Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Millions of Addresses, Thousands of Sites, One Business

Posted by Zonk on Mon May 28, 2007 06:11 AM
from the tentacles-everywhere dept.
The Internet Businesses
An anonymous reader writes "A New York Times piece looks at a rising power in the 'new internet bubble' that you may not have heard of before. The business, an outfit called NameMedia, has made a concerted effort to quietly purchase vast tracts of 'real estate' on the internet. The ultimate goal is to provide additional advertising and page views for content sites. 'Behind this suddenly active business category -- which includes companies like iREIT in Houston, Marchex in Seattle, and Demand Media in Santa Monica, Calif. -- is the recognition that not all Internet users turn to a search engine when they are confused about where to find something online. Rather, 5 percent to 10 percent of people will simply type in a name that sounds as if it might suit their needs. The so-called direct search or direct navigation approach is seldom fruitful for users, nor has it been particularly profitable for owners of the sites that they visit. An obscure Web address may have four or so visitors a month, and perhaps half will click on an ad.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Millions of Addresses, Thousands of Sites, One Business 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Uhmm.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:19AM (#19298735)
    I think I speak of everyone, when I say: WTF

  • Click Through Rate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by klingens (147173) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:20AM (#19298743)

    and perhaps half will click on an ad

    To which Devil did they sell their soul to get click through rates like that?

    • Re:Click Through Rate (Score:5, Funny)

      by suv4x4 (956391) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:25AM (#19298771)

      "and perhaps half will click on an ad"

      To which Devil did they sell their soul to get click through rates like that?


      Google [google.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You DO realise that these are the same people who navigate their way around the internet by typing the subject in the url bar and putting a www. on one side and .com on the other...
      • So? Who do you think will click on ads for cell phone range extender stickers, nascar, and creationist museums?
        • If you want to use Slashdot terms, you could think of the site as a mashup - it's a different combination of someone else's work, done with the express permission of the someone else, namely NASA, whose photos are public domain. If you click on the photo for a description, you will find a link to the section of NASA's web site where different versions of the photo are available.

          My theory is that sometimes people would prefer strict simplicity - go to the site, see a full screen image and come back again wh
      • methinks you are underestimating the people who think "teh intarweb is AOL" where the address bar has a dual function of URL entry or keyword entry. They think the whole internet is like that.

        -nB
  • They really show Google ads on these pointless pages?
    If I did that my adsense account would be terminated.

    • Re:zlitch content (Score:5, Interesting)

      by suv4x4 (956391) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:29AM (#19298789)
      They really show Google ads on these pointless pages?
      If I did that my adsense account would be terminated.

      Thing is, if you have one domain and host ads like that, it may be terminated. But if you have thousands of domains, Google will offer you Domain Parking services with AdWords on them. Yes, Google will spam the domains themselve.

      I suppose the reason don't allow you to use this service if you got 5-10 domains is that it keeps the word of mouth down. It's not something Google wants everyone to talk about.
      • Thank you for writing a summary that is understandeable. The summary didn't make any sense at all and also the slashdot tags have become pretty redundant (I didn't read slashdot for a few months, don't know the reason, but the way these tags are now they might as well just leave them out again), if they would have mentioned 'google ads' or whatever, the idea of the article would have been clearer. I could also have tried to read it of course, but with a summary like it was pretty hard to get interested.

    • Re:zlitch content (Score:5, Informative)

      by QuickFox (311231) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:57AM (#19298903)

      They really show Google ads on these pointless pages?
      If I did that my adsense account would be terminated.
      On the contrary, Google encourages domain squatting [google.com].

  • Such an opportunity (Score:5, Funny)

    by mshurpik (198339) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:22AM (#19298749)
    >An obscure Web address may have four or so visitors a month

    Dude, I need to invest in this.

  • its just like the 90's again (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    except this time its the fastest way to get infected with spyware/adware

  • Namespace clutter (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MichaelSmith (789609) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:22AM (#19298753) Homepage Journal

    At the end of the day all of us pay for the clutter created by domain names which exist only to capture page views. Presently to put a domain on line you just need to pay for registration and hosting on two DNS servers. The distributed nature of DNS takes care of the rest.

    Should a way be found to make domain squatters pay the true cost of their collections?

    • Re:Namespace clutter (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Killshot (724273) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:42AM (#19298855) Homepage
      I really dislike how frequently when searching for information on something I find nothing but pages and pages of google ads.

      I think that it may ultimately end up hurting google's business because people will get tired of searching for things and not finding it, and advertisers will get tired of paying for clicks that don't convert.

      Someone should make a search engine that does not index pages where most of the content is google ads.

      • Re:Namespace clutter (Score:5, Informative)

        by spottedkangaroo (451692) * on Monday May 28 2007, @06:49AM (#19298875) Homepage
        Report those pages to google. Supposedly, pages that link to pages with only google ads are against the adwords rules.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by houghi (78078)
          Here is novelty idea. Why not use a searchengine to find those pages and then report them to Google.
          • Maybe at some point I will try to do that...
            But one thing I find odd.. unless this is a new policy.. I just signed up for adwords for one of my blogs.. The page had to be reviewed by a human before me being accepted.

            So, it would seem that these made for adsense pages are approved by google?
      • Google are actaully making steps to correct this as of June 1st.
        It will make a pretty big impact on the web for those pages make up a pretty sizeable chunk of the internet.

        No-one else seems intersted in this story however: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=178417 [slashdot.org]

  • Bah, scammers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis AT gmail DOT com> on Monday May 28 2007, @06:22AM (#19298757) Homepage
    The only reason you buy thousands of domains is in the hopes that one of them becomes really popular and you can extort^Wscam^Wsell it to someone who will do something with it. I dunno about the rest of you, but when I google for hard to find products and I land on search engine bait websites, I just hit the back button, I don't click on the ads or worse, buy anything from them.

    Tom
    • "The only reason you buy thousands of domains is in the hopes that one of them becomes really popular and you can extort^Wscam^Wsell it to someone who will do something with it. "

      Nope.

      Their domains cost $6. If they make anything over $6 per year they're happy, and most do, Multiply this by a large number.

      They don't typically sell domains. In the long term it's not in their interest.

        • Doesn't work, take a online game http://www.mystonline.com/ [mystonline.com] when the forums first went up a fan purchased http://www.mystlive.com/ [mystlive.com] you would be surprised at the number of people who thought this was an offical page by Cyan/Gametap. People will give importance to domain names and companies do need to protect the associated with themselves (the more global they are the more they need.)

          What we need is for ICANN to creates rules which state a domain name can't point to a place with more than 50% of the page d
        • These "domainers" can make a profit just from the advertising - being able to resell the domain name is just a bonus, and in many cases they're selling them to other domainers rather than legitimate content providers, sometimes for a lot of money.

          ICANN's "domain tasting" policy really aggravates the problem - if you make a "mistake" registering a domain, they'll give your money back if you return the domain name within something like five days, even if the mistake was "didn't get enough random hits to make

    • You are wrong in your first assumption - the domains are bought from an already popular niche. This isn't gambling or cybersquatting
      And regarding clicking - you probably assume that others do as you do - But this isn't true - these sites enjoy around a 15% CTR, and actually it creates a win-win situation. The users, instead of getting a name error (useless), click an advertisement which is often relevant to their initial request, the target site gets a visitor (which is targeted due to the initial related
      • Humm, didn't verisign have something like this in place for a few days, before ICANN made them stop ?
        I forgot how it was called, thankfully.
        Is that what you are advocating ?
      • When I get less lazy I intend to just block out all of the IPs that lead to those types of sites. I sincerely hope that Google does get serious, because clicking on a site only to get ads and links to sites which may or may not be legit. Really annoys me.And it isn't just the wasted bandwidth, or the attempts to get rich using somebody else's trademark, but just the fact that it now takes some of my time to sort through these garbage listings to hopefully find something that is useful.

        I don't really think t
      • The majority of these sites that I see are not at all targeted, unless for some strange reason someone's decided I have a fondness for gambling and herbal Viagra.

        For example here's a site I used to own:

        http://wonderfulwomen.com/ [wonderfulwomen.com]

        Wonderful women was original a directory of what I thought were cool pages created by women. Unfortunately I didn't have time to maintain it and let the domain expire.

        So click on wonderfulwomen.com today and what do you see? Roommate searches, apartment searches and "popular catego
  • Well not intentionally but accidentally when i mistype a web address i do get directed to extremely pesky web pages which offer me hundreds of alternatives to what i type.

    It may be a source of information but to me it is more of a frustration.

    Eventually many times i figure out the best way is - Google it.

    Whatever the case may be, these sites are sometimes set on Windows machines over cafes as default pages to attract customers.

    Business indeed, just IMO spamming in a more holistic way.

  • Rather, 5 percent to 10 percent of people will simply type in a name that sounds as if it might suit their needs.

    What to do with such Lusers, they might become the reason for a call for an Internet Users Licence.

    This could mean more than 5 - 10% of visitors to a(ny) site are lost souls as these idiots would need many attempts to get to their goal...
      • Exactly!
        That's why I don't like the potential outcome of such an idea.
        If that 5 - 10% is indeed true the internet as we know it has a serious problem.
        (possibly comparable to the problems caused by the insecurities of MS operating systems ;) ).
        The next step might be some dofus politician trying to restrict access to those licensed.

        But I just can't believe these numbers.

  • Nice business model... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Simon (815) <`simon' `at' `simonzone.com'> on Monday May 28 2007, @06:51AM (#19298879) Homepage
    ...it would be a shame if anything were to happened to it. [nypost.com]

    --
    Simon

  • ob. Monty Python quote (Score:3, Funny)

    by name*censored* (884880) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:52AM (#19298889)
    >>vast tracts of real estate

    What's not to like about 'er? She has 'uuge.. TRACTS of land!
  • So now this kind of domain squatting has become respectable? Yeah right.

  • and perhaps half will click on an ad.
    no no no...perhaps none of them will click an ad...not only do i know i have never clicked on an ad, nor have most people i know, i have also tried putting ad's on websites with not many visiters, you never get hits

  • Niche site, for sure (Score:5, Funny)

    by PuddleBoy (544111) on Monday May 28 2007, @08:02AM (#19299175)
    NameMedia recently finished building technology where visitors to niche sites -- say, one on 1957 Mustangs -- will be presented with links to other sites with similar images.

    Yes, I'd have to say that the number of people who want to talk about 1957 Mustangs constitute a "niche".

  • What about "The Man Who Owns the Internet"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1u3hr (530656) on Monday May 28 2007, @08:29AM (#19299333)
    From this TFA:

    What weve wanted to do, quietly, is amass the largest real estate position on the Internet, which we feel we have, Mr. Conlin said.
    A week ago we had the story of a similar scumbag, Kevin Ham [slashdot.org]. from that FA at CNN Money:

    The man at the top of this little-known hierarchy is Kevin Ham -- one of a handful of major-league "domainers" in the world and arguably the shrewdest and most ambitious of the lot.
    So they're both the biggest. Journalisic exaggeration aside, it's disturbing that these parasites are celebrated by respectable financial reporters. These assholes are filling up the web with automatically generated pseudo-content, polluting search results to the point of uselessness. They're web-spammers with the same line of justification that email spammers used to use, they're "offering products that people might be interested in". A pest on both of them.
    • I also read the article about Kevin Ham. The funniest part was how deeply religious Kevin Ham is. He apparently got his start working on a web page for his church.

  • One of the things we do with SiteTruth [sitetruth.com] is filter out sites like this.

    SiteTruth is looking for the name and address of the business behind any web site that's selling something. If we can't find a name and address in a place most users would look, it's an illegal business (see California B&P code section 17538 [sitetruth.com], European Directive on Electronic Commerce [sitetruth.com], etc.) So they get a rating - a big red circle with a bar through it. And they go to the bottom of the search rankings.

    If they do give a name and

    • One of the things we do with SiteTruth is filter out sites like this.

      Unfortunately, it seems to filter out a lot of other businesses as well. My own company's site, which is registered to a perfectly legitimate nationally incorporated Canadian corporation that I own is rated as problematic. Several other small companies I am personally familiar with are given similar ratings.

      Many web businesses do not list a mailing address on their site--I don't because I operate out of my home and have no interest in pu

      • Many web businesses do not list a mailing address on their site.

        Yes. And SiteTruth downgrades their rating accordingly. That's by intent. We're in California, and apply California law on Internet businesses: [ca.gov] "Before accepting any payment or processing any debit or credit charge or funds transfer, the vendor shall disclose to the buyer in writing or by electronic means of communication, such as e-mail or an on-screen notice, the vendor's return and refund policy, the legal name under which the busine

        • "Before accepting any payment or processing any debit or credit charge or funds transfer, the vendor shall disclose to the buyer in writing or by electronic means of communication, such as e-mail or an on-screen notice, the vendor's return and refund policy, the legal name under which the business is conducted and, except as provided in paragraph (3) [about registered post office boxes], the complete street address from which the business is actually conducted.

          And indeed, my business conforms to this law.
  • This is a business model which is designed to look good on paper, and appeal to investors. After that, it doesn't look so hot. Here's why:

    First off, they call addresses like "DailyHoroscope.com" the top-tier equivalent of "Oceanfront Real Estate", by which I suppose they mean "oceanfront" as in Haiti -- because last time I checked, 14 letter domain names were about as hip as AOL email addresses.

    Secondly -- the number of URL's is completely irrelevant. 750,000? I could generate 750,000 all numeric (or r

    • If you want to see the details of that business model, read the 10-K filing of Marchex [sec.gov], the publicly traded domain farmer.

      Some highlights:

      • "Our proprietary network is comprised of more than 200,000 Web sites."
      • We deliver pay-per-click advertising listings that are reflective of our merchant advertisers' products and services to online users in response to their keyword search queries, and in response to their typing of specific Web Sites into their browser (direct navigation). These pay-per-click list

      • It's not a very profitable business [. . .] They have substantial revenue ($127 million), but their operating costs and compensation eat up almost all of that.

        Profitable for whom? I wouldn't invest in such a stock, but a glance through their proxy statement indicates that their CEO was paid salary of $50,000 (which he wanted held at that "historical" rate). Two other members of the board were paid $135,000 and $95,000, respectively. The salaries for those two executives for next year were raised to $25

    • Actually, Name Development Ltd. was rumoured to be highly profitable pre-buyout by Marchex several years ago. (Interestingly, Name Development was a pioneer in "direct navigation and monetization" with its infamous Ultimate Search-branded parking pages with the yellow and blue layout and cute little googly-eyed computer monitor creature as a logo on all parked domains' placeholder pages.) They were rumoured to be doing something like $20 million in annual revenues with $17 million in net income, with less t

    • ahhh its 4:13am and ive got fp!

      (that means im a winner.)

      (doesnt it?)

      k :(


      No, you'll find that it means you've committed a faux pas by trolling, and, in fact made a fool of yourself.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.