What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
92 Comments
- broysox, on 01/25/2008, -3/+52most just taste like chicken anyways
- pipdip, on 01/25/2008, -2/+45It's awesome to see Google willing to lose a little ad revenue for a greater good. Obviously the domain squatters could use other services but I applaud Google for doing their part. Hopefully others will follow.
- karmajunkie, on 01/25/2008, -2/+31" If your making millions of dollars a month, then why don't they just keep the domain to keep the cash flow."
Because the only way they're able to make that amount of money is by using the domains for free during the grace period. They make money off the sheer volume of names registered. If they had to actually BUY the domains, they'd be in the hole hundreds of millions of dollars. - hudey123, on 01/25/2008, -3/+29This rocks. The people who build these schemes need to go out and get a real job, like me.
- pleeker, on 01/25/2008, -3/+27This would put a huge dent in the domain tasting biz for sure.
- CabanaBoy, on 01/25/2008, -0/+22Google should make it any domain < 30 days old. Advertisers like myself are pissed that our listings end up on these dead beat sites -- complete waste of ROI. Google will see 10x more advertising revenue from me if they can keep my ads off the taster and squatter scum sites.
- dondara, on 01/25/2008, -1/+16I have to say this is Google being less evil. Now if they just figure out how to really nuke all the blog spammers searching might just start working again.
- briankoenig03, on 01/25/2008, -1/+14Actually, it *will* kill it, at least for tasters relying on adsense income. This action won't stop people from capitalizing on typos, but that isn't what "domain tasting" is. With the 5-day wait in effect, you can no longer register a thousand domains, sign them up for AdSense, then on the fourth day keep the top-performing 10% and return the other 900 domains.
Now, if other ad providers don't follow suit, it'll just mean that tasters will move over to Y! ads or another competitor. But considering Yahoo's lawsuits, as the article cites, I'd be surprised if this doesn't become an industry-standard policy. - hyped, on 01/25/2008, -3/+13Negative. People taste domains to determine whether they will be able to make any money off of the domain. They keep the domains that make them money. Tasting eliminates much of the risk of domaining.
- mrmrok, on 01/25/2008, -1/+11This was so lame it made me laugh.
- l0ne, on 01/25/2008, -0/+10Not to ruin the mood, but I think that other ad services will follow suit if Google does it.
- undetected, on 01/25/2008, -4/+13Exactly. If I'm not making money off of it, others shouldn't either!
- davidrools, on 01/25/2008, -2/+9less THAN five days old
-your local grammar nazi - prOw5000, on 01/25/2008, -0/+7are unserved domains getting thrown in a dumpster behind chi chi's?
- usrlocalbin, on 01/25/2008, -3/+9my domain.
It has flavor - TheRollingRock, on 01/25/2008, -3/+9I'm sure other less scrupulous PPC engines would be more than happy to take Google's place by offering a similar service. Assuming it's true, this change by Google might not have such a dramatic effect on the sites and brands being exploited by the tasters.
- Llanowar, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6If you paid attention you would have noticed it got front page with around 30 diggs.
Besides that, who cares? It's not like it's one of the many lame articles. - Vektuz, on 01/26/2008, -0/+6Actually, it probably makes sense to do this.
Domain 'tasters' sit on a domain that gets them extremely-unlikely-to-click type bandwidth, rather than normal interested users, and they generally just spray hundreds of adverts up.
It saps the pocketbooks of advertisers, because its basically just gaming the system. If you're an advertiser and pay for 100,000 ads to be shown and 99,999 of them get shown in advert clickstorms that users just alt-f4 out of becuase they typed the wrong URL, you lose money fast.
Being able to tell your advertisers that your adverts are not affected by those sites are a good selling point. - HappyScrappy, on 01/25/2008, -3/+9So anyone who wants to monetize a tasted domain will just use another ad service.
- strictnein, on 01/25/2008, -1/+6And much of the cost.
- davidrools, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5For most tasters, it won't be profitable enough to keep a domain that you actually have to pay for. You would either have to have a reallllly popular typo like "gogle.com" or something (BTW google has gogle.com). And your 5 day free taste still won't guarantee revenues for a whole year of domain registration, so ad-parkers will ahve to adapt.
- spyrochaete, on 01/25/2008, -3/+8But it won't kill it. Misleading title. Domain tasting is still profitable to test for things like typos, which, if successful, will simply host a long-term AdSense site. Google is simply limiting AdSense to domains that are older than 5 days.
- Otto, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5Why don't they simply allow advertisers to specify that their ads should not be on these AdSense parking pages? Kill the whole thing instantly, since no advertiser wants his ads on pages that are a wasted investment.
- jasen, on 01/25/2008, -2/+7It's about time google did this, I hope all the other search engines follow suite.
- Firehed, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4Something hit the front page with 15 earlier. The algorithm changed - for the better IMO, as I'm getting a better variety of useless crap.
- strictnein, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4No apostrophes needed.
- sexybobo, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5It really makes sense for the other ad services to follow with google. I am willing to bet the people that buy ad's do not wont their ad's on sites like that.
- slymcfly, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4I think it will have a small effect and any effect is good by making it less profitable because I hate web squatters when you have a good idea and want to put it in place...it stops you when you can't find a decent name. It's a huge scam....
domain tasting is when you buy a domain then test it for the 5 day period and then get a refund and buy it again...it just stops people who really wants to do something good with the name. GOOGLE is GOOD! - Vektuz, on 01/26/2008, -0/+4Attilitus nailed this on the head. its actually better for the advertisers, to advertise on a network that isn't going to basically just throw all your impressions away on squatting click-storm generating throwaway sites.
- dofkex, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4i has a sad
- Attilitus, on 01/26/2008, -0/+4They are not doing it for the greater good, they are protecting the integrity of their ad service by eliminating common techniques which yield poor results for advertisers.
- battybattybatt, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5THere's another?
- Elliuotatar, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4Okay, but you'll have to register that domain through network solutions, cause I just searched it there which triggered their site to register the name so it can only be registered through them for god knows how long.
- Elliuotatar, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3Why do they even need google ads to do this? All they need is to look at the page hit count. If it gets a lot of hits, they keep it and then put ads on it after the five days is up. I don't see how this will do anything to reduce this problem.
What google should concentrate on is removing pages with lots of keywords which have nothing to do with eachother. It should not be hard for them to look at a page and determine that it is full of words with no grammatical relationship to one another.
I coded an algorithm for someone who wanted to make a Boggle-like game which went through a dictionary and found out the probability of any letter appearing next to any other letter, so that I could randomize a board and then replace letters with those more likely to form words with the other six letters around them. Google has the computer power and the database information where they could do this with words, and determine. Then a sentance with random words would be flagged because the probability of each word appearing next to each other would register for all the words as being low, and if the overall score is really low, then the sentance is likely just a collection of random words. Then they can remove that sentance on the website from their searches. - coldcarbon, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4Because, you don't have to pay for the domain but you get paid for the ad. so it's 100% profit.
How I understand it. - sexybobo, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4If I was paying for ads i would be pissed like i know a lot of people are if my ads were being displayed on these pages. All traffic is not the same. Google specializes in having advertising customized to the content on the page if there is no content then my ads are just randomly being displayed.
- spyrochaete, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3"The bloggers"? Are you implying that the people who write voluntarily are the ones with bad English? You'd think that exercise would only improve one's grammatical perspicacity. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your criticism. Not all bloggers are Englishly impaired.
- jsp123, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3All they have to do is a javascript redirect to an older domain... get rid of the referrer and show them adsense there.
- voyvf, on 01/26/2008, -0/+3Disclaimer: I know less than two ***** about adwords. Probably closer to one and a half *****, possibly less. I am, however, genuinely curious.
Is there a reason why the decision can't assist both the advertisers *and* the greater good? I don't know about most of you, but if I'm reading an article regarding, for example, programming, and an ad comes up for a book regarding the subject in question, I'm a) far more likely to buy that book and b) far less likely to use adblock when visiting that site. Is this normal?
Thanks in advance. :D - Ryosen, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Yes, I see what you did there. You got it completely wrong.
- HaltingPoint, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2Or you could, you know, disable the content network like most people do. Content network can be profitable if you have the right fit but its not for everyone.
- nonnald, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2removing any pages with the word "sentance" would be a good start
- ProDevStudio, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2I am all for it. but I would like to see ICANN do something more about. Rather then allowing a registrar dropping a domain within the Add Grace Period only allow them to correct the spelling mistakes because that's why the Add Grace Period was introduced in the first place. Only allow one change within the Add Grace Period. Everyone dropping a domain within the Add Grace Period should be charged a $1 fee if they drop the domain within the Add Grace Period. This would work in the best interest of everyone except the one exploiting the Add Grace Period.
- HappyScrappy, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Who cares? You only pay for clicks nowadays, not impressions.
- Elliuotatar, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2This doesn't make sense. Every damn domain I search for, no matter how obscure, seems to be taken. If domain tasters were buying and cancelling domains constantly, they would shortly run out of names to grab. Sure they could re-grab the same name, but a domain registrar would have to be pretty dumb to allow someone to reregister thousands of domains every week and then cancel them. So they must be making money at it, which means that the ad placers must be keeping the domains.
- Ryosen, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Last week's major market correction might have had something to do with it, too.
- inactive, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Web.com (formerly Interland) has been doing this practice for years.
- HappyScrappy, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Yeah, because they don't like money.
- Coolaborations, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Danny Sullivan has said that Google has contacted him and that they have said they will continue their advertising on domain names using "domain tasting" -- see http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Danny_Sullivan_says_ ...
- Tarnum, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2I think the speed of receiving diggs matters. If a story gets 100 diggs per minute, it is promoted to front page, or somethign like that.
Or the human editor on shift is a Gooogle fan. -
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is