Ssssh, I actually got some nice traffic from sitefinder...even though it annoys me to say so...
Time to get the lawyers out ;) and start your complaining to ICANN :D
If they are that hot to bring it back, I wonder how much money they made?
Enough that they can pay their lawyers fees with room to spare, me thinks.
>got some nice traffic from sitefinder...even though it annoys me to say so...
Me, too. And it doesn't annoy me a bit ..bring it on.
While both Verisign and Microsoft can go jump in a lake, what I don't get is why people are upset that Verisign was getting the traffic that, in many cases, Microsoft formerly received. Why is Verisign pulling this off with their domain name registry monopoly any worse than what Microdorks do because of their browser monopoly.
And yeah, I was happy with the traffic, too.
I think both are equally sleazy, and both are equally illegal. But the Verisign atrocity was more easily actionable for several reasons:
1) With IE, you have a choice. If you don't like the Infernal Exploder, download a real browser. Anyone can do this for cost-of-download-time. With V$, there is no choice. One of the most serious concerns ICANN had (from their point of view) was the destabilizing effect of attempts to avoid the V$ behavior in order to allow genuinely innovative tools for genuinely needed services (i.e. spam control, etc.) to be implemented.
2) M$, whatever its ethical failings, is technologically irrelevant at best, but is especially irrelevant to the internet. Nobody depends on them to do anything in particular. They are free to do whatever they think will make money. For all that they say about the internet being a focus of their business, and collecting a lot of money in it, they act at the outer fringes of the internet, with no functionality that couldn't be easily replaced by low-cost or no-cost software and/or garage-based local ISP's. If the good citizens of Redmond rose up, poured acid into all the server cabinets, and hanged every single M$ lawyer, PR flack, contract employee, and even the lone tech support person -- the internet wouldn't even blink. (The millenium might even be immanentized.) If V$'s servers were smashed by mobs of, say, Chinese workers angry at being served so much capitalist -imperialist propaganda in some foreign running-dog language, the internet would be seriously impacted within a matter of hours. Significant records involving (valuable) trademarked names would be lost and would have to be painfully reconstructed. Years of litigation would ensue (have already ensued) when they mess up a single name record. Which is why....
2) Aside from consent decrees, most of which M$ has so far been able to evade, M$ has nothing resembling a contract with the government. V$ is contractually obligated to provide certain services according to certain definitions. And ICANN can sue them or cancel their contract if they don't conform to the standards.
Remember, if some of you are doing extra business because of sitefinder it definitely means someone else is hurting because of it - it doesn't magically create extra business for everyone out of the blue. Which means that verisign took on a power of its own over all .com and .net customers, that allows some to benefit and others to lose - a power they don't have a legitimate right to. This is the land of the lawsuits, they will lose, and they will lose big.
This actually could just be a move to pump up attention and maybe stock. Did you notice the other press release today that they are selling network solutions [verisign.com]?
>it definitely means someone else is hurting because of it - it doesn't magically create extra business for everyone out of the blue.
well, the difference between the two is *where* the redirection occurs:
1) VeriSign does the redirection at the DNS level which affects not only browsing but also spam filters and any other service that relies upon DNS to report whether a domain exists or not. Thus, each and every one of these services has to be rewritten to take the VeriSign redirection into account
2) MSIE does the redirection internally in IE when IE gets a domain doesn't exist response, thus there's no impact on anything else than the person using IE
|it definitely means someone else is hurting because of it - it doesn't magically create extra business for everyone out of the blue. |
When I get the top 5 spots in the search engines, it means someone else doesn't. Does that mean I should give up my spots?
This is business....look out for your own interests.
When you achieve the top 5 spots on your own efforts, then you deserve the rewards. My point is *versign* is causing this to happen out of their own interests, not you. You cannot SEO for sitefinder (well to a tiny degree you can, but like like Google, etc). They have created a very uneven playing field out of their own power, which can and will be taken from them if they continue to do things without consensus.
[edited by: amznVibe at 6:42 pm (utc) on Oct. 16, 2003]
|someone else is hurting because of it - it doesn't magically create extra business for everyone out of the blue. Which means that... |
Would you be happy if google picked and choose who got which spots? Or are you happier with a "fair" algorythm?
Google works because no one is forced to use it. People use it because it is a superior product in a crazy marketplace. SEO's can work to get higher spots and sell their trade.If Google started doing something incredibly stupid tomorrow, we could walk away from it and use another product. You cannot walk away from sitefinder.
Sitefinder doesn't exist and thrive because it is a superior product that we choose to use, it is the the *only* product that we are *forced* to use (well until every major ISP binds the hell out of them).
[edited by: amznVibe at 6:49 pm (utc) on Oct. 16, 2003]
One of the major problems with sitefinder (at least I have read) that it causes problems with spam filters. Something along the lines of suddenly everything appears to resolve to a valid domain, making it harder to identify forged headers in some circumstances.
Not sure on the details, and I could be completely wrong.
I don't remember the last time I misspelled a domain name, so that's another thing I don't get. Who are these mysterious people and why can't they spell?
One thing I noticed about sitefinder was that if i did a "close enough" mispelling for a domain that was originally registered with Network Solutions, it suggested the correct domain. Another one that was a fresh register from another company would not find any sites to suggest, even if I did the correct name, but with the .net instead of the .com.
As soon as I did that I bought the .net versions of my domains (I know, I should have done that anyway.)
Okay, they're selling off NetSol. That should take away their conflict of interest with other domain registrars. They plan to fix the misrouted mail. The revenues for this must be far more lucrative than registration has been if they're willing to sell that part of their company. Somehow this is being viewed as a growth area. Being the greedy slobs they are, what does the future really hold for us all? We've seen the beginning; what could they be planning?
|I don't remember the last time I misspelled a domain name, so that's another thing I don't get. Who are these mysterious people and why can't they spell? |
I don't know who they are, but they and all their friends are in my logs every day!
|I don't know who they are, but they and all their friends are in my logs every day! |
I see them in my logs, too. But I am wondering: will they serve any useful purpose, or this redirect of people that can't spell is only going to be a waste of time?
Maybe it depends on what you sell, and how good you are at that, but there is a good chance that this traffic will just turn out to be wasted bandwith...
I'm among those that miss the Sitefinder tracks in my logs.
I remember correctly, Sitefinder offers a few likely candidates for that missing domain that was typed in. Then it also offers a search window. So the traffic arriving at our sites from Sitefinder shouldn't be a waste of bandwidth.
Every little bit of competition in the search business helps if you ask me.
So When VeriSign comes back, will it still block other sitefinder things that only run on a single PC or will it go over them?
Because other sitefinders are still good, some are better than VeriSign and I ofcourse want the best one that runs on a PC so it doesn't take time to show the Sitefinder page itself over the net.
Anyone got more info?
And one thing I don't get, With this Sitefinder thing, Aren't VeriSign loosing their own Bandwidth? Or do they have Unlimited Bandwidth or somethin?
What happened to the BIND patch that was supposed to thwart this at the root servers?
The bind patch is out there: [isc.org...]
Many major ISPs have already used it. I know of a regional one in my area that has also.
I think it's just more recognizable than the previous traffic from internet explorer (msn) or IE for Yahoo (Google) or AOL (Google) or whoever was giving options for the incorrect name. I too am getting traffic from siteblinder. But it is from obvious misspellings of my competitors names. How much am I losing when my domain is misspelled?
|>got some nice traffic from sitefinder...even though it annoys me to say so... |
Me, too. And it doesn't annoy me a bit ..bring it on.
At least this time around they are giving notice.
By the way, I now no longer trust anything called Pivotal Private Equity.
>But it is from obvious misspellings of my competitors names
I was getting straight searches, not just domain names.