Interesting post. I was peripherally aware of some of this and, like everyone else, have ocasionally landed on useless pages that had nothing to do with my intended business. It is, of course, annoying and always made me a little vaguely uneasy, but until today, thanks to your illustration, I hadn’t really considered the full picture.

It is a kind of wanton profiteering that leeches the internet in an unpleasant and unproductive way. What makes it philosophically interesting from a human nature standpoint is that, like telemarketing and spamming, it is not, strictly speaking, illegal or even anti-capitalistic. It is insidious, and it is unethical in the sense that it erodes the inner workings of the free market machine.

Individuals and companies must choose not to do these kinds of things based on their understanding of values and ethics and, ultimately, morality.

Ultimately the internet is nothing more than a network of websites and while I do not click on ugly pages filled with ads, some of the URL’s you just mentioned are indistinguishable from large brand content sites.

Where exactly do you see “the line” that defines content and are you railing against one company owning too many such sites? If so where exactly is the ethical limit?

I have watched these registrants sites mature and truthfully some of them are becoming quite gentrified fully functioning ecommerce content sites. In a decade I doubt we will be able to tell the difference between a “direct navigation” ad site and a blog site or content site such as this one.

In fact if you were to place google adsense links on the side of your blog (as many bloggers do) this very blog would be no different than the individuals you rail against (with the exception of the fact that those individuals manage more sites).

I don’t fully understand your grievance and think this post is overly negative and unreasoned.

Dookie:

While I understand your point, and do agree that “the line” is a blurry one, consider the analogy to SPAM email: Initially SPAM email was just when people would mass-email a bunch of people they didn’t know advertising their site/product. But the person sending the email was a legitimate address and you could reply to them. Now look at the nuisance it has evolved into.

I see a stark difference between including google adsense links on a blog and creating a Domainer-type site. Essentially, including adsense is adding potential means for revenue for something you would otherwise do for free. The Domainer sites primary purpose is getting you to click those links, and including content is a second thought.

The nature of my grievance is simply a complaint against the avarice and greed of domain-squatters and their pokemon-esque domain collecting. The internet should be a free place, with free information. While I think it’s naive to think there WON’T be profiteering and the capitalist spirit (i.e. “there will always be advertisements”), I find these individuals to be wasting a scarce resource for the sole purpose of personal gain. It’s selfish and doesn’t benefit anyone but themselves — the Internet as a whole isn’t a better place as a result of their profiteering schemes. (This is in contrast to typical capitalistic-based business ideas, where your business model should benefit yourself and society at large).

This kind of attitude that the domainers have is the same type of attitude that late-night get-rich-quick scheme people have, that SPAMmers have, and that companies that sell shoddy goods have. No consideration for the possible fallout of their actions, just accumulate as much money as possible for the bubble bursts.

Does that make any more sense?

p.s. why fictitious credentials? I promise I won’t hunt you down for disagreeing with me

There appears to be a fundamental misconception that using domains as an advertising venue is somehow less than a noble purpose. Advertising is the content conveyed and can be informative and helpful when it conveys information about a product’s or service’s features, availability and price for the consumer to use for comparison purposes. It is also true that not all advertising does this well…but then the gripe is better directed towards the advertiser, not the domaineer. In other words, don’t shoot the messenger.

Here is a good definition of domaineering for your consideration: Domaineering is the business of acquiring and monetizing Internet domain names for their use primarily as an advertising medium rather than as intellectual property investments for resale as in domaining. In essence, the domain names function as virtual Internet billboards with generic domain names being highly valued for their revenue generating potential derived from attracting Internet traffic hits. As with traditional advertising, domaineering is part art and part science. Often to be the most effective as advertising tools, the domain names and their corresponding landing pages must be engineered or optimized to produce maximum revenue which may require considerable skill and good knowledge of search engine optimization ( SEO ) practices, marketing psychology and an understanding of the target market audience. Domaineering generally utilizes a firm offering domain parking services to provide the sponsored “feed” of a word or phrase searched for. Occasionally content is added to develop a functional mini-website. Domaineers and some of those who advertise online using keywords believe domaineering provides a useful, legal and legitimate Internet marketing service while opponents of domaineering decry the practice as increasing the ubiquitous commercialization of the world wide web. Domaineering is practiced by both large companies who may have registered hundreds or even thousands of domains to individual entrepreneurial minded domaineers who may only own one or a few.

Some say that parked domains are “unused” and that is an accurate statement for some but not all. However, the generic domains utilized in professional domaineering are clearly being used…for conveying information, ( which is what all advertising basically is and what the Internet intrinsically does ), and as valuable potential earning assets, they are being used to the fullest extent their owners are aware of and are able to do. There may be disagreements that there may be better uses, however, that can be said about almost any asset…from real estate to money…and not just about domains.

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t address my main complaint: that the domains owned and operated by domaineers could be put to MUCH better use than simply farming ad-revenue.

Domains are a scarce resource, and domaineers are utilizing this scarce resource in a VERY selfish manner. To say that they are offering a public service, or that humanity at large benefits from the presence of their products is hogwash.

Consider this:
If I am interested in buying shoes, I will go to a search engine (i.e. google) and type in “shoes”. Let’s imagine two scenarios:

Scenario #1: Domaineers don’t exist
The results that come up are links that point directly to sellers / people with information about specific shoe products that is more or less ORIGINAL or VERIFIABLE. There is a single degree of distance between the search results and the desired destination(s).

Scenario #2: Current Reality
The results are cluttered with a bunch of sites that are simply aggregate collections of links to other sites selling shoes. Any “informational content” is simply recycled from Wikipedia or some other informational site. This creates an entire degree of separation from the users initial request to their destinations. The domaineered site itself is not a destination: You can’t purchase shoes from them directly and the information often leaves much to be desired — it exists solely to continue existing, like an Internet parasite. Worse yet — the practices of SEO on these referral sites makes these sites appear higher in search results than the sites to which they refer. (i.e. If you were in a crowded room and were looking for John Smith, would you rather actually SEE people named John Smith, or people who KNOW people named John Smith?)

I advocate the removal of the middleman. Domaineering is entirely self-serving, and domaineers are simply deluding themselves into thinking they are benefitting society in order to quell their cognitive dissonance.