homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.41.242
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Domain Names
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & webwork

Domain Names Forum

This 54 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 54 ( 1 [2]     
Google to kill Domain Tasting?
Hunter




msg:3557346
 12:35 am on Jan 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

Rumor going around saying Google will stop monetizing all domains if they are less then five days old. IF true this change should be announced to Google channel partners soon and will have a large impact.

It was disclosed in court that one partner that Google had was generating as much as $3 million a month (after Google’s rev share) from tasting.

 

jtara




msg:3558880
 10:29 pm on Jan 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

Presumably, the victims would be Google's advertisers who would have to establish that they were damaged by the practice.

While I have little sympathy for them, the registries (not registrars), as well, may be able to show damage.

Tasting was intended to be - tasting. Not a free ride, obtained by passing the registration from registrar to registrar ad-infinitum.

While costs are low in the registry business, tasting at this point has to be the single biggest expense, as it represents MOST registration events.

swa66




msg:3558894
 11:09 pm on Jan 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

Why have tasting (and kiting) in the first place?

If you want the domain, pay up. If not, then leave if for somebody who does want it. I see no reason why registrars should have the ability to "taste" a domain.

In the end all the extra costs of processing those deletes/registrations is paid for by somebody. And that somebody is those of us who do register our domains properly.

We should speak out and make them stop tasting once and for all.

netchicken1




msg:3558929
 1:18 am on Jan 27, 2008 (gmt 0)

Just because people 'pay up' does not mean squat about quality on the web, a million parked domains with adsense on them testify to that fallacy.

Google claim that they doing this the 'free up domain names' for legitimate use, however parked domains are exactly the same situation as tasted domains, tying up domain names that could be put to legimate use.

Can you imagine Google ever addressing the parked domains situation, I doubt it, if they did the same to them, it would create net chaos.

Webwork




msg:3558938
 2:02 am on Jan 27, 2008 (gmt 0)

tasting is a legal business

Did you ever scan the domains that were auto-magically tasted? I have. I scanned 10s of 1000s of them, just because I could not believe what my eyes were seeing. What I saw was an endless stream of typos of famous name brands being registered by the same entities engaged in the kiting.

Endless.

europeforvisitors




msg:3559264
 11:07 pm on Jan 27, 2008 (gmt 0)

OK, let's get back to basics (never minding whether Google is good, evil, or somewhere in between):

Is there anyone here who thinks Google shouldn't stop "monetizing domains if they're less than five days old"? If so, what's your argument in favor of continuing with the status quo?

walkman




msg:3559276
 12:17 am on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

I think they should keep monetizing parked names but not these ones. If you are a legit user, 5 days will not kill you.

As for parked names, as long as ads are relevant, I don't see the problem. People stumbled there anyway.

victor




msg:3559448
 8:33 am on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google should charge a small fee upfront for enabling its ad services on a domain....Say USD5.00

That fee will be refunded once the domain has generated (say) USD100 in ad income. The fee is not refunded if the domain lapses, or otherwise changes hands.

That does not stop domain tasting. It does not stop anyone setting up Google ads on a domain.

It simply may make them think first.

And it'll cover Google's overhead in creating and tearing down short lived services on tasted domains.

steveooo




msg:3559468
 9:30 am on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

Charging a fee upfront for domain names would be terrible,
I have about 80 sites, Some of them make lots with adsense some do not.
I would not will willing to pay to see if that site does good.

Also I have an argument for google not doing this:

This is like putting a bandage on a leak in the hover dam. This will not stop anything at all. All it will do is make google sleep better at night. What needs to be done is fix the problem. If google really wanted to stop this they could but the .com registry and stop it.

Also someone said "If you are a legit user, 5 days will not kill you."

That really depends what type of webmaster you are. If you plan you site out for 2 months before launching then you are fine. If you think of an idea, build it, launch it and have 100000 hits with in 2 days this just might KILL you.

europeforvisitors




msg:3559784
 4:13 pm on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

Charging a fee upfront for domain names would be terrible,
I have about 80 sites, Some of them make lots with adsense some do not.
I would not will willing to pay to see if that site does good.

I think you've just made a great case not only for an end to Google ad revenues from "domain tasting," but also for an AdSense waiting period in general. What value do the public and advertisers derive from opportunistic made-for-AdSense sites that are expected to sink or swim in a matter of days?

Clark




msg:3559805
 4:43 pm on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

They should charge you for doing them a favor and using their service? Are you kidding? It's no wonder we keep getting shafted by monopolies. There are too many people out there not thinking things through.

Want to add HBO, there's a "setup fee" in order to buy extra service from the cable company.

Want to join a health club? There's a setup fee.. Why? So you can buy their services...and pay the annoying sales guy a commission for making the signup process more difficult and slimy.

The mom and pop's wouldn't do this and couldn't get away with it. People have gotten so used to it that they pay it without complaint and even suggest it to a monopoly like google. Oy vey.

Imagine if your mom and pop grocery store or restaurant charged you a setup fee to come in and buy groceries or lunch? This is not much different.

europeforvisitors




msg:3559817
 4:51 pm on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

Clark, you're attacking straw men. Victor suggested a refundable setup fee.

Still, if you don't like setup fees, maybe you'll be more amenable to my suggestion of a waiting period.

Clark




msg:3559852
 5:29 pm on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

Who cares if it's refundable?

The solution assumes a problem that I don't personally believe exists.

The lack of quality of the adsense publishers is not something that the capable engineers at Google CAN'T detect. They simply AREN'T detecting them because it helps their bottom line to slap that code everywhere.

jtara




msg:3559863
 5:53 pm on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

The lack of quality of the adsense publishers is not something that the capable engineers at Google CAN'T detect. They simply AREN'T detecting them because it helps their bottom line to slap that code everywhere.

Doesn't Google CREATE the entire "content" for AFD?

There's nothing to detect. They created the garbage in the first place!

europeforvisitors




msg:3559868
 6:05 pm on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

Clark, whether Google's engineers should or shouldn't be "detecting" worthless pages is beside the point. Making domain kiting less profitable doesn't prevent Google from taking other steps, and it could help to protect advertisers--at least to a small degree--from having to play whack-a-mole with domain churners. It's just one tool in the QC toolbox.

Also, why get so worked up about it? Surely you don't believe that legitimate AdSense publishers will be hurt by the change?

Clark




msg:3559908
 6:39 pm on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

I love how you put that jtara.

No offense, EFV, but it just seems to me you have blinders on about Google and it's not really worth answering point by point. So I'm going to let you have the last word.

europeforvisitors




msg:3559922
 7:00 pm on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

No offense, EFV, but it just seems to me you have blinders on about Google and it's not really worth answering point by point.

Sorry, but I don't see how being rational constitutes "having blinders on"--or why it's a bad thing for Google (or any other advertising network) to prevent domain kiters from sucking up advertisers' budgets with disposable domains that they aren't even paying for.

steveooo




msg:3560225
 1:17 am on Jan 29, 2008 (gmt 0)


europeforvisitors,
Your missing my point completely. I have never and will never make a " made for adsense website. Opportunistic websites in no way mean that they are made just to make money. They are made be cause there is an opportunity. I guess when opportunity knocks at your door you wait 5 days before answering...

A great example of this is one of my latest sites.
I saw the need for something, I made the site , I launched the site, over the next few days I had 1000000 page views and it was the #1 rated site(according to Google, The users, other developers, The wallstreet jounal, The dow jones news and allot of other news papers and magazines.) for the topic ( an extremely popular one).
3 hours after I launched 3 other guys launched similar sites to mine but because I did it first and better I dominated the topic and beat all of the other sites. Now 6 months later the site is still number one and gets about 1000000 hits a month.

If this was in effect back then I would have missed a months worth of revenue in that first week.

Why you would group sites that grab oppertunity when it strikes in with made for adsense sites is beyond me.

You also said "What value do the public and advertisers derive from opportunistic made-for-AdSense sites that are expected to sink or swim in a matter of days? "
Since I was able to have ads for other sites that grabbed that opportunity when it struck it helped them succeed and had a great benefit for the users who were looking for other sites on the same brand new topic.

It has tons of value for advertisers to be able to advertise on sites where the topic did not even exist 2 days ago. I think there is a term for this, its called missing the boat...
It would be very nice if I could see the future but since I cant, sometimes you cant plan 5 days a head of time for your launch.

Once again ill ask why should legitimate website owners be punished for the actions of bad people?

In the dynamic system that is the web just because you make a site that you think will be the best thing since sliced bread does not mean that it will succeed. but if it does why should I lose money because I cant advertise on it because of a hand full of slimy websites?

europeforvisitors




msg:3560253
 1:38 am on Jan 29, 2008 (gmt 0)

Steveooo, it's all about the big picture. If research by Google indicates that 99 out of 100 (or, more likely, 999 out of 1,000) Web sites with effective lifespans that are measured in hours or days are worthless to users and Google advertisers, then the greater good is served by not paying AdSense revenues to sites which fit that profile.

As others have said many times, AdSense isn't an entitlement program. When the interests of Google and its advertisers don't coincide with yours, you aren't going to win. That doesn't mean Google and its advertisers are evil; it just means that your business needs are different from those of Google and its advertisers, and you'll have to find other ways to monetize your shortlived traffic.

(Side note: Do you genuinely believe that Google's decision was prompted by a "handful of Web sites," slimy or not? According to the blog of GoDaddy's CEO, Bob Parsons [bobparsons.com], 55.1 million domain names were registered in February, 2007. Of those, 51.5 million were canceled during the five-day grace period expired, and only 3.6 million domain names were actually retained and paid for. Maybe I'm too easily impressed by eight-digit numbers, but 51.5 million domains strikes me as being more than a "handful of Web sites.")

walkman




msg:3560461
 6:02 am on Jan 29, 2008 (gmt 0)

I suggested a name to a friend...I know they checked it because it was registered by a "taster." I just took it back and told him not to use that whois service anymore. I guess they thought we'd rush with a several $1000 offer or money would pour in the five days. Luckily it didn't because it is a really brandable name. There needs to be a nominal fee, say $1 or so. If you screw up a few dollars will not kill you when you delete the name within the five days. If you speculate with automated tools and get burned with millions of names: good.

There is a lot of abuse, as in tens of millions of names exchanging hands. I see many obscure words from obscure languages registered, dropped, registered, dropped and so on, apparently with no cost to them. Now I own over 1500 names, and I only returned 5 that were clear spelling mistakes. I make next to nothing on Google ads, but I hope the value rises one day. I see nothing wrong with it: just like one buys land and leaves it there for years. As long as he bought it honestly, risked his money, and pays the taxes, how is that my problem?

There is plenty of land, it just maybe further down the road.

steveooo




msg:3560592
 9:29 am on Jan 29, 2008 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors,
I believe that googles decision is based on a handful of smiley organizations which account for 95% of those registrations.

Again would it not just be easier to block them instead of affecting everyones accounts 95% of which are just normal legitimate users.

Also Like I have said before my traffic is in no way shortlived, its just many times my launch is where I have the highest influx of new users.

My "business needs" are just like every other website on the web.
Step 1.Think of great idea
Step 2. Build good site
Step 3. Get visitors
Step 4. continue making a great user experience.

The problem is now this changes to

Step 1.Think of great idea
Step 2. Build good site
Step 3. Wait 5 days.
Step 4. Get visitors
Step 5. continue making a great user experience.

Also you said "Surely you don't believe that legitimate AdSense publishers will be hurt by the change? "

Surely I do. In fact they are the only ones that will be hurt by this change. The "bad guys" will just use one of the 100 other affiliate programs.

This new google change will do nothing to stop domain kiting. The only one that could put a dent in this is ICANN.

jtara




msg:3561061
 4:49 pm on Jan 29, 2008 (gmt 0)

Again would it not just be easier to block them instead of affecting everyones accounts 95% of which are just normal legitimate users.

Maybe not as easy as you think.

I'll bet they use a network of constantly-changing company registrations as well.

It may not be as simple as simply cutting-off the checks to Recycle-Em Corp.

seojoe




msg:3562649
 8:11 am on Jan 31, 2008 (gmt 0)

I didn't think that domain tasting exist before. So much to learn here indeed. I'm new here guys. Hi to all!

Laker




msg:3562875
 2:38 pm on Jan 31, 2008 (gmt 0)

Welcome to Webmaster World, seojoe!

seojoe




msg:3563406
 1:01 am on Feb 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

Hey! Thanks Laker.

This 54 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 54 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Domain Names
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved