Examine.com Launched by Domain Investor

6

Sol Orwell (formerly known as Ahmed Farooq), founder of iBegin and a veteran domain investor and developer, recently launched a new pet project – Examine.com. Surprisingly, Examine.com was purchased in mid-March for just $41,000, which I think is a pretty good price for this domain name.

According to Sol, the domain name is just a part of the project. “The value of the domain is less than half of anything else I am going to invest into it. So domain is key, but you need a lot more than just a domain.” Instead of “Googling it” Sol hopes that people will come to Examine.com to “Examine it.”

Sol has created a “Wikipedia inspired” website for information about health supplements. The goal is to build the best online compendium on supplements, since there is a lack of information. For instance, if you wish to learn about fish oil, you can visit the site and learn about it. Who knew taking fish oil and green tea together was a bad idea? Both are supposed to be good for you, but green tea inhibits fat uptake, and fish oil … well, is a fat. It is information like this that Sol wants to get out.

I’ve seen quite a few sites that are Wikipedia inspired, but this one has the advantage of a great domain name that likely receives a decent amount of traffic from the outset. Although Sol intends to focus on health supplements, I don’t see why it couldn’t expand to other areas where people could “examine it.” I’m told that there are absolutely no plans to expand beyond the health, nutrition and fitness segments.

That’s one major advantage of launching on such a broad domain name instead of something more narrow like HealthSupplements.com. This is going to be a good project to watch.

6 COMMENTS

  1. I was disappointed to see no authority cited on the site. I took a quick tour, but could not see any references to any source for any of the information, nor any place to indicate one’s training/specialty. I recognize that it was designed so that anyone can add to it, but it would appear to be able to foster any quack theory that anyone wants to promote.

    Did I miss something authoritative?

  2. Took another look and was happy to note the references section; can’t help but wish the text itself directly connected to the refs for each medical claim. Just my bias, of course–I need to know “who’s the source for that” as I read health claims–and I wish the site success.

  3. But they are Janet – if you scroll down and read the “Compleat Summary” (which has the actually nitty gritty info), we have 12 specific references there. Superscripted and all.

Leave a Reply