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?

johnon.com  Competitive Web & SEO
December 23rd, 2007 by john andrews

Kayak.com - let’s talk about bad domain names

I read that Kayak.com just got $196 million in funding, and bought smaller rival SideStep.com. Funders of the travel company now include Sequoia Capital, General Catalyst Partners, Accel Partners, Norwest Venture Partners, Trident Capital, Oak Investment Partners, Lehman Brothers Venture Partners, Silicon Valley Bank and Gold Hill Capital. Wow. That’s a lot of cooks in the kitchen. Maybe someone at one of those companies will step up and admit that “kayak” is a terrible name for a discount travel site, and that maybe… just MAYBE someone needs to spend a little of that $196 million on a premium generic domain name?

Seriously. That kayak logo looks like an eye anyway, which has nothing to do with travel, and there is no such thing as discount travel with a kayak (kayaks don’t fit in the overhead bins and are too big to be checked as luggage). And what, maybe 0.01% of the world’s travelers go for kayak tours, right?

Come on domainers, pitch your premium generic idea here. These guys are at a juncture. They need some ideas and they need them now before they make the mistake of investing $196 million into marketing a discount travel site that ranks #1 for “kayak: a small human-powered boat. It typically has a covered deck, and a cockpit covered by a spraydeck.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a del.icio.us Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
December 23rd, 2007 by john andrews

Disagreeing with The Economist on 2008: A Matter of Perspectives

The Economist published 3 predictions for technology in 2008. I agree a little, but mostly I disagree. I think it is a matter of perspective.

I can’t hold the unnamed editors at TheEconomist.com accountable for their article, nor can I engage them in debate unless they happen upon my little blog here, but I can present their “predictions” and my own perspective on the issues covered. At least that will document my read of their perspective, and my own “predictions” on the same issues.

TheEconomist says:

1. Surfing will slow : “…the one thing we can predict with at least some certainty is that 2008 will be the year we stop taking access to the internet for granted. The internet is not about to grind to a halt, but as more and more users clamber aboard to download music, video clips and games while communicating incessantly by e-mail, chat and instant messaging, the information superhighway sometimes crawls with bumper-to-bumper traffic.”

I completely agree - for some users, but by my view the web will accelerate for another class of users. I think TheEconomist is all wrong when it says

“Soon, portable media-players, personal navigators, digital cameras, DVD players, flat-panel TV sets, and even mobile phones won’t be able to function properly without access to the internet….Expect even digital picture frames to have a WiFi connection…users are changing the way they use the internet…they are now uploading…gigabytes galore…popularity of social networks like Facebook, YouTube and MySpace…..Everyone… is suddenly… sharing his or her home-made videos with fellow YouTubers….music videos and TV episodes of hundreds of megabytes are being swapped over the internet…it’s all two-way traffic…That’s just the beginning. Legal or otherwise, swapping multi-gigabyte high-definition video and movie files is becoming increasingly common….it will soon be the norm…The result is a gridlock. That the telephone companies are running out of bandwidth can be seen from their equipment orders.

The “telephone companies” have nothing to do with this. As use increases, every smart technology provider in this space will segment the traffic and monetize it. As uploads increase, costs will increase for uploading users. Just as we now have “basic cable” for $12, “regular cable” for $45 and “digital I/O” for $110 per month in my area, users will begin to pay for access to what they want. Oh, and even if I have that top-tier $110/month cable package, I still need to pay an additional $100+/month for access to programming packages like NHL Center Ice so I can watch them. And did I mention that the content providers (the NHL in this case) meanwhile managed to move many of their games off Center Ice to a second, separate and competing channel where I would have to pay again for access to those games?

Did you watch the Olympics on TV last time? Didn’t it suck? They chopped it up into too-small content segments, added too many commercials, seemingly randmized the presentation order for their “audience capture” convenience. Would you have paid more to see the actual Olympics on TV, instead of that butchered “let’s try and make this profitable even though we paid $bijillions for the rights to air it” version? Of course you would. And someone will figure out a way to make that possible. Very soon. The hacked up ADD version will still be there for those who want it (or don’t want to pay for the real thing).

Robert Ludlum’s Bourne Ultimatum (the novel) bares almost no resemblance to the Bourne Ultimatum movie, but both have audiences. Watching the movie was like watching a 90 minute trailer, or an accelerated episode of 24 Hours.. a separate and distinct entertainment experience from the story told by Ludlum in the novel. Was it worth $9 per seat to watch? Nope. Was it worth $3 to rent the DVD for 5 days? Sure.
This is how it works now, and this is how it will go in 2008. How could it go any other way? The only network that will “slow to a crawl” will be the NewAOL… the network that purposefully decides to lock up its user community the way AOL did in the 90’s, offering them a package deal with no options, badgering users with ads and throttling their use until the only remaining member were the ones willing to tolerate the delivered level of service for the offered price. Eventually, that audience will know of nothing else and accept it as “good”.

If TheEconomist is frugal and stays with such a package (perhaps the new Google network?), yes indeedy performance will suck. But I expect to simply pay a lot more for what I want - and I expect I will get it for that same reason - because I will pay for it. Let’s face it. Almost anyone can get a pipe to my house these days, and at several hundred dollars per month in access fees, there is plenty of revenue to share with the infrastructure providers.

The Economist says:

2. Surfing will detach : “techdom has been abuzz with rumours about Google getting into the mobile phone business…The aim… is to flood the market with open access phones that have none of the restrictions that big carriers impose… because Google’s core business is organising knowledge and giving users access to it…Internet searches will doubtless as popular among mobile-internet surfers as among their sedentary cousins”

Nope. Again, mobile phone Internet use will not replace computer use, but will supplement it. I’ve been using Winblows Mobile with Google maps and Opera and it’s great, but it is a completely different animal. I need my desktop, and I need my mobile. And I need something not yet available - smart hooks between the two. Those smart hooks, which enable my mobile to utilize knowledge of my desktop use, will increase efficiency and boost mobile web use. And that mobile web use will b a different kind of Internet use than we know today. Google is in the business of serving effective advertisements, and channelling traffic. It is the latter, not the former, that will pay off as mobile adopts the web. Mark my words — Google’s future is in traffic, not ads. Whatever it takes to own that traffic… that’s what Google will do, and that is what every other ISP will fight (Verizon, Bell South, TheNewATT, etc).

I expect surfing to get richer and richer and moble web access to get thinner and thinner and everyone will want both. Eventually they won’t seem anything at all like each other. “Surfing will detach?” Nope. Surfing will anchor to the desktop.

And finally, The Economist says (bold added for emphasis):

3. Surfing and everything else computer-related will open: “…Bulletproof distributions of Linux from Red Hat and Novell have long been used on back-office servers. Since the verdict against SCO, Linux has swiftly become popular in small businesses and the home….Like other Linux desktop editions, Ubuntu works perfectly well on lowly machines that couldn’t hope to run Windows XP, let alone Vista Home Edition or Apple’s OS-X…Your correspondent has been happily using Gutsy Gibbon on a ten-year-old desktop with only 128 megabytes of RAM and a tiny 10 gigabyte hard-drive...and some 23,000 other Linux applications available for free seem more than ready to fill that gap. By some reckonings, Linux fans will soon outnumber Macintosh addicts…”

Wow. At the end of the article we learn TheEconomist writer is a tech geek using a 10 year old PC running Linux, and the third prediction seems to suggest Linux will take over the desktop? So, so, so wrong.

Seriously. Visit Costco to see fully-blown entertainmnet systems with massive LCD screens and 7.1 audio priced sub $1800. If you shop locally, more mainstream fully functional systems cost merely $400. Hardware is not an issue, and no one will care if something runs on 10 year old hardware. Neither is the OS an issue. Windows is fine for the masses, and Microsoft will make sure that remains true for a long time to come. More Linux users than MacIntosh users? When did that matter? I love Linux, but it’s not for the masses on their “personal” computers unless they choose it. K-12 Linux is an awesome product, as is Ubuntu, when used to satisfy a need (locked down school computers, utility servers, tech development workstations, etc). Marveling at the sub-$100 PC for “the common man” is quaint, but not realistic. The Internet will not wait for those commoners to catch up. They are not the ones creating and supporting the web experience. We are still a decade at least away from the day the Internet techno-political infrastructure (which doesn’t even exist today) gives a hoot about the costs of access.

My perspective: things will become more proprietary, not more open, for everyone except those who pursue the use of open systems (just like today, but harder). More and more Open Source stuff will break apart, as open source developers focus on the core code and leave the implementation/packaging to for-profit cooperatives and companies. Today we have Drupal which almost any tech person can install, configure and customize. In the future we will have something like DrupalCore, which any tech person can install, configure and customize, plus a slew of companies specializing in Drupal customization, Drupal management, Drupal eCommerce, etc. That model works, and I expect we will see more and more of it. Commercial users and non-techies will have to pay, and techies will get paid. The early days of Open Source existed because they enabled the techies to show how it could work, but now that point has been made, and the piper must be paid.

I will add one more prediction TheEconomist did not address: Publishers who do not offer real value on the web will go out of business. Articles which simply present a fancy headline or present a position without strong evidence or which are easily exposed as “empty” will cease to perform economically. Will it happen in 2008? I’m not sure, but the writing is on the wall, and publications like Wired and Forbes and The Economist should consider the impact on their profitability now, before it hits them hard.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a del.icio.us Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
December 15th, 2007 by john andrews

Domain Typo Squatting: Where there is trust, there is an exploit

McAffee has an opinion, and if you trust them for your AntiVirus and personal computer “security”, that opinion is now shaping your Internet experience.

Hacking credo: where there is trust, there is an exploit. It goes way back. The art of the con… find or create a point of trust, and you have opportunity to misdirect. So when I see a “computer security firm” expressing opinions like I see in this so-called “study”, I worry.

McAffee says it decided to study typo squatting, the practice of registering domains that are typos of existing domain, in order to serve the direct trafic that comes when people mis-type the domain name in the browser location bar. The trite example is someone intends to go to iphone.com but types iophone.com. Whomever registered iophone.com is said to be “typosquatting”. Typically the typo domain has a page of ads on it.

What bothers me about poorly done “research” like this McAffee report, is the bias. I can’t get past the obvious bias. It’s not just bad, sloppy research, but it is clearly agenda driven. McAffee has an opinion, and by claiming to base that opinion in fact or research, they feel justified to impose controls via their security products. Typo domains will be flagged as suspect, not to be trusted, based on McAffee’s determination. But I see that bias because I am active in the domain and web publishing worlds. I am quite sure the public will not see the bias so easily.
Consider for yourself the domain cruise.com. Before you look, what would you expect to appear there? Most would say a web site about cruises. Some would guess a parked page. It doesn’t really matter because it is what it is, and because this Internet thing is a free market, anyone with an idea can pursue the rights to publish on the cruise.com domain. It might cost money to secure the rights, but if it’s a good business idea, well, that’s how markets work. And if there is an opportunity on a typo domain, that, too is handled by the market.
Actually cruise.com is indeed a website about cruises. Now, consider criuse.com, a common typo of cruise.com. What would you expect to find at criuse.com? Most would say a parked page, as you might find with the typical typo squatter. Well, it’s a cruise web site.  Go figure.

Actually, it is a partially built cruise website, representative of a domainer exploring the frontier beyond parked pages, with actual content. Many links are broken,  and it is search driven to a large degree. But is it worthy of censorship by products like McAffee’s antivirus and security products?  If it was a parked page yesterday, and is a half-built content site today, what might it be tomorrow? If you use McAffee, you may never know. McAffee says it’s a “typo squatter” when actually it’s a webmaster just like every other site on the Internet. A web master publishing content…working through the steps to publish and tune a website to serve the audience for commercial gain. Why is McAffee judging intent and censoring the web?
Were there is trust there s an exploit. McAffee has trust for its antivirus products, and now they expand to include “safe Internet surfing” and impose editorial opinion and exploit the trust for commercial gain. The generic domain cruise.com has some trust, which is exploited by the typo squatter at criuse.com. Which is more evil? I think the average surfer hitting criuse.com will figure out if the site is devoid of value for themselves. They can also decide if the ads are good things to click. But I don’t think they will ever recognize that a company like McAffee is censoring their Internet experience based on sloppy research and opinion.
An example statement from that McAffee report (bold added):

In general, we have erred on the side of caution when deciding whether a site is typo-squatting. Our signature based methodology described earlier is designed to reduce false positives – sites that are incorrectly flagged as typo-squatters. More specifically, if a site does not include a signature of a known domain parking company, we do not flag the site as a typo-squatter even though the site may in fact be attempting to profit from brand name confusion.

Bingo. In other words, even after all this “research” into what is and what is not typo squatting and how typo squatting is good or bad for consumers, the bottom line is McAffee’s products will only flag domains owned by the major parking companies as suspect, unworthy, “yellow”, unsafe, etc. See the bias?
Editor’s Note: I purposefully misspelled McAffee throughout this article because I wanted to.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a del.icio.us 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



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

blogroll

categories

comments policy

archives

credits

Recent Posts: ★ 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 ★ Seeing the Trees, but Missing the Forest ★ Search is a Task; Discovery is Fun ★ Why “dot everything” is a Good Idea (and ahead of its time) 

Subscribe

☆ 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
  • IncrediBill.blogspot.com
  • 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 (544)
    Webmasters to Watch (4)
    domainers (63)
    Oprah (1)
    photography (3)
    Privacy (16)
    Public Relations (187)
    SEO (395)
    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

  • 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