Why would a school network block this kind of site? I would like it if this answere could be included in the article. Is it Damaging to a network system? Does it slow down the A Network Browser? Ian.Lahlum 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ian.L
- Because it's just ads and serves no purpose to the end user. -Indolences 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As the answer to the above question. I think the problem is not the advertising. Redirection is a normal method used by a lot of websites including adult websites. some administrators prefere to block all redirections pessimistically. Some browsers also stop redirections in their default settings. that may be the case there too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Some information that I believe is missing from this page, is how search engines see parked domains. If one website has two domains pointed towards it(one parked, and one normal), can search engines detect which one is the parked one and which one is the "normal" domain? Ashton.Sanders (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I make my living in the domain name industry and the article seems pretty fair to me. Saying parking is good or bad is an opinion which would need to be backed up by facts -- facts which would be difficult to support conclusively either way. Parked domains may display advertisements that a user may find interesting, especially if the owner of the domain name takes the time to target his ads to his audience. Similarly, parked domains may provide revenue for a webmaster which he can then use to better develop it at a later date.
Downside of what some people do with parking is also obvious -- not ever planning to use the domains for any purpose other than to serve up advertisements on them. Reece111 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It's called "Domaining", not "Domaineering"... Can someone please correct that -- I just did a couple days ago and someone changed it back for reasons unbeknownst to me. Reece111 (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree about this article making Domain Parking look like something good when it's not. Personally, I think domain parking is kind of in the same category as Spam (electronic). Are there any reputable sources that discuss possible ways to curb domain parking? Cazort (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
To characterize domain parking as "good" or "bad" is akin to calling billboard, radio or tv advertising "good" or "bad". If the ads convert into sales, then from the advertisers perspective the medium is worth paying for. Obviously, the consumer benefited as well as they saw something they liked and bought. Domain advertising works well enough or the market mechanism would have dumped it as being non-profitable long ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This article defining domaineering is clear, well balanced and accurate. The article portrays domaineering as a form of advertising and domaining more as speculating on domain names. The article doesn't make either domaineering or domaining look good or bad, it just shows the difference between the two and explains how they use domain parking differently. The article is fair, informative and enlightening about domaineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Domaineering", the word is never used within the industry or by people involved in any domain names monetization related activities. Domaining is only proper word for it. It should be neither negative or positive, but simply the description of the business.
It's also not up to wikipedia to decide if parking is "good" or "bad", neutral point of view should be adhered according to the editing guidelines. Lysimachos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC).
If a parked domain doesn't bring in the revenue, domaineers typically quickly drop it and it becomes available for someone else to use as they see fit. The parked domain names that are renewed are therefore presumably commercially viable for domaineering. Take the generic domain name: toothpaste dot com. Isn't that generic domain name being used as an advertising vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone named OhNoitsJamie deleted links that were useful to someone reading the article. They were not spam. They were 1) a link to give an example of what a Parked Domain is, which is something that is very germane to the idea of even having this article (so that someone not certain would have a firsthand example what a Parked Domain looks like), and 2) a link that is useful to the broad community of users who would be interested in removing Parked Domain results from their Google, Yahoo, or other searches. Not a bit of the two links I added I think could really be considered as advertisement/spam. This was purely informational and an aid to readers. Steve Sybesma (ssybesma), Lafayette, CO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssybesma (talk • contribs) 04:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention cyberspeculation, which is the primary use of domain parking: Speculators buy the names in hopes of being able to resell them later to organizations that need a domain. They routinely expect 4 figures for .org domains, and 5 or 6 figures for .coms. This is akin to cybersquatting in its deleterious effects on consumers (like spam) but is not illegal because it is a preemptive act rather than an example of trademark infringement. It still represents a purely parasitic practice because it raises the costs to consumers (by increasing overhead of service providers) without providing them any benefit whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
|Please see WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
The Domain parking page is now protected. However if Canadian Professor William Lorenz did indeed identify "domaineering" then surely there are links or published sources to prove it. This is why I deleted the reference to him at the end of the Domaineering section. Jmccormac (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
A simple web search will establish that Prof. William Lorenz does indeed exist and is the originator of the concept "domaineering" as more or less synonymous with "domain advertising". Please see for example: Urban Dictionary or Webster's Online dictionary references. Additionally, there are not found any competing claims to the origins of topic. "Domaineering" appears to be balanced and neutral scholarly article which is devoid of advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
While the Wikipedia article on "domaineering" may incorporate something akin to the websearch references connected to a Prof. Lorenz, of which there may be more than one person so named and titled, some of those websearch results predate the Wikipedia article on this topic.
In regards to "domaineering" as an Internet advertising technique, please note that an Urban Dictionary reference by Lorenz is dated October 14, 2007 and that a Webster's Open Dictionary reference by Lorenz is dated October 5, 2007...both published over a full year before the December 2008 Wikipedia article on "domaineering". No earlier references to identifying and defining "domaineering" more or less as synonomous with domain advertising can be found online. Therefore, the Wikipedia article presumably and so far correctly attempts to assign credit where it's due by giving a nod of attribution to Lorenz as the originator of identifying and defining the concept of "domaineering" apart from that of "domaining". Domaineering is a discrete part of domain parking...as is domaining. However, they are not the same and this Wiki article attempts to clarify the difference between the two terms. Toward that end, the term "domaineering" seems to be gaining a rising acceptance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoa there, Jmccormac. No need to use inflamatory statements like "grandiosely titled" unless you know for a fact that the title is spurious. Ummm, like where's your evidentiary references for your latest allegation of another fake claim? Please enlighten us. See requiring proof works both ways. I have been following this little repartee with some amusement, because it appears you haven't done your homework: didn't you you initially deny or infer denial that a Prof. Lorenz didn't even exist?' i.e, see "no reference to Professor William Lorenz found" when in fact an easy web-search located at least two or more with that name and title. Then you allege that a 2008 Wikipedia article had no references to the topic when in fact there again were found with an easy web-search references to "domaineering' back to 2007 by Lorenz which is a year or more earlier. Now, is revealed your perhaps some of your real yet hidden agenda...you just don't like the term "domaineering" in favor of "domaining". Well, that's your perogative not to like it...just like it's the legitimate perogative of Lorenz or anyone else to try and create some new Internet jargon. All words and terms have to start somewhere and with someone. The Internet is all about innovation. The proof in the pudding though is in the new term's acceptance...and the term "domaineering" at nearly 100,000 strong Google search references now seems pretty well accepted. In some circles, domaining doesn't enjoy the highest reputation due to the speculative aspect of it. Perhaps you can't see the author's point that "domaineering" is "domaining" without the speculation. It's just pure domain advertising. In any event, Wikipedia needs to remain neutral if it is to have any credibility, even though being neutral is sometimes a political danger in the world of Internet politics. Incidentially, at the end of the day, what's been accomplished? Wikipedia article on "domaineering" still stands intact, however, now without any attributes as to the origin of the term "domaineering" even though there is no real controversy raised over it's beginnings.
BTW, Diz World uses the term "imagineering" instead of just "imagining". BTW, Disney doesn't just say their creative staff does "imagining", they call what they do "imagineering". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
As outlined in WP:TALK this page is not for endless debates. Anyone wanting to say that a certain person did something, must provide verification (that is, a reliable source) – arguments without sources are irrelevant. As Jmccormac explained, the zillion Google hits are due to the exploitation of Wikipedia by low-value web sites that copy stuff from here. Also, if something like "domaineering" or "Prof Lorenz" is sufficiently significant to be mentioned, there will be sources that are more reliable than Urban Dictionary. The recent AFD discussion established that Domaining is merged to Domain name speculation and it will not be possible (without significant discussion and a change in consensus) to keep any material that is not strictly related to "domain parking" in this article, so it is very likely that the "Domaineering" section will be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Johnuniq for supporting exactly the point the "domaineering" author was aiming for: that "Domaining" is speculation and is best associated to aptly enough titled "Domain name speculation". "Domaineering", however, is NOT speculation as it's Wiki article indicates...rather, it is synonymous with "domain advertising" and therefore most properly belongs under the Domain Parking heading.
As to using Urban Dictionary or Webster's Open Dictionary as reference sources: if that's all there is...then that's all there is. In the absence of another verifiable competing claim to the origin of the term...just have to go with what's there. Nothing forbids their use as references by Wikipedia and as Internet publications on record their content can't just be ignored. There is also no apparent reason here to doubt their veracity on this issue. As reliable sources, they should be deemed truthful and accurate until proven otherwise. There's absolutely no basis here for rejecting their content outright.
Jonuniq, Thank you for the link and I see your point a bit clearer now. Perhaps a compromise can be reached on the origin and meaning of the term "domaineering" which clearly has gained some popularity apart from that of "domaining"? Something along the line of the first known references to domaineering as a distinct Internet advertising practice appeared in 2007 authored by one William Lorenz? The Urban Dictionary and Webster's Open Dictionary Internet publications under common copyright law are unimpeachably reliable sources to establish the date of those references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Domaineering is not just a bastardization of domaining but a quite different creature that's emerging. As a watcher of sorts of domain industry trends, IMHO, the Wikipedia article on domaineering is an important and controversial work because it separates the business model of domaineering ( advertising ) from that of domaining ( speculating ). Some legal websites have been astute in picking up on that not insignificant nuance possibly in that the domaineer ( advertiser ) may enjoy certain and different protections than the domainer ( speculator ) in the intellectual property arenas like WIPO. It also defends or might even boost the domain parking industry's reputation by tilting it more towards it's use by domaineers than that of domainers.
ps. Methinks a certain editor ought to recuse themself on this topic, because as others have pointed out, your apparent personal stance on the topic of domaineering and domaining may be coloring what should be strict neutrality. Verifying authorship issues aside, the reference sources cited above are reliable as to the date of the publication of their content and therefore useful in a historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Jmccormac, As to answer your earlier post...only in the interest of maintaining the historical record of the topic of domaineering. The dates of publishment of the reference sources are part of that historical record and those dates, although not necessarily the authorship of the content, are generally reliable. That certain reference sources may or may not be more verifiable as to the origin of their content is not disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
20 August 2009 (UTC)
Just mi 2 centavos of worthless opinion, however, after reviewing the original domaineerting article's text, ( some of which was removed from Wikipedia for reasons that might include offending someone's notions of literary style as being too "grandiose" ), which reads: "The earliest known verifiable identification and defining of domaineering as a distinct Internet advertising practice is attributed to Canadian Professor William Lorenz." does not anywhere indicate that Prof. William Lorenz conjured up the word "domaineering" from scratch. Rather, the Wiki's article's removed sentence in question only indicated Lorenz's contribution as basically identifying and defining domaineering as a type of Internet advertising. He's not attributed to creating a new word but only attributed to at best (re)defining an old word in a new, or at least "earliest known verifiable", creative way. Great care must be taken in reading the Wiki articles text so as to arrive at the proper interpretation(s).
As to the statement in an earlier post that "domaineers ( advertisers ) may enjoy certain and different protections than the domaineer ( speculators ) in the intellectual property arenas" may have to do with i) of paragraph 4(c) below taken from a WIPO decision as the Wikipedia article on domaineering suggests advertising may be considered a bonifide offering of a service that the domain speculator may not enjoy claiming as a "legitimate interest" type defense. That notion is best left to the legal profession to evaluate.
"B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out in particular, but without limitation, three circumstances which, if proved by a respondent, shall be evidence of a respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii), namely:
(i) before any notice of the dispute to respondent, respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; or
(ii) respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."
It does also strike me that Wikipedia editing is going very far afield in trying to discredit the article on domaineering. The article is clear in portraying domaineering as a form of Internet advertising and only that, not as speculating on domains as found in domaining. The article raises a some valid points worthy of discussion and therefore has merit remaining as a Wikipedia article.
addendum: The Merriam-Webster's Open Dictionary shows for the word "domaineering" the following:
(noun) : the creation or purchase of domain names for resale or advertising purposes 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. Submitted by: Wm. Lorenz from Canada on Oct. 31, 2008 00:10
(noun) : the practice of creating or acquiring domain names for monetization Domaineering was viewed by the Internet marketer as developing online billboards of sorts which could be utilized to generate revenue from advertising. Submitted by: Wm Lorenz from Canada on Oct. 05, 2007 21:34"
Domaineering section - Delete or Keep?
Johnuniq, thank you for continuing to framing the issue. Here's an opinion as to why domaineering belongs with the domain parking domain parking article: The purveyors of domain parking services provide the advertising feeds for domaineers and domaineers provide the generic domain names that the advertisers seek and pay for to attract potential customers to their websites. Put them together and SHAZAM! Domaineering / domain advertising occurs. It's like peanut butter and jelly...separately not much...but put them together and you have delicious synergy! Domaineers need the ad feeds and domain parking companies need the generic domains. Each needs the other...like two halves of the same coin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Include with domain parking. Domaineering in a conventional useage could not exist without domain parking, although the practice of domain advertising is somewhat vague to wit: Some folks in searching fof a hotel might go to H*tels.com, a seemingly generic domain if there ever was one. H*tels.com, BTW, is a registered trademark. H*tels.com, at least in part, provides advertising for hotel chains. Is it not accurate then to state then that H*tels.com then engages in some degree of domaineering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No explanations or sources have been provided to support keeping the section, and Jmccormac has provided a likely explanation for why the out-of-place section was added. I have therefore removed the section. I took the opportunity to also make several tweaks to wording, but I don't feel strongly attached to any of the minor changes that I made. Johnuniq
(talk) 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the degree of development is different, however, that's a slippery slope to argue as be they large or small, the underlying concept is basically the same...to make money off selling advertising using a generic domain. The providing of advertising itself constitutes the offering of a bonifide service. Domaineering. Take off the blinders. See the matrix. Even big search engines do it. They just don't like sharing part of their lunch and especially so with the little guy.
Some years back there was an old dairy farm between two recently built upscale residential neighborhoods. Now, some of those well-heeled city folks didn't like the smell of agriculture near their nice homes. They said "that farmland would be worth more if put to better use like more residential development". Maybe so, but that farmer just kept on farming because that's the best use he knew for the property and after all he was there first. So it is with domains that some consider virtual real estate.
While the outcome of this pretense of tag-team editing was predictable from the start, it is not to the credit of Wikipedia that it was allowed to occur. First it was the power of Wikipedia that allowed the article on domaineering to propagate over the Internet. Now it's possibly a conspiracy of domaineers looking for a nicer title. I personally have no doubt it's the same little green aliens that abducted me for probing experiments.
ps: Those alien experiments...was that the Holid@y Inn? I know a young lady who claims the same thing happened to her while on a date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)