Beta
×

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 Adsense Cracking Down on 'Tasters'

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the can't-hurt-things dept.

Google 187

ZerothOfTheLaw writes "It appears that Google is going to eliminate Adsense for Domains for all domains younger than five days old. From the post 'The Good news is that the Quantity of advertising will be spread among fewer domains now and so those domain owners that actually own real full domains should receive more money if bid prices start to rise as a result of this. However some advocates of Domain Tasting say that perhaps no one will be able to serve the niche for some ads and no one will make money on the unserved ads.'"

cancel ×

187 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's a problem? (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193404)

However some advocates of Domain Tasting say that perhaps no one will be able to serve the niche for some ads and no one will make money on the unserved ads

Good. Advertising revenue is not something that anyone is entitled to receive. Show me a site with useful content supported with unobtrusive advertising and maybe you'll get my eyeballs for a while. What we don't need are more linkfarms.

Re:That's a problem? (1)

MacarooMac (1222684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193502)

You're on it - you just need to get a subscription though ;)

Re:That's a problem? (4, Funny)

STrinity (723872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193892)

Slashdot has ads? One of these days I need to disable Privoxy, Adblock, and my Hosts file and browse the web like a normal person.

Re:That's a problem? (0, Redundant)

badran (973386) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194058)

Why would you want to do that?

Re:That's a problem? (5, Insightful)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195248)

Because $0.005 per page is too much to pay I guess. Seriously, just fucking subscribe if you don't want to see the ads. It's cheap, the layout works better and you're not freeloading.

Re:That's a problem? (5, Insightful)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194128)

Slashdot has ads? One of these days I need to disable Privoxy, Adblock, and my Hosts file and browse the web like a normal person.
For the last few weeks I thought there was a bug of some sort in Slashdot's fancy "New Discussion System". I'd expand an abbreviated post and there'd be this funny white space inserted between it and the next post, like there was an additional nested reply that wasn't getting displayed. It wasn't until I checked out something on Slashdot from a friend's computer that I realized that the blank space is supposed to contain a banner ad! Now I'm thinking I don't like their New Discussion System so much.

Re:That's a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22194240)

Oh. So that's what that stupid space is.

Re:That's a problem? (2, Interesting)

ne0n (884282) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194362)

Well, that clears up they mystery for me too. Thanks!
New feature request for NoScript: CSS repair function to fix "missing" banner ads..

Re:That's a problem? (2)

chaosite (930734) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194462)

Its called greasemonkey.

Re:That's a problem? (4, Interesting)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194718)

Yup, same here.

I promptly switched off the "I'm willing to test the new discussion system" flag. If they implement it, I'll stop using Slashdot.

Suggestion - post to this thread if you think likewise, and we can take an opportunity to express displeasure at screwing up a discussion system due to an utterly misguided attempt at threading adverts in amongst our own posts.

Re:That's a problem? (4, Insightful)

coolGuyZak (844482) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195114)

I'd be careful. the last time I mentioned this, I was modded into oblivion.

In any case, it's severely obnoxious. I'm stunned that the admins/editors/whatever. could consider this idea worthwhile, given how often we rail against similar behavior on other sites.

Re:That's a problem? (4, Interesting)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195268)

I probably wouldn't mind the new discussion system so much if it weren't so broken on konqueror.

I'm sorry - I shouldn't need to use a specific web browser to view a particular website. Especially when my browser is one of the first to have been acid2 compliant...

Re:That's a problem? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22194772)

I just added div.inlinead { display: none; } to my user CSS file; took care of the whitespace problem!

Re:That's a problem? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22195158)

If you have Adblock+ installed you can add the following rule:

slashdot.org#div(inlinead)

Re:That's a problem? (1)

b1ad3runn3r (896115) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194864)

Holy cow! Thanks for letting me know. That stupid space is bothering me.

Re:That's a problem? (3, Interesting)

jaiyen (821972) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193574)

What we don't need are more linkfarms.

Indeed, but Google seems to actively support this kind of domain squatting - see http://www.google.com/domainpark/ [google.com] . Seriously, how does this 'service' they provide possibly fit into "don't be evil" ?

Re:That's a problem? (2, Insightful)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193646)

I have several domains that I've purchased, but they are currently only used for mail purposes. I did purchase them for actual use, but why not let me set up domain parking?
(minor note is that I haven't, partly because I don't think anyone will visit randomly, and even if they do, why the hell should the follow links)

Re:That's a problem? (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194224)

If you purchased them it's not a problem, and it's a 5 day "buffer" that the question is about.

The problem with "domain name tasting" is that domain names can get blocked and abused during the period. If all domain names had to be paid for then there would have been less problems with domain kidnapping...

Re:That's a problem? (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194514)

I was responding to jaiyen's disdainful remark about the Google Adsense Domain parking program, not the current developments.
I did, however, rebuff my own statement, as I then discovered that it's only available in bulk.

Re:That's a problem? (0, Redundant)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194806)

If you're using the domains, you're not domain parking. What's the problem?

Re:That's a problem? (2, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194852)

I have several domains that I've purchased, but they are currently only used for mail purposes. I did purchase them for actual use, but why not let me set up domain parking?

If they don't have any content, putting ads on them is totally parasitic. Which is good for you, you make money for nothing, but a waste of time for everyone who stumbles on your page.

But you knew that. If you don't care about ading more worthless crap to the world, fine.

Re:That's a problem? (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193664)

Sorry about double-replying, but I had only skimmed the page. I didn't spot this:

Partner with the industry's leading parked page service

Powering millions of domain names, Google AdSense for domains is the industry's premier parked page service. Google is seeking new partnerships with large domain portfolios owners.
Disregard my above comment.

Re:That's a problem? (1)

oncehour (744756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193710)

Do you honestly find domain parking to be evil? It may not be classy and domain squatters tend to piss me off but I still wouldn't classify it as evil. The problem isn't so much the squatters as the idiots that actually click ads through squatted domains and the registrars that allow "tasting" to begin with. Google isn't the only player in the industry as far as Domain Squatting goes and thus them not being in the market doesn't really stop it, it just limits the amount of competition.

If you care so mch about domain squatting then come up with ideas to deal with it. Perhaps a Firefox plugin that auto-removes flagged squatted domains from search listings or an article with practical tips on how to combat domain squatting and what Google and other content monetizers can do to curb squatting, increase useful content, and increase their bottom line. These people aren't evil and they also don't share your utopian ideals about the way things "should be". What they do listen to though is money and tips on how to gain money. I've found the best way to push Open Source, Open Content and other methodologies is to show businesses how being nice and open benefits them.

For more info on how to do that, check out my Internet Marketing Blog [dynamicmar...utions.com] .

Remind me again who owns Oingo? (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193724)

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Since Google already has all of their squatter domains established, they won't be bothered by the five day rule. And now they won't have to share that pot of ad revenue with a bigger group of people.

Re:That's a problem? (5, Interesting)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194084)

How bout this, Virtual tasting. You can have adsence ads for the 5 days, BUT you don't receive any real money and the advertisers aren't charged. This way you can know how successful the domain might be, without occurring actual ad revenue.

Re:That's a problem? (1)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194246)

I concur, ScrewMaster. Those same linkfarms are very often the ultimate target of massive spam runs, which is why various attempts to identify recently-registered domains and deny all mail from them until they're N days old (N > 5, with various experiments choosing other values) have been made.

In my own research, I've frequently noticed that spam source or spam target domains often have been de-registered by the time I run a WHOIS lookup on them. Just about as often, I've noticed that their A records point to known linkfarms. So I see this as entirely good thing for everyone but the scammers, and I applaud Google for taking this step.

Now if we could just get ICANN to forbid this idiotic practice entirely, we could make even more progress.

It's a problem for Domainer Parasite Sites (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194884)

Ever notice how Slashdot articles on abuse of the DNS system or attempts to stop it are often on websites that serve the DNS abuser business? I can't tell for sure about domaintools.com, but it looks like they're mainly in business to support people who rent domain names for their advertising value rather than for their ability to indicate the content on a real site. It's possible that I'm mis-characterizing them, but their domain name sale and auction tools and a number of their blog articles look like they're serving the parasite market (just not necessarily the domain-taster part of it.)

Re:That's a problem? (1)

kidphoton (575170) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195216)

Where do linkfarms enter in? Those are sites that are redundantly linked to one another in order to fool a search engine, FYI . I see that like every other censor before you, you are the sole arbiter of what useful content is. I've never understood where the Slashdot crowd gets their sanctimonious zeal against web advertising. The world, or at least the human world, runs on commerce. And commerce is initiated by advertising. Even the most strident, hair-shirted, GPLed project has to advertise in order to attract a community to it. Your resume is advertising. Web based, non-popup advertising has to be the most innocuous form of advertising there is. No one is calling you up during dinner and asking you to buy their crap. No one is filling your mailbox with spam. You chose to go to the page with advertising on it. No one forced you or tricked you into going there. And if you don't like the content of that parked page, click away. How hard is that?

But don't claim that there's no valuable content there, because the value can easily be tallied in the bank account of the owner of that page. That money came from people who found that page valuable, because other people clicked thru and found that advertising valuable. And here's another harsh truth to face: the world doesn't revolve around you or me, or our ideas of what people should find valuable. Do you think that this conversation, or any conversation on slashdot has anywhere near the universal appeal, the value, of one parked page on http://candy.com/ [candy.com] ? If you do, you're dreaming.

There is no good content or bad content, there's just what's contained in the <body> tag. Anyone who says different is trying to play you.

Tasting parasites (5, Insightful)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193418)

I never quite understood the "tasting" concept. The vast majority of the people utilizing "tasting" are doing it for unscrupulous reasons. Anyone with a legitimate need for a domain is going to be willing to pay the going rate to actually register one.

Economic parasites (0, Redundant)

microbox (704317) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193462)

Tasters are economic parasites, pure and simple. Just like the biological kind, they exist because they can, and we can't really do much about it. Perhaps ICANN could, but it doesn't seem to be a top priority for them. I don't know why that is, but I assume its a mixture of greed and incompetence. I'm sure ICANN is either threatened legally, or are on the take themselves, or are simply clueless and think they have better things to do.

In short, just because something is obviously wrong with domain tasting doesn't mean that the world will change direction. It spins of its own accord.

Re:Tasting parasites (4, Informative)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193648)

Well, imagine that you're a company/person contracted to build a website for XYZ Company. You come up with a dozen or so potential domain names, 'tasting' them in order to make sure they're available(without tying them up for a full year, or spending the money to register them for a year). You then present the domain names to the company, which picks the one they like the best, maybe one other for a redirect. You then release the other four and call it a day.

Make sense that way. Abusers, of course, were not initially considered.

Re:Tasting parasites (1)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193748)

And the cost of a domain is what? 100 200 300 standard monetary units?

[or these days 1 2 or 3 standard monetary units]

where this comes in is spam websites, where someone is looking for concept x, and they find a junk site.

Cleverly done, you might accidentally click on a link, only to realize that it's a bogus cookie cutter bit of web spam.

oh my aching eyes.

Re:Tasting parasites (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193792)

Like I said, abuse not initially considered

As for cost, domain registration is considerably cheaper than it used to be.

Right now, services like google adsense can make 'tasting' profitable because it doesn't cost any money. If you simply make it cost more than what 5 days of ad revenue would likely generate, you'd kill it immediately.

And yes, I know and hate the spam websites.

Re:Tasting parasites (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22194254)

Get rid of domain tasting. Institute "domain trials", those cost say $10 each trial. The trial will last 5 days. After which the availability of the domain would go back to the general public. This would get rid of almost all nefarious purposes for domain "tasting" and create a solution where design companies can do exactly what they need to do.

They could go to their client and ask them how many domain name would you like to be presented with? 10? O.k. That'll be $100 added to your bill. How many domains do you really present to the client. I doubt its ever much more than 10. Doing whois lookups on domain names would be safe again, because the bad people are not going to spend $10 to "trial" a domain.

Most of that $10 fee (say 80%) would go ICANN't, only a part to the registrar. This would also help prevent those nefarious domain prospectors (all of which are nefarious), from becoming their own registrar (which some are) and "tasting" a domain for really cheap.

Then if you want to make the domain yours after the trial, it can be up the registrar if they want to apply part or all of that fee to the cost of registering the domain. Most probably wouldn't since they didn't get most of that fee. You could also bypass the trail fee altogether by just buying the domain, which would be the cheaper thing to do at some registrars. Which brings up another point. ICANN't should be able to stipulate that no domain should be registered for less than XXX amount or they should take a larger fee so those nefarious domain prospectors costs would go up from the $0.20 or $0.25 per domain to register it with ICANN't and it would stop or slow them down from just registering every domain under the sun.

Re:Tasting parasites (3, Insightful)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195086)

Get rid of domain tasting. Institute "domain trials", those cost say $10 each trial.

It costs $10 or less to register a domain.

Re:Tasting parasites (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193958)

if a standard monetary unit is 10 cents then yes, about 100 standard monetary units.

Re:Tasting parasites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22194104)

where this comes in is spam websites, where someone is looking for concept x, and they find a junk site.

Which is what Google Adsense for Domains [google.com] (the subject of this story) exists for - it's Google's platform for domain squatters.

Re:Tasting parasites (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22193768)

In this case, there should be the option to "conditionally" purchase a name. You get a 5 day grace period, but the name cannot be associated any DNS records.

This would give you the ability to grab the names for the client to consider, but not allow people to set up these link farms unless they actually shell out the money to outright purchase the name.

Re:Tasting parasites (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194780)

Well, imagine that you're a company/person contracted to build a website for XYZ Company. You come up with a dozen or so potential domain names, 'tasting' them in order to make sure they're available(without tying them up for a full year, or spending the money to register them for a year). You then present the domain names to the company, which picks the one they like the best, maybe one other for a redirect. You then release the other four and call it a day.
And if you didn't release the other four and had to buy them, the client would have spent an extra $40 -- cost of doing business. I fail to see the problem here.
 

Re:Tasting parasites (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194824)

So, implement tasting by having the domain registrar direct requests for 'reserved' names to a page that says something to the effect that 'There is an application pending for XYZ.com which will expire in N days'. Until the application is paid up, the name shouldn't resolve an address.

Re:Tasting parasites (2, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193726)

People are entitled to "Buyers Remorse" in a good chunk of the world. Aside from that, if they change their mind about an online purchase inside of a couple of days, they often utilize the facilities their credit card companies give them to cancel the payment, which incurs significant cost to the seller.

If you don't give purchasers the ability to cancel their order without cost when they changed their mind, it generally ends up costing you more than it's worth.

Re:Tasting parasites (1)

d7415 (1068500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193870)

Good point. My immediate reaction is "just cancel all their other domains and ban them" when they try to pull something like that, but no doubt they would find a way around such methods.

Which leaves us with blocking their incentive (which also won't work in the long term, but is a nice thought). Has anyone set up a DNS blocklist of link farms? Surely it must exist?

Re:Tasting parasites (1)

Drgnkght (449916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195316)

Not sure about a link farm list, but you might find the Day Old Bread [support-intelligence.com] list useful/interesting if you want to block domain tasters. I've never used it, so can't comment on its quality (or lack thereof). It appears to be intended for use by companies though.

Re:Tasting parasites (1)

Drgnkght (449916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195346)

Another page you might want to check out is Spam Links' [spamlinks.net] page of DNS blacklists. (Sorry, forgot to include this in my previous post.)

Re:Tasting parasites (2, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193906)

People are entitled to "Buyers Remorse" in a good chunk of the world. Aside from that, if they change their mind about an online purchase inside of a couple of days, they often utilize the facilities their credit card companies give them to cancel the payment, which incurs significant cost to the seller.

If you don't give purchasers the ability to cancel their order without cost when they changed their mind, it generally ends up costing you more than it's worth.

Come off it - we're not talking people buying something retail here - we're talking domain names. Buy it because you want it or need it. Don't like it after a week -sell it. This whole "domain tasting" bullshit has to end.

Try returning that losing lottery ticket the day after the draw. "Buyer's remorse"? Are you fucking kidding? Try returning your big mac an hour later. Try returning your custom-made whatever (and all domain names are custom - by definition, no two are alike).

Re:Tasting parasites (2)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194702)

Come off it - we're not talking people buying something retail here - we're talking domain names. Buy it because you want it or need it. Don't like it after a week -sell it. This whole "domain tasting" bullshit has to end.

Try returning that losing lottery ticket the day after the draw. "Buyer's remorse"? Are you fucking kidding? Try returning your big mac an hour later. Try returning your custom-made whatever (and all domain names are custom - by definition, no two are alike).


Yeah, well, try telling that to your online payment processor. See how quickly their risk management team disconnects your account.

Re:Tasting parasites (4, Funny)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194868)

Way to ignore his points. On another note, tomorrow I'm off to buy lottery tickets with my credit card.

Re:Tasting parasites (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195136)

Way to ignore his points. On another note, tomorrow I'm off to buy lottery tickets with my credit card.

He didn't have any points. He ranted about how stupid he thought everything was and compared registering a domain name with buying a lottery ticket. It's a moronic argument, because a lottery ticket is a consumable item, while domain name registration is a long term service agreement.

Re:Tasting parasites (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194834)

Bad analogy.

If someone else buys a particular lottery ticket before you, you can still buy the exact same numbers yourself. If you don't register a free domain name when you see it, however, you might find it gone by the time you get budget approval or whatever.

Re:Tasting parasites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22194142)

Vast majority? How about every single one of them. I see, nor have I read or heard of any good argument for domain tasting other than for domain prospectors looking to make a buck from a domain name, not from providing actual, quality content. Domains should be made to be worthless, it's the content that's of value.

Re:Tasting parasites (2, Insightful)

ArikTheRed (865776) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195190)

It's hardly a terrible thing. These people make money because there are currently vast inefficiencies in the advertising market. As long as there is money to be made people will do it, forcing companies like Google to close up the holes, either making their process more efficient in the mean time - or creating a new, possible legitimate, market. It amazes me how - when it comes to political articles - it seems the majority of Slashdoters are Libertarian Anarchocapitalists - yet when something like this comes up (a valid response to economic pressures), I read nothing but bashing the "parasites" for being "unscrupulous". That's what happens in an open economy, folks.

Domain Tasting? (4, Funny)

El Torico (732160) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193432)

Mod me off-topic, but sometimes the English language takes a surreal turn - Domain Tasting? Does .mil have a metallic, cordite taste while .com is a cornucopia of flavors?

Larry, Sergey (2, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193472)

If your spam filter hadn't worked so well, you'd have seen the offer to sell you something to help you with that ageusia [wikipedia.org] problem.
You really should upgrade to Hotmail, so we can do a better job of serving you.

Re:Domain Tasting? (0)

MacarooMac (1222684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193572)

Heheh. This w/end we're all driving down to Silicon Valley for some Domain Tasting!

Would have thought .mil would taste more like that white stuff you put on your breakie cereal?

Re:Domain Tasting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22193662)

while .com is a cornucopia of flavors

I guess taste a particular flavor kinda depends on where you take a bite from the .com TLD. I certainly would NOT want to taste any portion from the gooey pOrn part. Aside from that, I don't think there's much differentiation between the other parts. Overall, I think tastes like chicken.

Re:Domain Tasting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22193732)

I dread to think what 2girls1cup.com tastes like.

Re:Domain Tasting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22194720)

NSFW
TWMYB (Totally want to make you barf)!

Google Spam (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193476)

It'll never happen, because there is no way Google would do anything to reduce it's revenue, but they really need to do something about Google Ad Spam on web pages. More and more web sites have more Google Ad 'content' than real, useful information. First there was email spam, now we have Google Spam. Blah.

Re:Google Spam (2, Informative)

Sigma 7 (266129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193670)

It'll never happen, because there is no way Google would do anything to reduce it's revenue, but they really need to do something about Google Ad Spam on web pages.
Domain name tasters don't pay google to have ads displayed - they get paid by google.

As an example, we'll say that NetworkDNS registers a domain name that you look up. When you attempt to register from GoDaddy, you find it's been snatched up. When the 10 people that visit the site look at the page, Google pays NetworkDNS for showing these 10 ads while NetworkDNS pays nothing for tasting a registration. These 10 people are not going to follow links as most normal people can recognize a taster/pseudo-site page instantly - the result is that the ad impressions are weakened and the persons advertising don't get as much impact from advertisements that they should (as opposed to the real advertisements that you might see at the top of the page.)

Let's take this a step further - instead of NetworkDNS doing registration, you have 419-scammers entering in new territory. They use third-party credit cards to fund the 5-day taste, make money from ads (or possibly transferring) within the five days, and the registrars get hit with a chrageback.

More and more web sites have more Google Ad 'content' than real, useful information.
Unless you encounter those sites by searching, don't visit them. Problem solved.

Re:Google Spam (3, Informative)

EVil Lawyer (947367) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193862)

Um, you're kind of wrong about a couple of points. Google doesn't pay the site owner for "displaying" ads, it pays them when and only when someone actually clicks on those ads. Second, Google is, in a certain sense, "paid" by the domain name tasters, to the extent that the ad clicks generated by the tasting domains only exist as a result of someone tasting that domain: Google gets a certain amount, $X from the advertiser, whenever someone clicks on an advertiser's ad, and then pays $X-Y to the person who owns the page where the ad was displayed. So Google in effect is "paid" $Y by the domain tasters, in the sense that that click was only possible as a result of the page existing.

Re:Google Spam (1)

datadigger (1014733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194444)

Google doesn't pay the site owner for "displaying" ads, it pays them when and only when someone actually clicks on those ads.
The sites visitors don't necessarily have to click the ad. They only need to have an accelerator installed which preloads all hyperlinked pages regardless of whether they will click the links later or not.

Re:Google Spam (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194808)

The sites visitors don't necessarily have to click the ad. They only need to have an accelerator installed which preloads all hyperlinked pages regardless of whether they will click the links later or not.
Do you have evidence that accelerators do that for third party domains? If you're browsing foo.com, I can see it preloading foo.com/products and foo.com/support... but preloading http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk [googlesyndication.com] ...? If so, that kind of software would be costing advertisers millions.
 

Money flows both ways - Ads cost, Parking Pays (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194628)

Google makes money from advertising by charging you money for showing ads, at least if people click on them.


Google shows ads on pages that include Google Adsense banners, so if you can get somebody to look at your web page and click on the ads, Google pays you. Domainer Parasites do this by buying or tasting plausible-sounding names and putting up ad banner pages, usually with no real content, and domain parking services will do the work of implementing them if you don't want to serve them yourself. Domain Tasters kite names by registering them and then returning them during the 5-day grace period, so that they get to collect ad revenue on their parked pages without having even paid for the page, though if the page is going to pay more than the $6/year domain name fee they'll generally buy it and keep it.


If Google stops paying for kited pages, domain taster parasites are going to have to use other advertising services, which are often less convenient or don't pay as much. A big difference is that Google's advertising is usually topical enough that people are more likely to click through, as opposed to more random. Once they've had the domain long enough to actually pay for it, they can switch to Google, but at least it'll cut down on some of the kiting.

Breaking news / short term fads (1)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193484)

What will this do for sites that spring up around pop culture memes, breaking news and other immediate items?
 

Re:Breaking news / short term fads (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193552)

Oh no. The fad will have to last 5 whole days before they can use Google Adwords. The Horror.

Re:Breaking news / short term fads (1)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193576)

It means it'll take 5 days for them to make any money from Google. Rightly so - anyone trying to cash in on a meme THAT quickly? (Under 5 days?) Real memes stick. Google's just attacking their weak point for massive damage.

Re:Breaking news / short term fads (0, Offtopic)

MacarooMac (1222684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193770)

Google's just attacking their weak point for massive damage.
+5 Damage for a two-footed Domain "Trailer" Park lunge to the brain.

Re:Breaking news / short term fads (1)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193640)

Is the ability to "taste" http://www.brittneyinrehabagainhaha.com/ [brittneyin...inhaha.com] truly a compelling reason to create a flea market for con artists?

Target audience (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193492)

The whole idea of advertisement is to reach as many people as possible, how can you say that not having the ability to post on any billboard is a good thing?

More over from a business standpoint by one company turning down a new site which has the potential of becoming an old site, the new site will have to goto another ad company to bring in revenue, won't doing this make it more difficult to bring in the 'diamond in the rough'? Don't most companies/sites start off new?

The internet is far from static, even old companies/sites can/will loose the ability to become effective 'billboards'. The beautiful thing about it is many new sites will spring up in its place, why does it make so much sense to ignore these sites?

'new' is one thing, 'five days' another. (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193520)

Any real site is going to need more than five days just to get content developed, scripts written, yadda yadda yadda. Sure, everyone may "start off new" -- but that's not to say that they're ready to earn revenue from day one.

Re:Target audience (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193530)

Sorry for the bad comment, coffee didn't kick in yet. I was commenting on my misinterpretation that it was 5 years not days.

Why is Domain Tasting "Evil" (4, Insightful)

webword (82711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193498)

Why is is evil? Well, domain tasters [wikipedia.org] are folks trying to capitalize on traffic they don't really own. That's kind of hard to understand but you have to understand the definition of domain tasting to full grasp that.

This should also help understand the "evil" behind the practice...

"In January 2007, VeriSign said that among the top 10 domain registrars, 95% of all deleted .com and .net domain names were the result of domain tasting." (Information Week [informationweek.com] )

Google's doing this to protect users who get to these sites on accident. I guess it's good for everyone.

Re:Why is Domain Tasting "Evil" (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193752)

Google's doing this to protect users who get to these sites on accident. I guess it's good for everyone.

I think it's good for Google's self-interest. It's nice that it helps us in the end, but let's not fool ourselves that they are doing it for our sake.

I'm really surprised that the domain registrar system has allowed this practice to go on. I think maybe they should allow a return or two, but this wholesale "tasting" helps no one but the parasites.

I think it's also bad faith to allow the registrars to sell domain inquiries to allow this kind of individual to snipe domains from interested buyers, but that does benefit the registrar too, I don't know how that can be remedied within the registrar system other than to publicize who does that.

Re:Why is Domain Tasting "Evil" (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194818)

Some registrars apparently benefit from it, probably from domain parking services that they provide along with the names or whatever other fees they charge in addition to the $6 ICANN price. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them doing it, since it costs them not only the relatively minimal cost of handling transactions but also the cost of capital on the $6/year for the domains they're kiting (though obviously that's only 5/365th of the cost each time, so it's still not much.)


It's easy to remedy it - ICANN just has to stop requiring that the Registry handle those transactions for free; any non-zero cost will help the problem.


And yeah, it's in Google's self-interest. They still get the advertising revenue if anybody's using their ads, they just don't pay the page-owners on it, so legitimate domain name users won't decrease their revenues much, and there'll be fewer content-free pages attracting suckers, so the pages that Google serves up are more likely to get actual useful results. It's possible that they'll lose a bit of revenue, but it's really bottom-feeders.


Another way it's in Google's self-interest is that by reducing the number of content-free domains on the web, there's less trash for their web-search service to crawl through and index.

Re:Why is Domain Tasting "Evil" (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195280)

It doesn't take Google's spider very long to crawl through a content-free domain.

Re:Why is Domain Tasting "Evil" (1)

mpcooke3 (306161) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194010)

Google's doing this to protect users who get to these sites on accident. I guess it's good for everyone.

Surely the entire "Google for domains" service is primarily used by domain squatters and other people that aren't using the domains for anything worthwhile.

How exactly is a profit sharing system between domain Squatters and Google not evil? - Because if they didn't do it then someone else would?

I am waiting with anticipation for the next 'non-evil' use of adwords, maybe GoogleAds for Zombie Computers so that the russian gangsters can make a few quid popping up ads inbetween running DDOS attacks and spamming.

Re:Why is Domain Tasting "Evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22194014)

Well good for everyone as far as Google is concerned. This is nice of Google too because many advertisers would just take the profit (remember, Google gets money from this type of behavior too).

I don't see how this will solve the issue though. Most advertisers don't have a problem with it because it makes them money (albeit in a nefarious way).

Re:Why is Domain Tasting "Evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22194080)

I'm responding to the user's(webword) sig, whereby they link to a site about a free online business. I just wanted to warn people that this link is inducing people to becoming spammers. If anyone has any mod points, please downmod him so his post is not seen by people.

Re:Why is Domain Tasting "Evil" (1)

kidphoton (575170) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194594)

Owns traffic? Who the hell owns traffic? Traffic just is, like fish in the sea. Tasters are just trying to harvest as much traffic as they can by programmatically acquiring the best domains they can. The problem is when someone accidentally drops a domain and it ends up in the tasting churn for weeks or months. Or if tasters collude with registrars for preferential treatment in dropped domains. We would be better off if you had to eat the misspelled domains you register. No one makes that many mistakes a year, and the grace period cure is far worse than the disease. It's not evil, it's just a bad idea.

Capitalization (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193534)

Does Anyone else find the choice of Capitalized words in the summary Interesting?

They should close it down alltogether (4, Insightful)

broothal (186066) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193536)

For me, Google adsense for domains [google.com] is a scammers paradise anyway. How many hours haven't I wasted walking over "parked" domains trying to find a real domain. Let's face it - 99% of the "parked" domains aren't parked - they are purchased because people will visit them by mistake. It would be much faster if the domains simply didn't exist and as such wouldn't turn up in search results.

What do you want to do about it? (2, Insightful)

oncehour (744756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193778)

We're all nerds here, and this seems to be a real problem. What can we do about it? Can a Firefox plugin be made to weed out flagged squatted domains? Have you physically complained to Google either through email, written letter, or even in a blog posting/article? Or on the other end, perhaps we could evelop a software suite for parked domains that provides relevant information. Parked domains are annoying, but they'd be less annoying if they were still relevant.

It'd be kind of neat if accidentally typoing britenyspears.com brought up feeds with news on Britney Spears along with ads and other monetization schemes rather than just some boring Ad Directory that most are currently like. Anyway, my point is: If you hate this so much, why aren't you doing something about it? What can we do to stop it, or help to solve it? I don't imagine we can completely rule it out but there's bound to be plenty of ways we can weaken its hold. The world can't change unless you try to change it.

Re:What do you want to do about it? (4, Interesting)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193878)

I use the Firefox CustomizeGoogle [customizegoogle.com] plugin to filter linkfarms (e.g. *.info/*) and cloakers (e.g. experts exchange, O'Reilly Safari). I've no affiliation, just posting because this sounds like what you want.

Thanks! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194954)

That's exactly the functionality I've been looking for! I've always said Google should have a feature that allows you to block certain sites, Experts Exchange and BoardReader being the two that come to mind right off the bat.

Re:What do you want to do about it? (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194966)

I do something similar. Apart from for ExpertsExchange - Google Cache works nicely for that site :)

Re:They should close it down alltogether (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22194262)

Hear hear. Domain tasters == unscrupulous squatters. Fuck these douchebags, I hope Google lets them cry and rot, seeing as I rate them one rung below spammers on my list "jerks the internet could do without".

Oblig (4, Funny)

Trivial_Zeros (1058508) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193638)

Don't taste me, bro!

creators cracking DOWn on nazi execrable (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22193804)

let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Monetizing the bottom feeders (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193946)

I hope Google really does this. They need to, to restore their "don't be evil" reputation. Arguably, Google went over to the dark side when they started offering domain parking. [google.com] . "Maximize revenue on your parked pages with Google AdSense for domains", they advertise. (Insert Darth Vader quote here.)

"Domain tasting" is a drain on the anti-fraud systems of the Internet. All those domain changes help conceal phishing attacks, many of which involve buying domains with stolen credit cards and exploiting them before the credit card transaction is reversed. Blacklist systems like McAfee SiteAdvisor [www.siteadvisor] and PhishTank [phishtank.com] are always running behind the domain changes.

We rate sites at SiteTruth [sitetruth.com] , and all those domain changes are a headache for us. I'm considering taking the position that all domains less than 30 days old are junk, unless they have a good SSL certificate. Is that too severe, or a good idea? Comments?

Re:Monetizing the bottom feeders (1)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194206)

I'm considering taking the position that all domains less than 30 days old are junk, unless they have a good SSL certificate. Is that too severe, or a good idea? Comments?

Sounds like a good idea. The Domain tasting [wikipedia.org] article has a few interesting numbers on the amount of domains canceled within the 5 days grace period (after which the bastards re-register it for another 5 days). You really shouldn't want to handle those domains.

30 days would also rule out legit domains that suddenly get a lot of interest (via marketing or word-of-mouth). I'd say a compromise of ruling out all domains within 1-2 weeks would be fair, but that's just my 2 cents.

Re:Monetizing the bottom feeders (1)

vyrus128 (747164) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194398)

I would call it a great idea. If it's too harsh you can always tune the 30 days down to something lower. Also remember when looking for "good SSL certificates" to check the issuer, though I assume you are already doing that. Otherwise they can always self-sign one...

What's a "good SSL certificate" - the hard line (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194968)

By a "good SSL certificate", I mean one that identifies the business. SiteTruth ignores those "domain control only validated" "Instant SSL" certs. They don't certify much of anything, other than that an e-mail sent to the domain gets to the party that requested the certificate.

It's interesting to see the Web without the bottom-feeders. Most of the spam blogs, phishing sites, link farms, landing pages, directory pages, "affiliates", and related junk go away. What's left is either has a real business behind it, or is noncommercial and ad-free.

The basic criterion is "can we associate a real-world name and address with this business"? We have about five ways of finding the business behind the web site, including scanning the web site text for mailing addresses, and if all of them come up empty, they're toast.

Yes, some legitimate business sites are down-rated because we can't identify the business behind them. It's the responsibility of the web site operator to clearly identify the business behind the web site; in some jurisdictions, it's a criminal offense not to. If they don't, that's their problem. We provide some webmaster tools to help with technical issues in identification; there's no mystery about what's going on.

There's a problem with fake names and addresses, but that's a felony (wire fraud or identity theft), so it's rare. We check phishing databases for those.

The conventional wisdom is that these problems can't be solved. The conventional wisdom is wrong.

Google makes money by randomizing CTR behavoiur (1)

12357bd (686909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194088)

Millions of 'tasted' domains means extra processing for Google, I suppouse that's why they prefer to filter those domains, quite natural.

Wake me up when Google allows minimun CPC, that would be news.

What about redirects and frames (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22194114)

You only need 1 domain to display ads....

Nice try though. ;)

Domain kiting mainly (2, Informative)

kbahey (102895) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194488)

According to the CBC [www.cbc.ca] they are mainly targeting so called domain kiting (repeated tasting), which will impact tasting too.

Pointless (1, Interesting)

Aaron Isotton (958761) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194638)

This is totally pointless.

1. Register a domain A and pay for it
2. Wait 5 days
3. Put ads on it
4. "Taste" some domains
5. Put a redirector page from the tasted domains to domain A, or show the content of domain A in a frame
6. Profit!

Am I missing something here?

Too many people assume $5 domains (3, Interesting)

Evets (629327) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195160)

I think domain tasting has taken a turn over the years, but lets not forget why it was here in the first place.

These days, I have no idea how I would go about registering a domain without paying for it. I don't see the option readily available at any registrars that I work with (although, I personally stay away from the big guns like godaddy and network solutions). It seems to me that the people who are doing it tend to be those who want to park domains and put ads up temporarily - and frankly I am opposed to this - as it's nothing but spam.

Would getting rid of the tasting option get rid of these guys? No. It takes a minimal investment to create a certified registrar and at that point domain purchases are cheap enough that you can buy them in bulk at a price point that doesn't do much to preclude the web-spam business model.

But looking back at the reasons for this in the first place - one might want to register a domain, but not have the money to do it immediately. One might change their mind about a registration. Yeah, in the days of $5 and $10 domains, these points seem to lose a great deal of value, but there was a time when it would cost you more than $100 to register a domain. There was also a time when dictionary words and 3 letter domains were widely available because there was no market for commerce on the internet.

If a registrar were to make widely available the "pay in a week" model I certainly would not be opposed to it. If you want to attack the web-spam business model, I think you should do so directly - much like Google is doing.

The internets just ain't big enough, yet (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195212)

"However some advocates of Domain Tasting say that perhaps no one will be able to serve the niche for some ads and no one will make money on the unserved ads."

Yup. Those niches are going to go completely unserved. The internet just doesn't have enough websites to support the kind of content diversity necessary to serve all marketing niches.

There's FUD, and then there's just plain thinking people are dumber than a bag of hammers.

I've been tasted (1)

dufachi (973647) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195310)

Two of my former domains are being "tasted" repeatedly and both are now offering link farms. Neither had any reasonable traffic so I'm not entirely sure what makes them so delicious. It's very annoying truthfully. I'd originally registered them with anonymous registration and when I wanted to renew them, godaddy refused to allow me to not renew the anon without going to their anon service site and specifically requesting it's removal -- except I no longer had the customer id # after 3 years and a computer change. They wanted a fax with 3 pieces of ID (which would have cost me a cab trip for 20 bucks and the faxing charge) Decided it wasn't worth the hassle and let them expire.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?