John Andrews is a Competitive Webmaster and Search Engine Optimization Consultant in Seattle, Washington. This is John Andrews blog on issues of interest to the SEO community and competitive webmasters. Want to know more?  Competitive Web & SEO
July 30th, 2007 by john andrews

The Value of Domain Name Circulation

In the world of monetary systems, circulation is essential for growing healthy economies. Wealth that is earned can be put back into circulation via banking and investment industries. The dollar is always at work, helping someone somewhere earn, and one’s wealth is measured in ownership and control of enterprises that participate in the economy.

The opposite of circulation would be collecting your paper money under your mattress. Yes, you’re wealthy, but if the economy tanks while you’re holding that paper wealth, you just may lose the value to multi-digit inflation as has happened numerous times in countries with sick economies. I was in Brasil just after the government lopped a few zeros off the value of their paper currency in response to huge inflation. It was not pretty. That 1,000 bill in your hand was suddenly worth 10. Had it been in circulation, your holdings would have probably survived much better than that 1,000 bill.

Are domain names the same? Does circulation help maintain a healthy web, and thus help maintain a successful web economy?

As I advise businesses on web issues I often get involved in choosing and buying domain names. Lately, most domain names are already reserved. But an alarming number of those reserved domain names are unused. Can this be healthy for the web?

I think a domain name should be in use, or available to be used. As long as meaningful domains function on the web, people will use the web. Imagine a web where most domain names did not resolve. Time after time the consumer tries a domain name, and nothing seems to resolve. Search engines take over.  Now that search engines are monetizing search with advertisements, paid placements and promotions, meaningful domain names are more desirable. They allow us to reach the consumer in a sea of promotional ads and attention-stealing search engine trickery. They have more meaning.

But if a large number of domains are reserved and not used, what happens to the domain name system? It is not working for the consumers as it was designed. It becomes less important to the masses, despite the individually held domain names being important to their “owners” (the ones hiding them under their mattresses). Just as governments can lop zeros from the end of currencies they control, they can change the way the domain name system works. Will that be good?

I think we should try and keep domain names in circulation, working on the web. If you’re not using it, let someone else use it. If there is a monetary value, let the market trade on that value. Keep the domain names in circulation, to help keep the web healthy for everyone.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
July 30th, 2007 by john andrews

Mozilla Foundation Dumps Thunderbird Mail Client

The Mozilla people have put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a bugler to play taps for ThunderBird. That’s my take on this post by the Mozilla Foundation’s on the future of Thunderbird.

I have to admit, the Mozilla foundation has irked me for a few years now. Ever since they went blatantly commercial, I have been skeptical of their motives. It wasn’t so much that they “try to earn a living for themselves and their programmers” (so please, spare me that tired retort) but the way they went about it. I consider it exploitation – open source, free software, community good will …. and behind closed doors, deals with Google to sell typo redirection and toolbar installs and such. And that whole thing about filing tax extension requests and then filing late as a commercial entity because, oh look, even though we were non-profit and living off the good will of the open source supporting community, we were actually earning a huge profit so we have to re-write the past 8 months or so of history…mmmkay?

I knew several quality people who contributed their own time, money, and energies to supporting Mozilla during those months. They contributed donations. They bought T-shirts and gave them away, as a means of giving something back to the people who gave them the free browser, the free email client, etc. They chose Linux over Windows and worked hard to convince others of the virtues of supporting projects like Mozilla. And as they did that, Mozilla was earning millions from monetizing that good will. And then Mozilla basically said “oh, while we were saying we were non-profit, we weren’t really, ok? But we’ve back adjusted our paperwork to make it all ok, okay?” Nice.

So now I read how that money-seeking, commercial (but-not-really, okay?) “non-profit” foundation dislikes the taste of Thunderbird. I can’t help but read between the lines of the post:

Mozilla has been supporting Thunderbird as a product since the beginning of the Foundation.

In other words, “we’re getting pretty darn tied of supporting this cost center”.

The result is a good, solid product that provides an open alternative for desktop mail. However, the Thunderbird effort is dwarfed by the enormous energy and community focused on the web, Firefox and the ecosystem around it. As a result, Mozilla doesn’t support Thunderbird as much as we do browsing and Firefox and we don’t expect this to change in the foreseeable future. We are convinced that our current focus – delivering the web, mostly through browsing and related services – is the correct priority. At the same time, the Thunderbird team is extremely dedicated and competent, and we all want to see them do as much as possible with Thunderbird.

Translation: Thunderbird is good as a mail program, but we make so much delicious money from Google which we can’t spend on development for Thunderbird because it directly competes with GMail. Oh, and we’re likin’ the bling bling, so there’s no way we’re going back. And those Thunderbird developers…we’ve segmented them out from the rest of our money-making ventures so they really don’t fit in any more, ahem.. great people that they are.

We have concluded that we should find a new organizational approach for Thunderbird; one that allows the Thunderbird community to determine its own destiny.

Now seriously, doesn’t that sound exactly like corporate-speak for “you’re fired”?

Mozilla is exploring the options for an organization specifically focused on serving Thunderbird users. A separate organization focused on Thunderbird will both be able to move independently and will need to do so to deepen community and user involvement. We’re not yet sure what this organization will look like. We’ve thought about a few different options. I’ve described them below. If you’ve got a different idea please let us know.

How can I not see the set up in that statement? “We like you, we really do, but it’s best you move away from us. Far away. Over there. We promise to do all we can to help you survive.. really… whenever we can. It’ll be better for you… it will…trust me…

Okay so I get it… you’re dumping Thunderbird because it’s nothing more than a great, free, open source alternative to the available commercial, privacy-invading alternatives like GMail that line your pockets and make you happy happy happy. I can understand that – it’s called greed and it’s very very common. But puhleeeeze stop wrapping this crap in warm fuzzy blankets. It’s making me gag.

Perhaps the bestest part of all, is Mitchell’s post which repeats this stuff but adds the swift kick in the pants to the Thunderbird devotees: He tacks on a job ad for developers looking to create a new email client:

We would also like to find contributors committed to creating and implementing a new vision of mail. We would like to have a roadmap that brings wild innovation, increasing richness and fundamental improvements to mail. And equally importantly, we would like to find people with relevant expertise who would join with Mozilla to make something happen.

Man that has got to suck for the Thunderbird people. Not only has Mozilla-the-Corporation isolated you and labeled you as unworkable in the “New Millenia”, but they’ve gone and re-branded you as “old vision“, “non-innovative“, “low-richness“. Ouch. Maybe it’s just me, but if Mozilla-the-Corporation is so successful, and obviously Thunderbird is amazingly robust, WTF is wrong with putting some of that CorporateAbility to work moving the Thunderbird team into the “new vision”? Last I looked, if a vision was promising enough to warrant investment, then you invested in it. How could it be possible that a company with a great email client considers it more effective to dump the entire project and start over? Smells like bad management to me. Maybe the same bad management that exploited the non-commercial good will? Maybe the same bad management that isolated the Thunderbird team to the point of unworkability? I’m thinking the Google money is coming way too easy for these guys,that’s what I’m thinking.

So please stop. It’s all silly. You’re dumping Thunderbird because it’s not making money, it competes with GeeMail, and the developers own it. You’re culture clashing with those developers, the same way AOL culture-clashed with the Mozilla developers back in the day. You don’t care about the free mail client, you care about the money-making potential of injecting ads into email or whatever other commercial nonsense you can think up and label as “innovative richness”. You aren’t up to the task of managing a real company, and with so little accountability you take the easy route. Let’s face it, Mozilla, you have become BabyAOL.

We have other browsers: By the way, if you haven’t tried the newest Opera it’s amazing, and if you want ad-free Firefox without most of the exploitation, check out the SeaMonkey project.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
July 29th, 2007 by john andrews

Canon MkIII Autofocus Problems: Update

It seems the Internet is changing things for the better. In my last post about the Canon EOS-1D MkIII autofocus, I commented how camera manufacturers get away with shipping inferior computerized cameras because we users cannot afford to properly test the single units we purchase. If you get a soft focuser or a stutterer you really can’t make a case with Canon or the dealer, because there are simply too many variables and it is too difficult to prove.

Well, that back focusing issue I highlighted has become a big issue, and the fine work done by the folks at ProPhotoHome is making big waves. NatureScapes now has a lengthy thread describing the issues nature photographers have had with the new MkIII, especially those trying to shoot flying birds. The Rob Galbraith people seem pissed, and were quick to test the new firmware release to see if it fixed the problem: it didn’t.

If the Internet enables grass roots action, we see it happening here. Some of the commentary from the very influential digital photogaphy websites, regarding this new $5,000 digital camera from Canon:

From Rob

…on sunny, warm days, the EOS-1D Mark III’s ability to grab focus initially, hold focus on static subjects and track moving subjects is both unusably poor and no match for the camera’s predecessor, the EOS-1D Mark II N…We’ve now shot and analysed about 3400 track, soccer and test frames taken over two days… and the results are effectively the same as before: lots of out-of-focus frames that should be crisply focused. And, as before, simply putting the EOS-1D Mark II N onto the same lens and shooting the same stuff produces a high percentage of in-focus photos.

Ouch. If we looked at the PPC payouts, for the DP sites, as a measure of how close they are to the purchase decision, we would see they are VERY INFLUENTIAL for high-end digital camera buying. That has got to hurt. Canon must be paying attention, but can they fix the problem?

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine

Competitive Webmaster

Wonder how to be more competitive at some aspect of the web? Submit your thoughts.

SEO Secret

Not Post Secret

Click HERE


John Andrews is a mobile web professional and competitive search engine optimzer (SEO). He's been quietly earning top rank for websites since 1997. About John




comments policy



Recent Posts: ★ SEO Industry Growth, Widespread Failure, and SEO Industry Challenge ★ Do you want to WIN, or just “Be the Winner”? ★ 503: GONE ★ Cloud Storage ★ Identity Poetry for Marketers ★ PR is where the Money Is ★ Google is an Addict ★ When there are no Jobs ★ Google Stifles Innovation, starts Strangling Itself ★ Flying the SEO Helicopter ★ Penguin 2.0 Forewarning Propaganda? ★ Dedicated Class “C” IP addresses for SEO ★ New Domain Extensions (gTLDs) Could Change Everything ★ Kapost Review ★ Aaron Von Frankenstein ★ 2013 is The Year of the Proxy ★ Preparing for the Google Apocalypse ★ Rank #1 in Google for Your Name (for a fee) ★ Pseudo-Random Thoughts on Search ★ Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, or a Blog ★ The BlueGlass Conference Opportunity ★ Google Execs Take a Break from Marissa Mayer, Lend Her to Yahoo! ★ Google SEO Guidelines ★ Reasons your Post-Penguin Link Building Sucks ★ Painful Example of Google’s Capricious Do Not Care Attitude 


☆ about

John Andrews is a mobile web professional and competitive search engine optimzer (SEO). He's been quietly earning top rank for websites since 1997. About John

☆ navigation

  • John Andrews and Competitive Webmastering
  • E-mail Contact Form
  • What does Creativity have to do with SEO?
  • How to Kill Someone Else’s AdSense Account: 10 Steps
  • Invitation to Twitter Followers
  • …unrelated: another good movie “Clean” with Maggie Cheung
  • …unrelated: My Hundred Dollar Mouse
  • Competitive Thinking
  • Free SEO for NYPHP PHP Talk Members
  • Smart People
  • Disclosure Statement
  • Google Sponsored SPAM
  • Blog Post ideas
  • X-Cart SEO: How to SEO the X Cart Shopping Cart
  • the nastiest bloke in seo
  • Seattle Domainers Conference
  • Import large file into MySQL : use SOURCE command
  • Vanetine’s Day Gift Ideas: Chocolate Fragrance!
  • SEM Rush Keyword Research
  • ☆ blogroll

  • Bellingham SEO
  • Domain Name Consultant
  • Hans Cave Diving in Mexico
  • Healthcare Search Marketing
  • John Andrews
  • John Andrews SEO
  • SEMPDX Interview
  • SEO Quiz
  • SEO Trophy Phrases
  • SMX Search Marketing Expo
  • T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East 2007
  • TOR
  • ☆ categories

    Competition (39)
    Competitive Intelligence (15)
    Competitive Webmastering (547)
    Webmasters to Watch (4)
    domainers (63)
    Oprah (1)
    photography (3)
    Privacy (16)
    Public Relations (187)
    SEO (398)
    Client vs. SEO (2)
    Link Building (3)
    Search Engines vs. SEO (1)
    SEO SECRETS (11)
    SEO vs. SEO (1)
    ThreadWatch Watching (5)
    Silliness (24)
    Social Media (7)
    society (31)
    Uncategorized (23)

    ☆ archives

  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • July 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006