homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.215.146
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 172 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 172 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 > >     
AdSense for Domains Now Open to All Publishers
We've announced that we are extending AdSense for domains to all publishers
AdSenseAdvisor




msg:3805293
 5:21 pm on Dec 11, 2008 (gmt 0)

We just posted this announcement on the Inside AdSense blog.

ASA

 

Bddmed




msg:3806958
 11:29 pm on Dec 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

What a silly silly person you are

Many/most of us in here dislike the domaining business. You making whatever high number of figures in profit has nothing to do with it. It's the morale and principle that's discussed.

Calling someone a silly silly person because he's defending a morally or principally point of view is just sad.

Bddmed




msg:3806961
 11:35 pm on Dec 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

I got to see those 5 star websites you guys are sitting on. Let me know... cough cough... MFA... cough cough...

Why not start with putting a domain in your own profile.

[edited by: Bddmed at 11:36 pm (utc) on Dec. 13, 2008]

BlueLeaf




msg:3806975
 11:52 pm on Dec 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Many/most of us in here dislike the domaining business. You making whatever high number of figures in profit has nothing to do with it. It's the morale and principle that's discussed.

Calling someone a silly silly person because he's defending a morally or principally point of view is just sad.

LOL morals, we're getting religious now? Buying a domain for XX in 1999, and selling it undeveloped for six figues in 2008, is immoral? I'll send my kids to college on that cardinal sin any day of the week.

Those city geo domains I sold are now in the hands of a multi-million dollar corporation, and currently under development. I suppose this is the part where you tell me you have the financial infrastructure and skill necessary to put them to better use? A charity foundation perhaps?

Get real... you're in a AdSense thread, we're not here to discuss Darfur.

[edited by: BlueLeaf at 11:56 pm (utc) on Dec. 13, 2008]

IanCP




msg:3806984
 11:56 pm on Dec 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Many/most of us in here dislike the domaining business. You making whatever high number of figures in profit has nothing to do with it. It's the moral and principle that's discussed

I would have to agree. It's not as if they're making some valuable contribution to society as a whole. Simply cyber squatting.

BlueLeaf




msg:3806988
 12:02 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

I would have to agree. It's not as if they're making some valuable contribution to society as a whole. Simply cyber squatting.

Vancouver DOT com is owned and developed by the biggest domainer on the planet, Kevin Ham. You ready to cross compare your development contributions to the web with his?

I'll wait for you to answer...

[edited by: BlueLeaf at 12:02 am (utc) on Dec. 14, 2008]

coachm




msg:3806989
 12:05 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

What a silly silly person you are. I wouldn't even consider myself a "domainer", yet I've made high six figures in profits from speculating on a handful of modest mid sized city geo domains. So enough with the misinformation already... Some people make easy money because they take risks, accept that and move on.
You haven't pointed out ANYthing I've been incorrect about that you call "misinformation", so I'm afraid I'll take this as an empty comment.

I have no problem with people making money, but I question whether stopping other people from using resources by "collecting" them, and then holding them for ransom is a meaningful way to make money. I'm funny that way. I like money, but I also value my time. Domaining on a large scale just doesn't sound all that fascinating. But heck. I'm one of the people that developed websites because it was fun, and helped people. The money was an afterthought.

Domaincentric guys like Skip Hoagland have done more for the web than all the critics in this thread multiplied a thousand times over. Shall I hold your hand and walk you through all the websites and technology out there that has been put forth by "domainer profits"?


Don't know Skip. Obviously he's not here to explain, and I'm gathering you're no Skip.

But, the answer to your question is yes, I'd like to hear because I'm ignorant on the subject, so if you are willing to share that information without my paying you, I'd like to see it here or in another thread.

How profits are used, by the way is irrelevant to the issue.

Some underworld criminals and other organized crime figures contribute great sums to charity, and do lots of good works, using the profits from murder, drugs, prostitution, extortion, etc to contribute to society.

Of course how they MADE those profits is the issue.

So, your comment is really irrelevant unless you want to congratulate all those charitable criminals for their good works. When we as a society start doing that, and getting our values SO much more twisted, I promise, I'll congratulate those wonderful domainers.

I don't expect everyone to realize their culture is so greed-ridden it is collapsing, but sadly if more did, the world wouldn't be reeling economically and headed into an even worse period of tragedy for families, children...

For those old enough...

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the...

BlueLeaf




msg:3806991
 12:18 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

I have no problem with people making money, but I question whether stopping other people from using resources by "collecting" them, and then holding them for ransom is a meaningful way to make money.

Holding domains for ransom? Ok, I've pegged you. What was/is the domain, what was your offer, and what was the owner's asking price? I'm well versed in domain values, and for free I'll take a look at your situation, and hopefully help you get past your grievance.. It's likely you were well out of your depth, but who knows, perhaps the owner was being unreasonable.

What do you think about Milk DOT com, and Purple DOT com, no parking pages, but AMAZING development strategies. You see those asking prices published on the sites themselves? Unrealistic probably eh? Those domains should be confiscated correct, that would make the world a better place? LOL

[edited by: BlueLeaf at 12:19 am (utc) on Dec. 14, 2008]

BlueLeaf




msg:3807003
 12:44 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Entitlement issues and a low budget, that's our Wizard behind the curtain. The flimsy arguments being put forth here aren't masking the big red clown shoe sticking out.

I'm done wasting my time here. When you make an offer on a domain, be reasonable. If it's highly brandable, receives type-in traffic, expect to actually PAY something for it, you're not getting it for $16, I don't care what the owner is doing with it. Saying money isn't all that matters... yes that's true, but for Pete's sake you're in an AdSense thread trying to arguing that point, and no one is buying it...

Peace out folks...

coachm




msg:3807016
 1:31 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'm done wasting my time here. When you make an offer on a domain, be reasonable.
I suspect you aren't understanding, or even listening to what's being said.

Personally I've never made a bid for a domain name, and I doubt I ever will. But it figures that you think that people who are concerned about things besides how much money can be earned are suspect, and must, somehow be masking the fact that they have failed at the game they criticize.

It's sad. Just plain sad that you believe others want to play the game you play, but instead, see the game as harmful overall no matter who wins.

I dunno. It would be great if I could type in a domain name, let's say widgets.com, and actually find widgets, or information about widgets, rather than a parked site run by someone with no more going for him or her than the money to have bought the site.

...but since every intelligent and useful variant of widget.com is held for ransom by people who have no ability to develop or offer something back, well, thems' the breaks.

I have no personal stake in the issue. I have the domain names I want, and I've developed them. But of course, how could someone such as myself and others here actually be concerned about something other than themselves?

Here's the secret. It doesn't cost anything to care about something other than one's own profits.

dibbern2




msg:3807062
 4:19 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Is investing in a domain for the purpose of reselling it any more evil than these other examples of 'collecting resources and then holding them for ransom':
1. owning undeveloped real estate for a later sale?
2. buying a share of stock for the purpose of reselling it at a profit?
3. keeping a 1963 Morgan Plus 4 in the barn to sell in 20 years or so?

Value, potential and risk. I think they all share the same factors. Where is the logic in condeming one, and not all the other similiar practices?

[edited by: dibbern2 at 4:26 am (utc) on Dec. 14, 2008]

coachm




msg:3807063
 4:20 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Call me anything you like.

How about principled, ethical, smart. When enough people poison their overall environments (be it economic, ecological) not only does the environment suffer, but eventually the ability to make money from it disappears.

Two things come to mind.

Who deserves respect. The person who painted the Mona Lisa, or the person who might happen to own it? Who made the biggest contribution?

Second, an analogy. Imagine a town where there is a rumor of a major development. Many companies come in and anticipating huge windfall profits, buy up ALL the commercial property. Since it turns out they make more money through writeoffs than through rent, the leave all the stores vacant, while also pushing up both rents, and purchase prices because they create artificial shortages.

Nobody can be employed in the town, or do business in the town, so eventually the town starts to decay, people leave if they can suffering huge losses, and the whole thing collapses.

In the end everyone loses, because even the initial investments lose value since there will be no huge development, because there is really no town anymore to support it, demand drops, and even the purchasers lose.

However, if the people who bought the properties initially tried to develop the properties, the communities and the town, then the story would have a completely different ending. But short term profits won. Or so they thought. Nothing illegal here. Just greed.

That is the type of thing that happens to some degree when there is total disregard for the greater system.

This isn't so much about morality and ethics and values( which it is) but also about practical economics.

coachm




msg:3807066
 4:32 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Is investing in a domain for the purpose of reselling it any more evil than these other examples of 'collecting resources and then holding them for ransom':
1. owning undeveloped real estate for a later sale?
2. buying a share of stock for the purpose of reselling it at a profit?
3. keeping a Morgan Plus 4 in the barn to sell in 20 years or so?

1. If the overwhelming majority of available real estate is held by companies doing nothing with it, yes, there's a very practical problem. Imagine what happens if most of the farmland in North America was owned by people who find it economically beneficial for them to let it rot. Do you see the practical problem?

The problem is the effect on people who DO want to use the resource to create something.

2) Shares exist, at this point in time, for the very purpose of appreciation. It's a bad example mostly. It's like saying having money is bad, because that's really close to the same as having shares, unless you have enough to control a company, and that's a different situation.

3) I don't know what a Morgan is, so I'll fake it. Let's say I write a book. Someone comes along and says, "I'll buy every single copy" since I'm sure in 15 years, after the old guy is cold and dead, they'll be worth a fortune".

Nothing illegal about that. But here's the problem and it actually has nothing to do with whether the person actually makes money (he won't).

The act of hoarding means that nobody else can read the books or find copies for the next ten years, depriving them of my crucial wisdom.

For what? For monetary gain. If hoarding did not affect anyone else, then it's not a real problem (although it drives prices up, which is what hoarders want).

When people want to legitimately create value through developing websites on domain names, but are deprived of access to a huge majority of domain names which are hoarded, that, to me is a problem.

The solutions actually would have been simple. Either domains cannot be resold (as is the case with radio frequencies and licences), or domains must be developed within 6 months, or forfeited, or, bottom line, google and other companies refuse to make it lucrative to speculate and hoard.

TO me that's what do no evil means, and what making a positive contribution to the community means.

I don't care what an individual does, but I DO care when a company like google contributes to damaging the Internet, which is no longer a luxury item, but an essential to business, the economy, etc.

Google has done great things, and also caused great damage. I'd like to see the latter stop.

dibbern2




msg:3807074
 5:24 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

1. If the overwhelming majority of available real estate is held by companies doing nothing with it, yes, there's a very practical problem. Imagine what happens if most of the farmland in North America was owned by people who find it economically beneficial for them to let it rot. Do you see the practical problem?

I'm afraid I can't. I can't follow the reasoning when you suggest an imaginary impossibility to make your point. Are you suggesting that an overwhelming majority of real estate (or available domains) might be held by squatters? If so, it would be interesting to know the source of this data. Let me remind you of your words: overwhelming majority.

The Morgan was an antique car, and just an off-hand example of buying something material to hold it for possible appreciation. A violin. a rare book, and many other things qualify to make my point. Sorry for the poor choice.

dibbern2




msg:3807075
 5:31 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

The fact that domain names can be hoarded at all is a flaw in the design of the network.

Flaws, warts, rough edges. I'll figure a way to live with them if the alternative is restrictions that are based on what Tom, Dick or Harry thinks are a disease.

signor_john




msg:3807078
 6:02 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

The fact is that domains CAN be hoarded, or parked, or whatever term you might prefer. And getting back on topic, Google has been running ads on such domains for quite a long time. The only change in Google's new policy is making it easier for the little guy to profit from unused domains in the same way as megasquatters or megaparkers. Is that bad or good? Depends on your point of view, but for those of us who aren't looking to make money from parked domains, it isn't likely to have much (if any) discernible effect.

zett




msg:3807090
 7:33 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Like many here in the forum, I don't like domainers. But it's not the point of this discussion, or even of this forum. That's something for the Domain Names [webmasterworld.com] forum. That's the place to brag about how brilliant your domain parking lot is.

The point is, whether Google should actively incentivize the parking of domain names as part of the Adsense program?

Given their "do no evil" motto, and their mission "to organize the worlds information", I'd say - no, they shouldn't do this.

Domain parking is certainly not "doing evil" (what is evil these days? Scamming 50 billion Dollars from investors?). But it is not "doing good" either. The world as a whole would be better off without domain parking. (Yes, yes, the individuals parking a domain may profit from the parking and earn high-whatever-figures, but that's not the point.) And given their "do no evil" motto, Google should not do it.

Given their mission "to organize the worlds information", Google should also not do this. A parked domain can hardly be called "information". Think of a newspaper that carries just a beautiful logo (e.g. "The Elbonian Standard") and then thirty-one empty pages. Would Google scan this? Would they add it to Google news? Is it worth reading? Is it worth keeping? Is it carrying any information whatsoever? I don't think so.

So - let's just call it what it is: blatant money making on Google's side. They just are beyond the point of caring for their own mottos and missions; they just want/need to make money. That's why this move is good for Google in the short run. That's why they will deflect any criticism on this.

BTW, their motto and mission will kill Google at some point in time. Eventually people will realize that believing Google to "do no evil" and "to organize the worlds information" was wrong, just another lie from another corporate.

Atomic




msg:3807091
 7:52 am on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

That's something for the Domain Names forum.

You'd be right if AdSense didn't make parking domains so attractive.

OnlyToday




msg:3807150
 1:41 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

This particular thread is the intersection of AdSense and domain parking so pointing out the parasitic and spam-like nature of placing ads on parked domains is not only appropriate here but a logical conclusion.

People like attorneys and arbitrageurs can easily slip back and forth between doing good and evil and rationalize the outcome by pointing out that some good may have been done along the way. It is the magic woven by the confidence man or the snake oil vendor and it takes an agile mind to catch it.

I agree that Google is probably doing this because of their quarterly reports and stock price and that they have slippped here from doing good to survival mode.

That's not evil but the nature of the beast, something we will have to be acutely aware of in the coming months because this beastly nature will be appearing in so many unlikely places.

I'm not advocating a change in our attitudes just because the new administration used that theme in its campaign but because the Bernie Madoffs of the world and their scams will bring the house down. Whether you are stealing $50 bln or three seconds of my time you're on their side, not mine and you're the enemy.

OnlyToday




msg:3807165
 2:18 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Yes, it's the new depression era thinking. Smashing parasites on the web is the 21st century equivalent of boiling potato peels and reusing wrapping paper. If we are to survive the coming hard times no innefficiency and no waste must go unnoticed.

I did not live through the Great Depression but I plan to survive this one and I am going to be ruthless in my economies, you should be too. If you're still singing the tunes of the 'twenties, welcome to the 'thirties. Obamian policies are much like those that gave us the economy of 1938, please read your history this is not a joke.

farmboy




msg:3807176
 2:51 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Although it seems to have got lost in the discussion, I believe it was ken b who asked an important question earlier in this thread. That is - does this mean an influx of new publisher pages without an influx of new advertisers. If so, that's not good news for publishers in general.

Or, will this create an insignificant number of new publisher pages?

I think it's martinibuster who has pointed out the system needs more advertisers, this opening up of the domain program would seem, at least on the surface, to be doing just the opposite - bringing in new publishers (or publisher pages) without bringing in any new advertisers.

FarmBoy

signor_john




msg:3807195
 3:22 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

The point is, whether Google should actively incentivize the parking of domain names as part of the Adsense program?

No, the point is that Google has decided to allow small fry to place ads on parked domains, and it's up to the small fry to take advantage of the opportunity or not, as they choose.

Given their "do no evil" motto, and their mission "to organize the worlds information", I'd say - no, they shouldn't do this.

Evil doesn't enter into it (though some might argue that, in a sluggish economy, it would be evil to continue restricting ads on parked domains to big-time players.)

The world as a whole would be better off without domain parking.

The world--and the Internet--might be better off without a lot of things, including 80 per cent of the sites on the Web. But that's a topic for the Web Philosophy Forum, or maybe the Web Curmudgeons' Forum. :-)

Given their mission "to organize the worlds information", Google should also not do this.

You might as well argue that THE NEW YORK TIMES shouldn't run ads because its motto is "All the news tht's fit to print." Fact is, ads are what provide the money to support the mission.

So - let's just call it what it is: blatant money making on Google's side. They just are beyond the point of caring for their own mottos and missions; they just want/need to make money.

Zett, you've told us on the GOOG forum that you "love to see Google tank," so it's understandable that you'd be opposed to anything that helps Google generate revenue (with the obvious exception of revenue that's shared directly with you through your AdSense account). That doesn't make it wrong for Google to do what businesses are supposed to do: to earn profits, thereby making it possible to improve products, pay employees, and reward stockholders.

Parked domains aren't new. Ads on parked domains aren't new. Spreading the parked-domain wealth is new. And while you and I may not be fans of parked-domain pages (or ads on those pages), Google has no obligation to let us dictate where its ads do or don't run.

jcoronella




msg:3807205
 4:15 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

adsense wouldn't exist if it wasn't for parked domains

Adsense got it's start as a result of the acquisition of Applied Semantics and their product Oingo. If it wasn't for domain parking, you would all be enjoying your 25 cent CPM's from punch-the-monkey banner ads.

opening AFD is not creating new parking pages

Some estimage 10% of all contextual PPC is from domains. Right now Google ALREADY provides a MASSIVE share of them. This move is about cutting out those third parties, not creating more end users. It will be the same number of parked pages, the same number of advertisers, just one less party taking a cut -- a win for everyone left.

this will reduce fraud

As the failure of yahoo has shown us, syndicating your ads to third parties reduces your value to #*$!, and in the case of MSN the lack of third party syndication makes you a greater value. Google will be able to police domain parking much better once they have cut out the third party providers. -- again, a win for everyone left.

coachm




msg:3807208
 4:25 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'm afraid I can't. I can't follow the reasoning when you suggest an imaginary impossibility to make your point. Are you suggesting that an overwhelming majority of real estate (or available domains) might be held by squatters? If so, it would be interesting to know the source of this data. Let me remind you of your words: overwhelming majority.

I believe that it may very well be that the majority of .com websites are kept undeveloped by speculators and domain kidnappers. That's just from my own experiences checking out domains for purchase recently. It's a bit hard to tell these days with so many fake directories, but I'd say 8 of 10 sites I look at when searching are clearly valueless and simply a place to have ads. Parked, I believe.


The Morgan was an antique car, and just an off-hand example of buying something material to hold it for possible appreciation. A violin. a rare book, and many other things qualify to make my point. Sorry for the poor choice.

Violin another contra-example that actually makes my case. In the music world, you'll find that for classic instruments, such as a stradivarious, the feeling is that there is an obligation of an owner to have them played, and that's why classic violins that are both rare and priceless are constantly circulating to virtuosos.

There's even opinions that rare instruments must actually be used for what they were built for, ie. played, to maintain their superior acoustic character.

I happen to be of this opinion regarding instruments I understand a bit better, which is acoustic guitars, and if you've ever played a vintage Martin acoustic, you just KNOW it needs to be played, not stored until the value increases.

Same for pianos.
[

signor_john




msg:3807210
 4:29 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

It's a done deal. That's the bad news if you're obsessed with the so-called evils of parked domains. The good news is that you don't have to participate. You can go on using AdSense in exactly the same way as you've been doing all along.

ADDENDUM: Thanks, jcoronella, for the valuable insights.

[edited by: martinibuster at 9:18 pm (utc) on Dec. 14, 2008]
[edit reason] Referenced a deleted post. [/edit]

true_INFP




msg:3807214
 4:47 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

If it wasn't for domain parking, you would all be enjoying your 25 cent CPM's from punch-the-monkey banner ads.

That's a very brave assumption. Any evidence to back it up? The fact that they purchased some software does not necessarily mean that they wouldn't have been able to develop it themselves. It may just mean that they wanted it faster and saw no point in re-inventing the wheel. That's all.

lexipixel




msg:3807247
 5:52 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Now that everyone has vented... Has anyone seen a "Parked with Google Adsense" parked page?

Are there any features that can be enabled, (e.g.- "this domain for sale", "contact owner" link, color or other settings, etc)..

Any "useful information" (to the web user) on the page besides links ?

Atomic




msg:3807264
 6:18 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

does this mean an influx of new publisher pages without an influx of new advertisers

In fact, it could mean fewer advertisers. When I discovered that my ads were being shown on parked domasins I stopped my campaigns and vowed never to use AdWords again. I seriously doubt I am alone.

Atomic




msg:3807266
 6:25 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google has no obligation to let us dictate where its ads do or don't run.

Are you kidding me? Customers making a big enough stink convince companies to change their practices all the time. A company that doesn't pay attention to what customers want isn't going to last very long.

signor_john




msg:3807267
 6:31 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Are you kidding me? Customers making a big enough stink convince companies to change their practices all the time. A company that doesn't pay attention to what customers want isn't going to last very long.

Google's customers have been advertising on parked domains for a long time. Still, if you think the new policy will offend Google's customers, why not start a thread on the AdWords forum?

jimbeetle




msg:3807274
 6:43 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Adsense got it's start as a result of the acquisition of Applied Semantics...

An interesting piece of trivia..


No, given the moral tone this discussion has evolved into this is much more than an interesting piece of trivia. It's a given that Google was serving ads on parked domains *before* opening AdSense to one and all. So, why would anyone so morally against that practice become an AdSense publisher and then rail against it?

IanCP




msg:3807281
 6:48 pm on Dec 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Oh, come on. If I type in "red-wudgets.com" and get red-wudgets.com

I can't believe a significant number of people would do that.

Myself I'd type it in the google toolbar when in doubt and the correct one usually shows up for me.

In fact the only parked domains I've ever seen are old ones no longer used and contain an ad "this domain for sale". Never seen one with AdSense so this might be numerically a storm in a tea cup.

This 172 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 172 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
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