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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
As for parked names, as long as ads are relevant, I don't see the problem. People stumbled there anyway.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Still, if you don't like setup fees, maybe you'll be more amenable to my suggestion of a waiting period.
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.
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!
Also, why get so worked up about it? Surely you don't believe that legitimate AdSense publishers will be hurt by the change?
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.
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.
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?
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.")
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.
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.
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.
