×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Propping Up Typosquatting Biz?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-love-shopping-at-amezon.com dept.

279

An anonymous reader writes "Google is making oodles of cash placing ads on a vast sea of otherwise vacant Web sites that do little more than capitalize on misspelled domain name names, according to a story in today's Washington Post. From the story: 'Google Inc., which runs the largest ad network on the Internet, is making millions of dollars a year by filling otherwise unused Web sites with ads. In many instances, these ad-filled pages appear when users mistype an Internet address, such as BistBuy.com. This new form of advertising is turning into a booming business that some say is cluttering the Internet and could be violating trademark rules.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

279 comments

WOw that's confusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233016)

I'll actually have to read the article to see what is going on.

Re:WOw that's confusing (3, Informative)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233039)

This quote from the article might help:

This form of online advertising relies on "type-in traffic," the users who type the information they're looking for directly into the address bar of the Web browser instead of using a search engine to scour the Web. Industry analysts estimate that roughly 15 percent of all Web traffic originates this way.

Actually I don't see the big deal. This is nothing new.

Re:WOw that's confusing (1)

Feminist-Mom (816033) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233069)

I think the funniest example of this is the whitehouse.com website.

You send some friend (at work, if you want to be a jerk) an email that says

Did you hear ? The President just announced that we are pulling out of Iraq!! See the announcement [whitehouse.com].

Actually, it's not a bad porn site.

Re:WOw that's confusing (1)

DakotaK (727197) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233155)

Whitehouse.com hasn't been a porn site for a long time. They actually changed it because of all the people going there on accident and complaining, IIRC.

ONLy if you are a retard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233060)

Where did you learn to read? American Idiot school?

Quit cluttering up slashdot with your irrelivent comments.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233017)

w00t! Did i get it??!?

Whoa! Breaking News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233018)

...yeah...How is this news? Typosquatting has been around for a long long time. Did I just make that word up?

Re:Whoa! Breaking News (3, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233044)

No, it's not news it's a Microsoft plant. Google was the last one to get into this game and nowhere near the leader. Nice try, asshats.

Had to be said.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233026)

www.fistcomment.com ;)

Do no evil (0, Troll)

WildStream (318232) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233027)

Does it still apply?

Basic concepts not taught in schools. (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233139)

This is a sin of omission, rather than commission. Whether or not you have an issue with the religious terminology, the concept is a useful one to be taught in schools but doesn't for whatever reason, but the idea that it may not be "secular" enough may play into it.

Re:Do no evil (2, Insightful)

stirlingneg (832272) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233152)

Evil is such a nebulous word.
In the Google dictionary, Evil is defined as something Google doesn't do.

Re:Do no evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233342)

Evil is such a nebulous word.
In the Google dictionary, Evil is defined as something Google doesn't do.


I agree. My opinion began to change when I saw in gmail an ad from a company who sells dissertations and schoolwork. Then I wrote to adwords advising it was antiethical. They replied telling me that the editor have the right to decide if an ad was in agreement with editorial guidelines.

Do Ma (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233031)

I want to foook your mother upside down.

I don't blame Google for enabling typosquatting (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233042)

I blame DNS.

We should have stuck with numbers. In hex. Would have kept out all the lamers, nannies, and governments.

Heck we should go back to uucp over dial-up connections.

I have an even better idea (4, Funny)

selfdiscipline (317559) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233266)

I have an even better idea... let the marketplace provide services for location of commercial websites: say maybe, have a list of words ("key words") that the internet browser could type in at a website, and then that website would facilitate finding the desired website, based on a huge database of known websites.

Are we calling it something else now? (5, Funny)

bluemeep (669505) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233043)

Back in the olden days of 2004, we used to call it "cybersquatting." Kids these days and their crazy terminology. And their music.

Re:Are we calling it something else now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233086)

Yo mamma

Re:Are we calling it something else now? (4, Informative)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233099)

Back in the olden days of 2004, we used to call it "cybersquatting." Kids these days and their crazy terminology. And their music.

Actually, I always thought cybersquatting was more like registering a bunch of potentially valuable domain names and doing nothing with them, until whoever would be rightfully interested in registering a name realizes it's taken and offers money to buy it back. It's a form of racket of course. Typosquatting is rather different.

Re:Are we calling it something else now? (4, Funny)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233244)

Actually, I always thought cybersquatting was more like registering a bunch of potentially valuable domain names and doing nothing with them, until whoever would be rightfully interested in registering a name realizes it's taken and offers money to buy it back. It's a form of racket of course. Typosquatting is rather different.

But that was back in 1999, years before 2004 was ever imagined.

Re:Are we calling it something else now? (5, Informative)

RevDobbs (313888) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233100)

Cybersquatting is buying a real a domain with resell value; typosquatting is buying a domain that is spelled similar to a real domain and lapping up typo-induced hits.

Bust Buy ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233045)

And what if I'm out to buy a bust?

Dodgy Business (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233047)

Google is defending its business practices, saying that it removes participating sites from its ad network if a trademark owner complains that those sites are confusingly similar -- even though close misspellings don't necessarily prove that a legal infringement has occurred.

"Unless it is confusing to somebody, trademark law doesn't apply," said Rose Hagan, Google's chief trademark lawyer.
Wouldn't it be in Google's best interest to hold the position that these parked domains are NOT confused with some registered trademark?

I imagine very few businesses can legitimately claim that the ads on bistbuy.com would confuse anyone looking for bestbuy.com.

OMGLOL!!!! bistbuy was slashdotted!!! (3, Insightful)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233056)

Safari can't find the server.
Safari can't open the page "http://www.bistbuy.com/" because it can't find the server "www.bistbuy.com".

This is a non story. I really don't understand how anyone would hold Google culpable for this.

Re:OMGLOL!!!! bistbuy was slashdotted!!! (5, Informative)

Raindance (680694) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233144)

The Post claims, "Google Inc., which runs the largest ad network on the Internet, is making millions of dollars a year by filling otherwise unused Web sites with ads. In many instances, these ad-filled pages appear when users mistype an Internet address, such as 'BistBuy.com.'"

I also couldn't open bistbuy.com --

Here's what searching whois for bistbuy.com gave me

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/ [internic.net]
for detailed information.

      Domain Name: BISTBUY.COM
      Registrar: DOMAINDOORMAN, LLC
      Whois Server: whois.domaindoorman.com
      Referral URL: http://www.domaindoorman.com/ [domaindoorman.com]
      Name Server: NS1.12GF6.COM
      Name Server: NS2.12GF6.COM
      Name Server: NS3.12GF6.COM
      Status: REDEMPTIONPERIOD
      Updated Date: 29-apr-2006
      Creation Date: 22-nov-2005
      Expiration Date: 22-nov-2006


Nothing appears to link bistbuy.com (if it ever was a valid destination) to Google.

I'm not convinced yet that this story is a smear job, but very little of their story appears to check out.

Re:OMGLOL!!!! bistbuy was slashdotted!!! (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233191)

Updated Date: 29-apr-2006
 
The date of the story was what, the 30th? Cut them some slack.

Re:OMGLOL!!!! bistbuy was slashdotted!!! (1)

Raindance (680694) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233241)

Updated Date: 29-apr-2006

The date of the story was what, the 30th? Cut them some slack.


I saw that- domaindoorman could have pulled the domain if they got wind of the story before it was published. Ideally the Post would have used archive.org to spider the page before they even wrote the story.

However, I don't think we need cut a national newspaper much slack if they run what could be considered a smear job (they single out Google as somehow 'behind' this practice, which is an odd and vague allegation) and the only evidence they cite is, upon inspection, gone.

Frankly, this is pretty poor journalism.

Re:OMGLOL!!!! bistbuy was slashdotted!!! (2, Insightful)

sycro (971945) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233253)

It's not stating that Google runs bistbuy.com. It is stating that the people who do run the site use Google Ads to make money, which makes Google money. And since Google must accept your use of their ad service, Google is promoting this sort of behavior.

Re:OMGLOL!!!! bistbuy was slashdotted!!! (1)

Raindance (680694) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233324)

It's not stating that Google runs bistbuy.com. It is stating that the people who do run the site use Google Ads to make money, which makes Google money. And since Google must accept your use of their ad service, Google is promoting this sort of behavior.

My apologize if my meaning was a bit vague in saying "Nothing appears to link bistbuy.com (if it ever was a valid destination) to Google." I didn't mean to imply Google ran bistbuy.com, but that the Post's reporting was subpar, for the two reasons mentioned in this comment's cousin- I thought the story seemed a bit biased against Google, and there was no effort (via any of the several technological means available) made to perserve the now-ethereal evidence the story cites.

I suppose one could argue, firstly, that we should hold Google up to a higher standard, as the largest actor in this market and one who has a special parked-domain advertising service [google.com]. And secondly, that the Post's reporters aren't computer wizzes and we should give them a pass on the "whoops, the domain mentioned in the article, and our main piece of evidence, disappeared" thing.

But the first is not mentioned in the article, and I don't think excusing the second will lead to better journalism in the future.

Re:OMGLOL!!!! bistbuy was slashdotted!!! (1)

Raindance (680694) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233336)

Yes, starting an email with "My apologize" and then criticizing sloppy journalism. I'm evidently on the ball today... :)

It *was* there (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233151)

This is all from GoDaddy's website

Registry Status: REDEMPTIONPERIOD
Registry Status: redemptionPeriod

Domain Name: BISTBUY.COM
Registrar: DOMAINDOORMAN, LLC
Whois Server: whois.domaindoorman.com
Referral URL: http://www.domaindoorman.com/ [domaindoorman.com]
Name Server: NS3.12GF6.COM
Name Server: NS2.12GF6.COM
Name Server: NS1.12GF6.COM
Status: REDEMPTIONPERIOD
EPP Status: redemptionPeriod
Updated Date: 29-Apr-2006
Creation Date: 21-Nov-2005
Expiration Date: 21-Nov-2006

>>> Last update of whois database: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:46:50 EDT

Re:OMGLOL!!!! bistbuy was slashdotted!!! (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233222)

This is a non story. I really don't understand how anyone would hold Google culpable for this.

How about this little artifact: Google AdSense for Parked Domains [google.com]

Re:OMGLOL!!!! bistbuy was slashdotted!!! (4, Informative)

grazzy (56382) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233340)

Whats _really_ funny is this;
https://www.google.com/adsense/policies [google.com]

Especially this:
# No Google ad or Google search box may be displayed on any domain parking websites, pop-ups, pop-unders, or in any email.

Do no evil, do not put adsense on parked domains.. err, no, wait.

Re:OMGLOL!!!! bistbuy was slashdotted!!! (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233305)

I don't know what's funnier here... a website so crappy that it can't even run scripts to make Adsense survive a slashdotting, or the fact that slashdotters all went to go see a big ol' page of blank forgetting that Firefox was already blocking all of that nonsense (and typing it in manually at that).

salshdot.org (4, Informative)

hankwang (413283) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233062)

Just tried some misspellings of slashdot.org...
  • salshdot [salshdot.org] has a frame redirect to slashdot. Does not seem to be affiliated.
  • .com [slashdot.com] redirects to .org.
  • slsahdot [slsahdot.org] is a misspelling counter. :-)
  • lsashdot.org, slashodt.org, slashdto.org, slashdot.net, slashdot.info, slshdot.org slshdot.org, slahdot.org, slasdot.org, slashot.org, slashdt.org, slashdo.org, salshdot.com - these are all typosquatters.
  • slashdot.biz - is registered but hasn't even a domain parking site
  • Typosquatters pay attention: slashdot.eu is not yet taken!

Obligatory (5, Funny)

Fruny (194844) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233248)

* Typosquatters pay attention: slashdot.eu is not yet taken!
In the European Union, typosquatter slashdot.eu.

Re:salshdot.org (1)

stedo (855834) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233280)

You know, thanks to you and the Slashdot Effect, the slsahdot misspelling graphs show a record high...

Wasting people's time (4, Insightful)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233067)

I think the biggest problem with typo-sqauatting and the nastier problem(for web developers) of domain-squatting is that it wastes people's time. It's like traffic when you're on the highway. Wouldn't it be great if you could just make traffic illegal one day? I understand the problem...how can you tell if someone is typo-squatting or doing an original website?

It's actually quite easy. It should be based on content. If all you see is a list of search categories and lots of ads, it's typo-squatting. If you see original articles and compelling content, it's legit.

Re:Wasting people's time (3, Funny)

wik (10258) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233187)

> It should be based on content. If all you see is a list of search categories and lots of ads, it's typo-squatting.

Zonk [slashdot.org] would beg to differ with you.

BistBuy.com? (3, Informative)

NynexNinja (379583) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233073)

Hmm... bistbuy.com doesnt resolve. Also, the only reference on archive.org from bistbuy.com was in Apr 06, 2004: http://web.archive.org/web/20040406094329/http://w ww.bistbuy.com/ [archive.org] ... Not sure where they are getting their information from... Their two other examples, rearthlink.net and dearthlink.net, also don't resolve. At least their pages at archive.org offer a little more evidence: http://web.archive.org/web/20040331061435/http://w ww.dearthlink.net/ [archive.org]

Possible motivation (2, Interesting)

Rufus211 (221883) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233077)

This could be an instance of "if you can't beat them, join them." There's going to be typosquatting no matter what. Since it's not going away Google might as well a) make some money off of it, and b) know where all these fake sites are to remove them from their listings.

Not saying it's the right thing to do, just an idea.

Confusion between "evil" and profit (3, Insightful)

9mm Censor (705379) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233096)

I feel that people are confusing "evil" with profit. Google went public. Google is a business. Google now aims (moreso at least) to generate profit for its owners. But doing something that makes money for a company does not make it evil? Who does this hurt?

Re:Confusion between "evil" and profit (4, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233229)

I feel that people are confusing "evil" with profit. Google went public. Google is a business. Google now aims (moreso at least) to generate profit for its owners. But doing something that makes money for a company does not make it evil? Who does this hurt?

Answer me that question once you go to a drugstore on Sunday morning, and you're tying to get rid of that hangover before doing your Sunday church appearance. With a splitting headache, then go to the pain relief isle, but B4Y3R aspirin, that looks just like BAYER aspirin minus the chemicals that relieve pain. But, you forgive the company because its now owned by Google and they owe it to their stockholders to put such products on the shelf.

Why is it that common sense and reality go out the window when a computer is involved (patent pending)?

Things with direct analogies to life like email forwarding vs snail mail forwarding don't make sense to people, but things like popup/under advertisements and typosquating makes sense. In the future, will businesses open on 212 Madison Ave when a known company is at 212 Madison St just in case someone gets lost?

Reminds me of when the only people that really profited off of the gold rush were shovel salesmen and prostitutes.

Google isn't putting up the sites . . (1)

moultano (714440) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233289)

They are just serving them ads.

Answer me that question once you go to a drugstore on Sunday morning, and you're tying to get rid of that hangover before doing your Sunday church appearance. With a splitting headache, then go to the pain relief isle, but B4Y3R aspirin, that looks just like BAYER aspirin minus the chemicals that relieve pain. But, you forgive the company because its now owned by Google and they owe it to their stockholders to put such products on the shelf.

Allow me to fix your analogy. The company printing the labels on the fraudulent bottles is now owned by Google. Saying that they are culpable in all of this seems like quite a bit of a stretch.

Re:Google isn't putting up the sites . . (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233368)

Umm...Google is EVIL in regards to this. When you sign up for adsense, they make a BIG stink over you having legitimate content. They claim to check your sites. Yes, once approved you can add to any number of sites...but they have all this RULES regarding where and how ads can be placed. They tell operators of legitimate sites that ads cant be placed on pages that showup when you log out. Yet, a spam scrapper squatting site is OK. This IS evil. Greed generally leads to being evil. There is no way they DONT know about this. You better believe if a label printing company WILLFULLY AND KNOWLEDGEABLY participate in such a scam that they would be held accountable as well.

Google isn't 'good'. They want there cash and via adsense they are supporting cybersquatters and that is disgusting and evil.

Re:Confusion between "evil" and profit (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233290)

Why is it that common sense and reality go out the window when a computer is involved (patent pending)?

Slashbots worship Google. Always have. Possibly they always will.

Re:Confusion between "evil" and profit (1)

9mm Censor (705379) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233350)

Your asprin analogy is stupid. Step by step of what this is: 1) Bob wants to go to website xyz.com 2) Bob types "xyx.com" 3) Company Mega owns "xyx.com" because it knows people like bob cant type 4) Bob sees website xyx.com with some advertizements (to this point bob has not be cohersed, defrauded, or robbed - he has made a mistake and gone to a different site where he gets ads - company xyx did not make him go there, he had control) 5) Bob can either click on an ad if they interest him, or retry going to xyz.com 6) Company Mega potentially profits by giving Bob alternatives to xyz.com End results for all parties envolved Company Mega makes profit Company Mega's clients get exposure Bob gets more choice - Bob isn't being led to belive that xyx.com is xyz.com - that would not be good. Xyz.com either is good enough to make Bob retype the url, or potentially loses business to a site bob saw on xyx.com Only person that can lose here is the owner of xyz.com, and they can arrange to have traffic lead to them if they so choose.

Re:Confusion between "evil" and profit (2)

PatTheGreat (956344) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233287)

Actually, Google doesn't try to make money for its owners. It may have gone public, but the way the stock is set up, the profits aren't split. The only reason to buy Google stock is in order to sell Google stock.

So I guess what Google tries to do is whatever the hell it feels like.

Re:Confusion between "evil" and profit (1)

9mm Censor (705379) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233358)

Yes, but no one is going to buy stocks from a company that doesn't make money. However they do it, corparations goals are to make money.

Millions? (3, Insightful)

jamesmacaulay (875797) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233122)

The article claims a vague "millions" of dollars at stake, but I'd be interested to know the actual numbers: I know that when I find myself at one of these pages, I am least likely to click on an ad.

Reporter needs more research (2, Informative)

radiogeak (642228) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233130)

I think the reporter needs to do a little more research. If your a company who advertises on google, you have control over what kinds of searches match your add. If you find that a certain search term brings up your company more then you'd like, you can simply append a "-[search term]" to your access control list. Problem solved. The reporter uses BistBuy.com as a example. Could Best Buy be heading this report? Maybe Best Buy has some incompitent employees? Nooo, couldn't be ;)

any minute now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233133)

how long till someone writes an entire essay now defending Google and showing how this practise is actually advancing world peace and giving the oppressed a new weapon to fight for their freedom?

This is like real estate (3, Interesting)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233141)

If they don't do anything illegal with their site, it should be their right to whatever name they want. Are you going to tell me that no one can open a restaurant near a McDonalds? It's the same deal. It may feel shady. Some may be shady, but it is only fair as long as they are not stealing or commiting other crime with it.

It's a logical progression of this thought that allows corporations to force people off their legal sites because they have the same name. You don't like EToy suing etoy? Deal with the "typosquatters."

Re:This is like real estate (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233209)

It's not like opening a restaurant near McDonald's, it's like opening a restaurant near McDonald's and naming it MacDonald's and hoping people won't know the difference.

Re:This is like real estate (1)

MythoBeast (54294) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233313)

It's not like opening a restaurant near McDonald's, it's like opening a restaurant near McDonald's and naming it MacDonald's and hoping people won't know the difference.

Um, no. It's like opening a store next to McDonalds (with the golden arches) named MacDonalds (with big green letters on a blue background) and selling lawn and garden supplies. This is only illegal if they also swipe the look and feel of McDonald's logos, such as to encourage people to think that they are in some way affiliated with the fast food company.

It is an extremely rare occasion when people look at a typosquatting site and confuse it with the site that they thought they were looking for. They're pretty obvious. Unless they make some attempt to emulate the typo'd site, then they're not fooling anyone, and they're not doing anything illegal, immoral, or even vaguely in bad taste.

I think I'm going to invent a new term. Googlesniping: trying to convince the world that something is suddenly evil simply because Google has started doing it.

Names, not real-estate (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233226)

Are you going to tell me that no one can open a restaurant near a McDonalds? It's the same deal.
We're talking name recognition here. And as it happens, you picked the perfect example of that issue: when was the last time you saw a restaurant, other than McDonalds, that had "Mc" or "Mac" in its name? McDonalds claims that any such operation is "potentially confusing" with theirs. You might claim that they're abusing the law, and if you did I'd agree with you. But the fact remains that nobody finds it worthwhile to defy them on this point.

They same principle applies to domain names. So don't start a web site that has anything to do with the restaurant business called "McDanolds.com" — you'll get a cease-and-desist letter faster than you can say, "your french fries suck".

Re:This is like real estate (1)

mindstormpt (728974) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233319)

I fully agree with you, every one should have the right to register any domain they want, at least those not exactly equal to a trademarked name. That being said, I believe the right analogy would be someone opening a store near McDonalds and naming it McDonalsd.

Another idiocy of DNS (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233147)

First, there was the highly enlightening 404, if there was a resolution at all. Then there was the typosquatters. My fav was Micros0ft.com.

But all of those are better than intercepts, which are surprisingly common these days in 'walled gardens'. I'll take a squatter, and if google can make some $$ on them, so much the better.

DNS is primitive, insecure, rife for diddling, and as goofy as SMTP. Yes, these were all good in their day. And yes, they were made out of brittle plastic, not visionary armor. So, google makes a few bucks. Ho fracking hum. More power to them. If I get a wrong phone #, does someone give me a list of alternatives? No, but they're often helpful as in "oh, that's a 6 not a 9" or something. With DNS you get a squat, not found, or a typosquat. How droll.

let them waste money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233153)

Frankly, I don't care who advertises on sites I don't visit. I navigate using bookmarks, links, and autocompletion.

Fat Fingers (4, Insightful)

nickgrieve (87668) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233175)

Someone must have some big fat fingers if they hit the "i" when going for the "e"...

nit pick :)

Re:Fat Fingers (1)

Plunky (929104) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233359)

Yeah, uh.. Lesson 1.

place your hands on the keyboard now in the 'home' position, that is relaxed with your index fingers on the f and j buttons and the other fingers on the keys alongside. Feel the little dimple or whatever there is there. Caress it, yeah.

Now, use the longest finger on the left hand (whats that called, the 'fuck you' finger?) and extend it slightly until it sits on the top row. Thats right, its on the e button!

Now here is the clever bit.. Stretch the 'fuck you' finger of the right hand to the top row.. whaddya know! There is your i, don't poke your finger in it.

Its quite common for beginner touch typists to use the wrong hand..

Now you know... (2, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233197)

Now you know why Microsoft is working hard on a set of tools that prevent typosquatting.

However in this case, Google is pretty obviously doing *evil* by the very definition of the word, and that definitely speaks bad of it.

Google specifically has tools and offers for filling vacant domains with ads... WHO would use that except domains of generic words and typosquatters? No excuses this time, Google.

Re:Now you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233352)

How is this evil? Not everyone who has a parked domain is typosquatting. There are thousands of parked domains for names that are products that might come, or have been canceled. You're a dolt. Google takes the ads down on pages that aren't infringing on any law, but still generate a complaint by a trademark holder. Go back to redmond, you troll.

Maybe a software solution? (4, Interesting)

dominion (3153) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233206)

Has anybody thought to add a feature to firefox (or maybe an extension) whereby if a user misspells a domain name, it gives the option to correct the spelling?

Re:Maybe a software solution? (1)

Multivitavim (957111) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233257)

I'm sure Microsoft is working on that:

Dialog Box: "You seem to have mistakenly entered the URL for %site_critical_of_microsoft% when surely you meant http://live.com/ [live.com] therefore your browser session has been hijac^H^H^H^H^Hhelpfully redirected."

Re:Maybe a software solution? (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233300)

How do you define "misspelled"? It may be obvious to you that "bistbuy.com" is phony, but to a browser it's just another — valid — domain name.

Re:Maybe a software solution? (3, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233309)

How do you determine what's a mistake and what's a legitimate domain? I don't want my browser to go to flicker.com when I typed flickr.com, and I don't want my browser to go to dig.com when I typed digg.com.

Re:Maybe a software solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233367)

How do you determine what's a mistake and what's a legitimate domain? I don't want my browser to go to flicker.com when I typed flickr.com, and I don't want my browser to go to dig.com when I typed digg.com.

Good question. How about if the browser doesn't come with any preconceived notions of what is a mistake and what is legitimate? It could be based on (a) how recently you have visited, say, slashdot.org as opposed to slashdto.org, and (b) how many pages you've visited at either site. If neither is a clear preference, then go with what the user typed. If the user appears to have typed the wrong thing, don't redirect him/her automatically, but pop up a window "did you mean http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]?"

Keep in mind, people don't often type in the URLs of pages they've never been to before.

One more reason to Google and forget the URL (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233216)

Seriously, if you misspell, Google will spot it and suggest the right spelling and URL in most cases. Why bother typing in the URL?

Beyond that, isn't it time that web browsers reached the point where they could spot and fix obvious typing errors like "ww" instead of "www" or missing periods like "wwwbestbuy.com" instead of "www.bestbuy.com?"

Surely this would be an easy and useful improvement.

Re:One more reason to Google and forget the URL (1)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233386)

I'm right there with you on this - and if I hadn't replied, I'd have modded you up ;-) I don't see why Firefox can't look for say wwwsomesite.com first, then if nothing, try www.somesite.com. Same with the ww. typos. I'll sometimes bang in a URL too quickly and typo like that, then realise and click on the URL bar - which in Firefox hilights the whole URL, annoyingly, then click again, then the browser tells me it can't find the site and resets the caret to the end of the damned URL as I'm typing!

I know, I should hit the stop button, but I always try to beat the browser (page not found) for some reason even I can't understand!

Ahem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233231)

This new form of advertising is turning into a booming business that some say is cluttering the Internet and could be violating trademark rules. Ahem... add to that 1- confusing internet users 2- shifting revenue from acutal sites that employ people, to some black hole looking to suck more clicks in. ...oh wait nevermind, Google is the best in the world, and they are my master, and I love Gooooogle sooooo much. OMG Ponies!!!

Trademark confusion (3, Interesting)

jdwclemson (953895) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233233)

One of the biggest problems with the internet and legal issues like this is that lack of ability for people to use analogy to see how inconsistant the laws and regulations can be. Imagine if everytime a new book came out, somebody put out a crappy one with an almost identical name. Go to the book store to get a present for your mother and you come back with "The DiVinco Code". Such there are lots of weasels who would clain they are not the same, but clearly this is a NO value added knockoff. If somebody wants to create sites that show advertisements, they should either pay advertising for other web sites, or add value in a way that brings people in and spreads the word. Not only is the networking traffic created by this a loss, there is also the loss in time for those people who have to evaluate the squatter and determine if it is the desired site. Trademarks allow organizations to be referenced to, and develop a reputation. Think of companies like NewEgg, benchmarks like Anandtech, articles like Slashdot. If you tell people to visit slashdot for news on technology(like I have many times) it hurts Slashdot AND the viewer when they mistakingly go to slushdot, or sashdot and this devalues the ability of organizations to build a name based upon their trademarks. If my friends go to Neweg(by mistake) and gets faulty video card from a lousy organization, this hurts my friends, Newegg, and everybody else who is duped into making a purchase from an undeserving company. I realize that money will be a driving factor in this chaos, but I think it would be interesting if there was a project(maybe firefox or DNS based) where people could register all of the squatter scam sites and keep an updated database so that when such mistakes were made, the correction was made before any harm could be done. Anybody up for it?

Re:Trademark confusion (1)

MorderVonAllem (931645) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233260)

simple solution to typo-squatting...learning to splel. If people paid more attention to what they're doing this problem would solve itself

Re:Trademark confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233333)

The problem with a central database of squatter sites, like all such central registries, is that it provides a central point for censorship.

If a site is listed as a squatter, it'll be blocked/redirected even if it's a real site. It depends entirely upon the people who control the registry.

That said, a system might work if it didn't maintain a single database, but allowed _anyone_ to create and share a database. Each user would have to choose whom to trust and to what degree. The problem with this is still that browsers will come with default "trusted" settings, and most users will never change them (nor know they exist); effectively, you're back to square one, with the vast majority of users all trusting one central authority.

Perspectives (2, Interesting)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233235)

Google Inc., which runs the largest ad network on the Internet, is making millions of dollars a year by filling otherwise unused Web sites with ads.

Google [google.com] made 2.253 billion USD in one quarter. While the article was vague how many millions it really is, "millions" instead of "tens of millions" or "hundreds of millions" still seems like a drop in the bucket. It goes on to imply that it's quite a bit by quoting Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google:

Google won't disclose how much revenue it is earning from ads on these types of sites, but chief executive Eric Schmidt said in an interview last week, "It's a lot of money."

Did he mean that Google makes a lot of money from ads in general or from ads on typo sites? I can't tell because the article doesn't give me the source of that quote. However, I find it doubtful that Schmidt would be so explicit about Google making money off of typos, even if they did.

In any case, the issue is not as clean-cut as the article implies. Whose responsibility is it to police trademark infringements? Hasn't it always been the holder of the trademark? Google making money off of it does suggest some kind of responsbility on their part as well though. However, Google does provide an avenue for these people to complain and have the affliates delisted from their ad program.

Summary didn't make this clear. (1)

moultano (714440) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233274)

Google isn't making the pages itself, it is just serving up the ads. As far as google is concerned, these pages are just like any other customers, except that (as stated in the article) google goes out of its way to remove sites from its ad program if there is a suspicion of trademark infringment.

Bistbuy? (2, Insightful)

Peyna (14792) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233281)

I'm sorry, but "Bistbuy" is not a "typo," it's a horrible and awful misspelling that a 3 year old wouldn't make.

is it really google? (1)

domeng24ph (466505) | more than 7 years ago | (#15233286)

could these be typosquatters that try to earn money by putting in google adsense [google.com] and not google directly? has the author of the article checked the "ownership" of those domains?

oops! missed one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15233372)

googlr.com redirects to google
googlw.com redirects to google
gppgle.com redirects to google
foofle.com redirects to google

hoohle.com:

What you need, when you need it. Hoohle provides all you need in the way of travel, entertainment, real estate listings, and especially adult entertainment. Specializes in Female ejaculation, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Hidden Cameras.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...