedia is certainly not a reference source that I would want to rely on.

[Peter 615]

Before Wiki we had little.(before internet really)

My mother was a Librarian and the family home had a full set of Britannica which was cutting edge.

Now my mother gets me to look up loads of info on the internet for her competitions/quizes.

[Rob 3,152]

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that much of what is written on Wikipedia is factually correct and I agree that it has been a major contributor to the explosion in accessible material. It is just that a reference needs to be properly subjected to peer review by a competent person, which if implemented would stop (or at least severely reduce) errors such as this creeping into general knowledge.

[Generic Lad 25]

Wikipedia has been pretty accurate for me, its pretty much my primary site whenever I'm searching for something unfamiliar.

As for selling domain names, they're more or less useless, especially with the explosion of TLDs. I don't know why anyone would pay lots of money for some of these. Some of the 2 or 3 letter names might be useful, but a lot of the others just reek of bad marketing.

If you want numismatics as your domain name, there's no need to pay $$$$$ for numismatics.com when you might be able to get numismatics.net or .org or .us or .co.uk or any number of different TLDs that are really no harder to remember than a .com address.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Generic Lad

[scott 144]

i would avoid the wikipedia route with it, was thinking more online museum.

[AardHawk 73]

The trouble is, it's too generic. It says nothing about the owner's name and/or business or what particular aspect of coins the website is about.

Yes, but isnt that true of Predecimal.com too. Who would guess that that had anything to do with lsd.

[Peckris 579]

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that much of what is written on Wikipedia is factually correct and I agree that it has been a major contributor to the explosion in accessible material. It is just that a reference needs to be properly subjected to peer review by a competent person, which if implemented would stop (or at least severely reduce) errors such as this creeping into general knowledge.

I think the problems arise when it's a specialist field with little general encyclopedic source material - which is certainly true of coins: while positively bursting at the seams with tomes on this or that area of numismatics, it lacks a decent general reference source. The Wikipedia editors are therefore a bit stuffed when leaning on contributors for citations, if there aren't any readily to hand.

Rob, is this the brockage mistake?

"In coin collecting, brockage refers to a type of error coin in which one side of the coin has both the normal image and a mirror image of the opposite side impressed upon it."

That is a really stupid mistake - how can one side of the coin feature both conditions? And what's on the other side? You are free to edit that yourself Rob, or I could. (Edited: in fact, I just did!)

The trouble is, it's too generic. It says nothing about the owner's name and/or business or what particular aspect of coins the website is about.

Yes, but isnt that true of Predecimal.com too. Who would guess that that had anything to do with lsd.

That's a good point, though marginally less generic.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Peckris

[Gary1000 41]

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that much of what is written on Wikipedia is factually correct and I agree that it has been a major contributor to the explosion in accessible material. It is just that a reference needs to be properly subjected to peer review by a competent person, which if implemented would stop (or at least severely reduce) errors such as this creeping into general knowledge.

I think the problems arise when it's a specialist field with little general encyclopedic source material - which is certainly true of coins: while positively bursting at the seams with tomes on this or that area of numismatics, it lacks a decent general reference source. The Wikipedia editors are therefore a bit stuffed when leaning on contributors for citations, if there aren't any readily to hand.

Rob, is this the brockage mistake?

"In coin collecting, brockage refers to a type of error coin in which one side of the coin has both the normal image and a mirror image of the opposite side impressed upon it."

That is a really stupid mistake - how can one side of the coin feature both conditions? And what's on the other side? You are free to edit that yourself Rob, or I could. (Edited: in fact, I just did!)

The trouble is, it's too generic. It says nothing about the owner's name and/or business or what particular aspect of coins the website is about.

Yes, but isnt that true of Predecimal.com too. Who would guess that that had anything to do with lsd.

That's a good point, though marginally less generic.

I suppose if you substituted die clash for brockage you would be closer.

[Accumulator 52]

mycoincollection.co.uk cost me just a few quid. I didn't buy it for business but I imagine more users search Google for 'coin collection' than 'numismatics'.

[Hussulo 6]

Didn't even know Heritage did domain names.

I think its a good domain as it will bring in a fair bit of direct type in traffic (yes people still do type in what they are looking for in the browser plus .com instead of searching for a term on Google.) Having said that more companies are going in favour of branding. The best generic would probably be coins.com

I've got raregoldsovereigns.com if anyone wants to buy it

[Coinery 1,156]

Didn't even know Heritage did domain names.

I think its a good domain as it will bring in a fair bit of direct type in traffic (yes people still do type in what they are looking for in the browser plus .com instead of searching for a term on Google.) Having said that more companies are going in favour of branding. The best generic would probably be coins.com

I've got raregoldsovereigns.com if anyone wants to buy it

It's my understanding that words which run into each other are poor/useless for searches? I remember reading that, whilst it makes it harder to remember a web name, hyphenating the words does wonders for your searchabilty!