Big Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:59:55 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>> I agree with Dave about the old domains thing, he'll need to be buying
>>> domains that were already associated with the subject he intends to
>>> fill them with though, dunno if he realises that but he probably does
>>> and should have mentioned. And I agree with what he says about sub
>>> domains. It should be born in mind though, that when you or I say we
>>> added new content to a site we generally mean a few pages of original
>>> content here and there. Dave reproduces public domain content
>>> thousands of pages at a time, hence the large number of visitors he
>>> gets. So if you or I add a few original pages to our little site about
>>> our Aunt Petunia's pressed flower collection, as is our wont, we can't
>>> expect the same kind of visitor figures. Which you might notice he
>>> entirely fails to mention.
>>I have learned to accept Dave's conduct over time. There is no harm if the
>>content is public -- something _which I failed to grasp at first_.
> I don't mind him doing it as he does what he does well, so far as I
> can see. He misleads by omission, though, and does it repeatedly,
> seemingly in an attempt to present himself in a far better light than
> he deserves to be. So, he presents himself in an overly-flattering
> light, and he runs other people down without any justification. This
> is what I object to. He's ALWAYS done this, for years. If this place
> had a moderator he'd have been kicked off years ago.
I was deceived too at first. It was only once I went to his sites that I
realised it was somewhat a monkey business. Don't get me wrong, he does
everything he does quite well, but he cannot mention and present the high
numbers to someone with a 5-page Web site and the desire to lure more
>> I think
>>he is doing a fine job delivering people what they search for, however at
>>the expense of smaller sites whose owners are the _authors_, who will get
>>greater gratification from visits. When I published a modified version of
>>a GPL'd (General Public Licence) project that I had hacked on, I had some
>>unjustified feelings of guilt. If not _all_ the code is genuinely mine, I
>>think the other authors must be credited (in terms of stats), which is not
>>possible. That's what the GPL is all about though.
>>Getting back on topic, I have seen some sites that got acquired by
>>different owners but stuck to related topics (often restricted by the
>>domain name, e.g. palmnews.com will not become a family page).
> Yeah, I can see that working, there are companies, Snapnames used to
> be one, maybe still is, that deal in these. I tracked
> Maliceinwonderland.com for years but never got it, heh-heh.
Hmm... it took me a couple of seconds to separate out the domain name into
words. This domain is no treasure. Unless you plan to sell sex toys, I
don't see much use for that address.
>>I wonder if pages that have _existed_ for many years are merited?
> Depends on the pages, I would imagine, and their environment.
>> I know
>>that a long-term registration entails an advantage.
> That's what we hear, whether it's true or not we arguably won't know
> until some years hence.
It was patented by Google, so it's likely to be a valid way to discern
short-term spam sources from serious businesses. It is controversial,
however, because Google too were a start-up in the older days and they
probably did not register google.com for 10 years.
Roy S. Schestowitz