Forum Moderators: martinibuster
ASA
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.
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.
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.
[
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]
If it wasn't for domain parking, you would all be enjoying your 25 cent CPM's from punch-the-monkey banner ads.
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 ?
does this mean an influx of new publisher pages without an influx of new advertisers
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.
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?
Adsense got it's start as a result of the acquisition of Applied Semantics...An interesting piece of trivia..
