Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Google The Internet Technology

Google Mystery Domain Reroutes 3% of Net Surfers 140

An anonymous reader writes "A new Google domain —, a nod to the company's famously misspelled name — is now the net's 44th most visited site. Google says the domain is used to 'identify servers' on its internal network, hinting that reverse DNS plays a role. The domain was registered in September and launched in October, about the same time Google unveiled Spanner, a new addition to its backend infrastructure designed to shift loads automatically among its data centers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Mystery Domain Reroutes 3% of Net Surfers

Comments Filter:
  • (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08, 2010 @09:54AM (#31060010)

    ", a nod to the company's famously misspelled name"

    Could someone explain that one cause I really don't get it or see the nod.

    • (Score:5, Informative)

      by eihab ( 823648 ) * on Monday February 08, 2010 @09:56AM (#31060042)

      Wrong summary. I emailed the editors a minute too late I guess.

      The domain is

      Domain Name: 1E100.NET
            Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC.
            Whois Server:
            Referral URL: []
            Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
            Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
            Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
            Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
            Status: clientDeleteProhibited
            Status: clientRenewProhibited
            Status: clientTransferProhibited
            Status: clientUpdateProhibited
            Status: serverDeleteProhibited
            Status: serverRenewProhibited
            Status: serverTransferProhibited
            Status: serverUpdateProhibited
            Updated Date: 13-oct-2009
            Creation Date: 25-sep-2009
            Expiration Date: 25-sep-2019

      • by lavardo ( 683333 )
        I won't be surprised if someone purchases this morning!
      • Wrong summary. I emailed the editors a minute too late I guess.

        Slashdot has editors??? As in, people who look at the stories and fix errors before (or after) hitting the submit button? You must be new here.

        • Slashdot has editors??? As in, people who look at the stories and fix errors before (or after) hitting the submit button? You must be new here.

          How can he be new if he has a lower member number than you?! :p

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sopssa ( 1498795 ) *

      It's right in the article..

      But on closer inspection, the domain is obviously Google's, chosen with a mathematician's wink at the search giant's famously misspelled name. This mystery domain is "1e100" would be scientific notation for 10 100, a one followed by 100 zeros, also known as a googol.

      Besides, is way too easy for people to remember to block. Now change it to and they probably get a lot more data.

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by jo42 ( 227475 )

        How about EPIC? Evil Privacy Invading Corporation.

        Let the down-mods begin...

      • by PCM2 ( 4486 )

        Besides, is way too easy for people to remember to block. Now change it to and they probably get a lot more data.

        Honestly, the people who block domains don't "remember" to block anything. They add it to a list and forget about it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by vlm ( 69642 )

      Could someone explain that one cause I really don't get it or see the nod.

      Someone screwed up because it should have been, aka "four googol" aka "for google"

    • They mistyped it there, it's actually a Which is a reference to 1e100 (1 x 10) or a "googol", the name of which google is derived.
    • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @11:20AM (#31060690)

      >Could someone explain that one cause I really don't get it or see the nod.

      After a long mescaline trip Eric Schmidt and Larry Page decided the company should be called LEE00 (pronounced lee-ooooo) and the l33t-speak domain was born.

      After poor reception from investors and users alike a memo was written up asking all employees to suggest a new domain name. A young intern, who later committed suicide in a bizarre self decapitation with a chainsaw, suggested that 1 to the 400th power was actually a gogool. Schmidt and Page were impressed and after accepting how less fun it is to say gogool than "leeee-oooooo" decided to change the name. Because its difficult to trademark a real word, they just went with "google." is a nod to the good old leeee-ooooo days.

      *actually its 1 to 100th power

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Chapter80 ( 926879 )

        A young intern, who later committed suicide in a bizarre self decapitation with a chainsaw, suggested that 1 to the 400th power was actually a gogool.

        *actually its 1 to 100th power

        Of course, 1 to the 100th power is the same as 1 to the 400th power, is the same as 1.
        You mean TEN to the 100th power.

      • by Inda ( 580031 )
        I can't believe everyone has this wrong.

        "le hoonet" (hoo-nay) is French for "the indexer". It's a reference to the cult French film, which is ultimately a remake of The Matrix.
  • by jra ( 5600 )

    a Quoogle?

  • 1e400 or? (Score:3, Informative)

    by tehniobium ( 1042240 ) <lukas@i m f . a u . dk> on Monday February 08, 2010 @09:55AM (#31060020)
    TFA says 1e100 as in...a gogol.
  • Accuracy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 6031769 ( 829845 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @09:56AM (#31060026) Homepage Journal

    Presumably that should be And presumably it isn't actually "rerouting" anything. Hmmm.

    • Re:Accuracy? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Xest ( 935314 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @10:48AM (#31060452)

      This is what happens when people read The Register.

      I don't even know why Slashdot links there anymore, it's become such a stupid site, it really is worse than Fox News nowadays.

      The issue is that The Register really isn't a news site anymore, it's a pressure group passing itself off as a news site. You'll note many of Andrew Orlowski's articles there for example are full of outright lies, often there is no opportunity to comment on his stories, but when there is they are heavily moderated such that any disagreeing viewpoint is not accepted through. Even if they are, Andrew himself generally deletes them shortly afterwards. He claims it's because he likes correspondence direct to his e-mail, but obviously that misses the point of a comments section which is that it enables discussion with peers on the topic. As seen by his constant congratulations to himself in his articles- things like "I was the only one anyone in the audience applauded", "I was first to unveil the news on this" it's pretty clear what his real problem is, he's an attention seeker, and worse an insecure one, who can't take criticism even when he bluntly knows he's not being honest.

      But it's not just Andrew Orlowski, Google is one of The Registers targets of hate along with Wikipedia and some others, as such you cannot treat anything coming from there with any real seriousness. They constantly attack Jimmy Wales for example, and whilst he's far from perfect, let's face it, he's contributed far more to the web with the creation of Wikipedia than anyone at The Register ever has or likely ever will.

      It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so hypocritical, they for example launch attacks on climatologists with the arguments of them not being open enough, not being willing to accept criticism, and then in the very same articles they go and block comments either altogether or from anyone dissenting from their viewpoint, anyone pointing out errors in their analysis and so forth. Point out enough errors in their articles, even if you keep yourself reasonable about it, even if you backup your point with perfectly legitimate sources and so forth and eventually your account will just break and you'll get a "Sorry, there was a problem logging in, please contact the webmaster" - any attempt to get your account "fixed" is simply ignored, it's quite clear what their game is. But worse, they sometimes even give the impression they allow dissent with things like "Andrew's mailbag", they will post dissenting comments here, but they'll be very carefully selected, and swamped with counter-comments attacking back, with no right to reply again.

      Really, this Google domain is no big deal- it is after all no different to the likes of Akamai domains and so forth which spuriously appear but which no one questions in the same. It's really just a case of The Register making a story where there isn't one, trying to make Google look evil when there's really no big deal. The result is though we get people like have posted here on Slashdot in response to this article, who fall for The Register's agenda, shit bricks and start blocking said hosts when there's really no need unless you're so paranoid that you probably shouldn't be on the internet anyway.

      The Register is as agenda based as Fox News and really does not deserve the slightest bit of attention, it's best to just leave it to rot as an "also ran" in the internet's list of IT news sites.

      • This message brought to you by The Inquirer []
      • You attack Fox News as agenda based, so are any of the big networks honest? NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, MSNBC, climatologists? Please advise as I would like to see and hear honest news. What is the definition of honest news? It usually depends on the listener. The only honest think you have to say is the Register and Andrew Orlowski can't take criticism.

        • Re:Accuracy? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Xest ( 935314 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @11:47AM (#31060934)

          Well you're right, there's no such thing as truly unbiased news.

          But certainly there are extremely biased sources, and it's certainly the case that Fox is one of those sources.

          The likes of the BBC are generally much more unbiased, because they exist without needing to answer to shareholders and in fact, have a legal duty in many cases to avoid bias. Whilst you do get cases of individual bias with the BBC, they are just that, and multiple reporters with multiple views will post on the same topics, meaning the likely hood of some inherent bias is much lower than in places like Fox, where people are employed specifically with the goal of a pre-defined agenda.

          So yeah, it's hard to find an entirely objective source, but suggesting the likes of the BBC for example are on par with Fox and The Register in terms of bias and zealotry of their agenda is really quite ignorant. The BBC for example does not censor comments for starters based on anything other than a set of objective rules which are clearly laid out and adhered to. They have a proper process for ensuring that anyone who believes their moderation was unfair can appeal.

      • The Register is as agenda based as Fox News and really does not deserve the slightest bit of attention, it's best to just leave it to rot as an "also ran" in the internet's list of IT news sites.

        But... but... I agree with them so often, they must be right ;)

      • by sopssa ( 1498795 ) *

        The Register has never been an usual news site. I take it you just haven't understood the site.

        btw, they don't just hate Google or Wikipedia. They hate everyone.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Xest ( 935314 )

          Oh I understand what The Register was originally, what it was intended to be (I'm British, we invented that type of humour thanks), and what it kept true to for a long while, but in recent years, perhaps the last 3 or 4 it's strayed much further than that, and been hijacked to push certain agendas. It is not merely a case of hating everybody, I understand they have a very sarcastic negative slant, but you'll notice reoccuring themes that gone well beyond hating everybody. Examples range from climate change,

  • Is this on a qwerty board? How do you 1e400 trying to type google?
  • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @09:58AM (#31060072)

    Why not just call it Screwy domain names with numbers in them make me think of ads, spam, or malware. I'd be a lot more likely to allow javascript/cookies and not put the site in Adblock or the hosts file if it was clearly a Google domain.

    • Uuuh, I'd block it anyway unless blocking it caused any disruption in my use of Google's services. Google-analytics, for one. Script-blocked a long time ago. Just in case.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Cross-site scripting.

    • I thought the same thing as parent, actually, and looked up the domain myself when I saw it on my netstat output.

      Anyway, you don't want to DoS .com Spread the load around.

      Or you could just give Google their own TLD.

      Better yet, Google could register The process of registering a host name for every molecule in the universe would bail that country out in no time at all.

  • by srussia ( 884021 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @10:02AM (#31060110)
    From TFA:As pointed out by Sebastian Stadil, founder of the Silicon Valley Cloud Computing Group, translates to "Google Network".

    Tha would be the googol network. Why not: (That would be a goggle with an extra "o".)
  • by ArsenneLupin ( 766289 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @10:20AM (#31060242)
    Such an egregious spelling mistake, and nobody yet has snatched up the name and directed it to Come on guys, you can do better than that!
  • by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @10:43AM (#31060408) Homepage

    Really, what google has done is change their reverse information for a LOT of their stuff to point to rather than google, since Google these days is so much more than google: you have youtube, blogger, analytics, doubleclick, and a host of others.

    The name is nice because it allows admins etc to go "this is GOOGLE" rather than "this is X" (which got assimilated by google).

  • I'm sure being listed on the front page of Slashdot will help push that domain up a few spots.
    • Re:Slashdot helps (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ajs ( 35943 ) <> on Monday February 08, 2010 @11:11AM (#31060606) Homepage Journal

      You would be surprised how little impact that has these days. Slashdot continues to be popular with its core demographic, but that Internet has grown by orders of magnitude since being Slashdotted meant something. Now, if this had been posted to a World of Warcraft forum... ;-)

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jonadab ( 583620 )
        > Now, if this had been posted to a WoW forum... ;-)

        Meh. Really the modern equivalent of the old slashdot effect these days is when the Google doodle returns your site as the first result. Hopefully your hosting provider doesn't bill by the megabyte...
        • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

          by socsoc ( 1116769 )
          really, it was easier for you to retype and abbreviate gp's post than accurately copy/paste it with quote tags?
      • Re:Slashdot helps (Score:4, Informative)

        by aywwts4 ( 610966 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @12:23PM (#31061382)

        Slashdot really has stayed still while the internet changed and matured around it, other than the absence of some memes and Y2K stories the slashdot of '99 looks much like today. (For better or worse) ...

        We are the tech Luddites!

        And yes "Slashdotting" is such and incredibly dated and egocentric word dating back to when our population was something to be impressed with, that day has long since passed, the few times we do "slashdot" a real server everyone gets all giddy, and I just don't have the heart to tell them that it was fine when it hit our front-page, but it just hit the front of reddit and digg.

        (If you don't recall what it looked like, this is what ten years of progress on a cutting edge geek/tech site looks like [] )

  • by srussia ( 884021 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @10:55AM (#31060492) ranks in the top 1e100 domains, according to Alexa.
  • I imagine someone pointed out that a million bucks a year of bandwidth costs could be saved by using a shorter domain name. What a non-story.

    And what's this about Google being "misspelled"? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. "Google" is a great brand name loosely based on a word that would have been a terrible brand name.

  • Not misspelled (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joeyblades ( 785896 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @11:07AM (#31060580)
    Googol is the name of a number, Google is the name of a company. How could anyone claim that the company misspelled their own name?
    • Re:Not misspelled (Score:5, Informative)

      by sopssa ( 1498795 ) * <> on Monday February 08, 2010 @12:55PM (#31061834) Journal

      Because they originally did:

      "Sean and Larry were in their office, using the whiteboard, trying to think up a good name - something that related to the indexing of an immense amount of data," Koller writes.

      "Sean verbally suggested the word 'googolplex' [a one followed by a googol zeros], and Larry responded verbally with the shortened form, 'googol'....Sean was seated at his computer terminal, so he executed a search of the Internet domain name registry database to see if the newly suggested name was still available for registration and use.

      "Sean is not an infallible speller, and he made the mistake of searching for the name spelled as "," which he found to be available. Larry liked the name, and within hours he took the step of registering the name '" for himself and [fellow co-founder] Sergey [Brin]."

  • What's the significance of this? Why should I care? Article neglected to mention that.

    "Oh wow, Google registered a domain name and now they're using it. THAT IS DEFINITELY NEWSWORTHY!!!"

    • Read up a bit at all the paranoiacs freaking out, there may be the significance if you tend to be a suspicious dude.

      On the other hand, if your personal tinfoil cranium coating is sufficiently loose as to not restrict circulation, it's just a notice of google being slightly clever with a domain name.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Xest ( 935314 )

      Rather than repeat myself, see my post here: []

      Effectively it's a non-story, hyped up into a story by typical The Register anti-Google trolling.

      I don't like a lot of things Google does, particularly Schmidt's "done nothing wrong, got nothing to hide" style comments, but really, non-stories like this are just utterly stupid and as they're part of The Register's agenda based bullshit wagon, don't even deserve to be entertained.

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by hduff ( 570443 )

      What's the significance of this? Why should I care? Article neglected to mention that.

      You have read Slashdot before, yes?

      "Slashdot" is a proto-Sanskrit word meaning redundant, useless, confusing, wildly inaccurate, poorly documented bumfuggery.

      For an example, please read this this entire thread, which makes FARK appear erudite and meaningful by comparison.

  • A mathematician mibht misspell 'google' as '1e100'.

    And I hear tell some mathematicians have a sense of humor. But the rest mistake obsucrity for humor.

    Just so you know (and you know who you are), obscurity is not inherently funny. And neither are you.

    There are not 10 kinds of people in the world. There are only two. Your number base doesn't change that. Put them side by side and see.

    So there.

  • by terraformer ( 617565 ) <> on Monday February 08, 2010 @12:33PM (#31061522) Journal

    ...and 1 comment asking what the article means to all of us. Not a single comment on why are they redirecting things through this domain.

    Yup, this is /.

  • Nothing too new... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Qubit ( 100461 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @01:04PM (#31061914) Homepage Journal

    I had to do some network analysis last year to try to track down the source of massive overload on our firewall. The domain came up a few times, and it took me a second before I figured out the clever naming choice.

    I guess I never thought that the name was a big enough deal to be worthy of a whole Slashdot story.

  • Don't believe it. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @01:07PM (#31061954) Journal

    At home, I run a squid proxy and all port 80 requests must go through it.

    I checked the logs, which go back 8 weeks, and there is not a single instance of in them. It might be on an alternate port, but my personal browser is explicitly set to use the proxy.

    Clearly Alexa sees the requests to this domain, but, Alexa only has information from people who have installed the Alexa toolbar, so perhaps the domain is somehow only used by people who have the Alexa toolbar?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by aywwts4 ( 610966 )

      6 months of 100 user's squid logs to grep, 1e100 turns up nothing other than the image on this story's link, it can't be http.

      We use Google for everything including our site wide mail, advertising, website Analytics, and even our DNS and Chrome is the default browser at a lot of locations, then we have the android handsets... (The owners have daughters working at Google, but hey, we aren't a Microsoft shop, and their daughters already sold them on the value of Linux for everything else, so my life is easy.)

      • Both you and the parent are wrong.

        They are using for the REVERSE LOOKUP. And to keep things right, they also have the corresponding domain name with the relevant A record.

        However, they don't actively use these domain names in the web requests, and squid logs the web address request, NOT the reverse PTR.

        All your accesses to google, youtube and others are if you look up the PTR


  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @02:15PM (#31062730) Homepage

    For a brief period on February 5, "" was directed by DNS to an address at "" []. That was quickly corrected, although it may have happened more than once. Apparently somebody at Google sent out some bad DNS records. (Google is now in the DNS business, remember.) [] They need to be more careful.

  • by chrisd ( 1457 ) * <> on Monday February 08, 2010 @05:29PM (#31065334) Homepage
    Hey, the fellows in netops asked me to clarify for you folks here's the story: is a Google-owned domain name used to identify the servers in our network. Following standard industry practice, we make sure each IP address has a corresponding hostname. Starting in October 2009, we started using a single domain name to identify our servers across all Google products, rather than use different product domains such as,, and We did this for two reasons: first, to keep things simpler, and second, to proactively improve security by protecting against potential threats such as cross-site scripting attacks. Most typical Internet users will never see, but we picked we picked a Googley name for it just in case (1e100 is scientific notation for 1 googol).

    So there you go!

    • Hey, the fellows in netops asked me to clarify for you folks here's the story:

      Remainder DELETED because it's boring.

      Actually answering the elfin question is not proper SlashDot procedure, unlike endless carping about the non-existence of editorial fact checking which is obligatory.
      By answering the question in a reasonable and informative manner (incidentally showing the flaws in the moderation system, which currently has you as "informative", when you're obviously trolling), then you're showing that you'v

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.