Talk:Domain tasting/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Domain Tasting?

The common name for this in the DNS industry is domain tasting. Only one or two people call it kiting. Should this be renamed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.112.38.4 (talk • contribs)

Nope. Create an account though, and you can set up a redirect. Ardenn 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move. Ardenn 22:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Domain kiging → Domain tasting – Another editor wishes this moved. Ardenn 20:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose current name is fine, and gets 44,300 google hits. Domain tasting only gets 40,200 google hits Ardenn 20:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose

70.248.186.8 00:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose Analogous to check kiting ; "domain tasting" could mean something different, even if it is the preferred term in the industry. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adam Moro

I would like to know why somebody removed the link to Adam Moro's blog. Adam Moro originally wrote this article. The link to Adam Moro's blog has now been re-installed to the External Resources section of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.236.28 (talk • contribs) .

See WP:OWN. Just because he started the article, doesn't mean he owns it. That said, the link remains for now. Ardenn 01:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Who is Adam Moro, and why is his blog entry notable enough for an encyclopedia to refer to it? Haakon 05:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
See WP:EL. Ardenn 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Adam Moro's blog entry on domain kiting contains suggestions as to how Domain Kiting can be stopped which expands on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adammoro (talk • contribs)
In the end I do think it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to promote your own blog entries. Haakon 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, we have Bob's blog entry. Not a big difference. Ardenn 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Bob Parsons is the founder and CEO of Go Daddy, one of the world's biggest domain registrars. The guy is a major mover in the domain name industry, and people want to hear what he has to say about domain name issues, because what he says matters. Adam Moro, on the other hand, seems to be just some guy who decided to put his opinions on domain kiting into a blog post one day. One is notable and relevant, the other is not. That is a difference that matters to an encyclopedia. Haakon 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
*Is it accessible?
*Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?
*Is it entered correctly?
*Is the link, in the context used, likely to have a substantive longevity? For example, it is not useful to link to a homepage that changes often and merely happens to have a relevant picture or article on its front page at the moment. Similarly, be very wary of citing an unstable page as a source.
That is from WP:EL. On the style guide page, it says nothing about notability. External links don't have to be notable, so long as they do something to enhance the article. I accept an argument that website with just links doesn't enhance the article. Despite him just creating that post one day, it does enhance, and add to the article. Ardenn 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:EL also says you should normally avoid links to websites that you own or maintain. Adam Moro himself added the link to his blog entry. It's a sneaky way to add one's own POV to the mix, while giving the impression of authority. Well, that's my POV, and at least we have discussed it. Haakon 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Source

Can't we cite Parson's blog as the authority for the numbers of kited domains? -- (AlanH not logged in) 10 July 2006

I don't see why not. It's not the best source mind you but that's clearly where the figure has come from. We can only presume that he's done his research to verify that claim (or is there a policy against assuming that?). Yay unto the Chicken 08:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it. He's in the industry, and knows his stuff. He has a reputation to keep, so IMHO, he's unlikely to publish stuff that would get him into a lawsuit. Ardenn 16:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I've removed the 'fact' template and cited Parson's blog. Note that the next sentence also cite's the same blog. I wasn't sure whether to remove that link or quite how I should go about avoiding repetition. After a bit of learning, I've cited it "properly". Yay unto the Chicken 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam redux

His blog should not be linked here. I can find hundreds of other blog entries on this subject. Why should this beautiful Adam Moro entry be linked, instead of them? He calls kiting a "scam" in his page, and domain kiting is not scamming anyone. --65.245.103.194 01:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No opinion as to to whether he or his site or notable at this time, but it is is a scam. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How is domain kiting a scam? Who is it scamming? Perhaps you should look up the definition of scam in the dictionary. Maybe domain kiting is gaming the system, but it is not a scam. 63.139.14.67 11:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have long since argued above that Moro is indeed a superstar. They didn't listen. Haakon 17:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam Moro taught me everything I know about SEO.Darth seo 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia cites valid sources but who is to say that Adam Moro isn’t another valid source. Regardless if it is Adam Moro’s POV or Parsons POV, it is a POV from someone and referencing a blog post shouldn’t be based on whom the owner of the blog is. I work with Adam and I know that he does his research and writes authentic and valuable content. I for one will add my approval based on what I said above. Jfj3rd 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC) JFJ3RD

Domain Kiting is not the same as Domain Tasting/Testing

Bob Parson's calls it Domain Kiting when the domains are deleted within the grace period and then re-registered in order to keep them active "without" paying for them (which is not quite correct, since the registrar does need to float the money for the registration at the registry). I have not yet been able to find any evidence that this takes place.

In "Domain Testing" or "Tasting" as some call it (Verisign calls it "add/delete storms") the domains are tested for traffic within the grace period, the ones without traffic are deleted and the ones with traffic are kept (and paid for).

I agree with this. I too have not been able to find any evidence that this takes place, and Parson's "Domain Kiting" is definitely different from Traffic Testing/Catch or Release. 63.139.14.67 11:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge / split

Currently we have three separate pages: "domain tasting" (redirects to domain kiting); "domain kiting" (this page); and "domain taster" (a stand-alone page). Given the suggestion of lack-of-neutrality of the term "domain kiting" I would suggest the whole kit and kaboodle be merged into a single article (this one) and then this one be moved/renamed "domain testing" with "domain kiting", "domain tester", and "domain kiter" all redirecting. This article should then set forth the distinction described above, along with any evidence suggesting that there are, or are not, actually separate business practices to justify the distinction in terms. Regardless of the move, though, I think the articles should be merged; there's not enough unique content; they are related concepts; and while they may be distinct (but related) practices, the terms are also used synonymously-- one (DK) is used as a pejorative for the other (DT). --lquilter 13:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I oppose that. Domain kiting has more of a notable and documented history than the others. GreenJoe 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I fixed the problem by rediecting "domain taster" to this one. GreenJoe 15:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that "fix" :-( . I agree to the discussion abovr: NOBODY calls it kiting, EVERYBODY calls it tasting. I haven't even heard of kiting until that redirect. And a debate/poll with three participants is hardly representative... --Pmkpmk 16:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • PS User:Pmkpmk, I incorporated extra content from the Domain taster page you created into the current page "Domain kiting". So hopefully we can just address the title issue. --lquilter 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There are two issues: One, should there be separate pages. I think not, and it seems like most folks are in relative accord on this point at least. So redirecting from the four variants to one page is best. I suspect that the "new page" issue is related to preferences for title of page. So if we can resolve issue Two, which is what the page should be called, that would also solve #1. I've heard both terms used equivalently. Stats were cited above to justify use of term domain kiting, but they are out of date -- current Google for "domain tasting" returns 50,600; current Google for "domain kiting" returns 28,800. Both are in relatively widespread use but "domain tasting" seems to be winning out. However, even given two synonymous and roughly equivalent terms, I think the one that sounds more neutral is better. (User:GreenJoe talks about history -- do you mean page history or history of term?) --lquilter 17:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So which of the two do you think is more neutral? A current Google search shows 26.000 (kiting) to 50.200 (tasting). Given that the ICANN usues "tasting" I would give more credibility to that term. --Pmkpmk 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was clear earlier -- I think "tasting" is more neutral than "kiting". But both terms need to be addressed clearly in the article and it needs to be explained that they are sometimes used synonymously. --lquilter 23:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. So do we need a voting, or do we simply proceed? --Pmkpmk 12:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You have to have a clear consensus for a move, and there isn't one right now. GreenJoe 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That's why I asked if we need voting. Is there any official way for this? How do we proceed? On a sidenote: at the "voting" above there were only 3 participants... --Pmkpmk 18:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a way, but really, 3 votes or folks who give feedback isn't really consensus. You might want to list this on Requests for Comment. GreenJoe 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I want this resolved too, so I'll go and start it. GreenJoe 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Did it get listed? where? I haven't found it ... (still looking) --lquilter 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC) ... I added one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy and trade which is a good place to draw in commenters, even if there's another one somewhere else. ... Ah, and I see the other one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature --lquilter 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Any news? --Pmkpmk 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would a domain hijacker keep a low-traffic site?

Why would a domain hijacker keep a low-traffic site? My low-traffic US nonprofit site expired (through incompetence). After a couple months, a site hijacker in China tasted it, put up some ads, found no traffic, and dropped it in a few days. But then a Russian(?) in Las Vegas picked it up -- and kept it! With no ads!! Just copied over a few of the original old pages of uninteresting nonprofit material! Why? What devious scheme is behind this person wasting $5 to own this valueless domain name for the next year? I am paranoid that something seriously evil is afoot.-69.87.203.105 16:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Domain tasting

For crying out loud, the article admits that the name domain tasting is more common and that domain kiting is only used by the GoDaddy CEO. That makes kiting a solitary neologism and tasting the preferred term of ICANN and others. Wikipedia naming conventions are clear that we MUST use the most common name, and that SURE AS HELL is NOT kiting. DreamGuy 08:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For the person who changed it back without discussion, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy. Furthermore, the other article already existed and covered the same ground, so leaving this one here violates Wikipedia:Fork policies. Please go read up on how things work here and you'll see that there is no choice but to forward this article to the other. If you disagree, please provide proof that domain kiting is the more common term (good luck when the article itself said ICANN and others used domain tasting instead and only Bob Parsons came up with kiting relatively recently). Until you do so there simply is no plausible reason to want the title to be domain kiting. DreamGuy 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Evn above people admit that the preferred term is tasting, incldusing this line "'domain tasting' could mean something different, even if it is the preferred term in the industry" -- because it undeniably IS the preferred term, that's the name we HAVE to use, regardless of whether somebody thinks it should be something different. DreamGuy 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And for sources proving what the name actually is:

which are straight from the article on the topic.

With the number of people above who clearly say that the article name should be tasting (unfortunately most posted separate from the straw poll) and the only people saying it shouldn't be are admitting that the term as used by the industry (and as shown here) is tasting (which means Wikipedia naming policy kicks in), EVERYTHING proves it needs to be at domain tasting. Before anyone changes it back, please try to give a reason that follows Wikipedia policy and shows that kiting is more common (and it won't be, because everyone admits it isn't).DreamGuy 21:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move article. However, it appears that some sort of content ought to be placed at Domain tasting. This article seems to be about both practices; perhaps its scope ought to be clarified? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Domain kiting → Domain tasting — (administrative request to match multiple cut/paste move attempts) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose. Terms are both used, but possibly not for the same thing. Perhaps separate articles would be appropriate, but there should be a principle article here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Domain kiting more often used. GreenJoe 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. You are asking the wrong question! As any industry expert will tell you, including Monte Cahn, CEO of Moniker.com, and Aaron Kornblum, Microsoft's Senior Anti-Cybersquatting Attorney, domain kiting is a sub-practice of domain tasting. In other words, all of domain kiting is also domain tasting. But the vast majority of domain tasting is NOT domain kiting. The real question should be "do you agree that domain tasting is not the same as domain kiting, and that therefore two separate articles are required, the main article being at domain tasting, and a smaller article being at domain kiting"? Hirschy 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS that this conversation could be opened and closed within a few days while ignoring comments made above. In fact it borders on malicious negligence. Nobody has even attempted to dispute the EXTRMELY CLEAR reasons this article cannot stay at domain kiting and instead prefer to ignore it and go off and do whatever the hell they want.

Claims that domain kiting are the preferred term SIMPLY DO NOT MEET THE EVIDENCE. For that to be an actual vote they NEED to demonstrate actual verifiable and scholarly sources to that effect. In fact the clear evidence shows EXACTLY the opposite.

Instead o just going along with whatever people claim while talking out of their asses we need to follow Wikipedia policy, period, full stop. Anyone deliberately ignoring Wikipedia policy cannot have their opinions counted for determining consensus. as the consensus on those policies have already been well established by hundreds of more qualified people on those discussion pages.

Move this and get it over with. If someone claims it can;t be moved, insist that they provide good sources to back up their claims, or ignore them as working at cross purposes to the project. DreamGuy 06:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, calm yourself. "Malicious negligence"? You realize I'm a volunteer, and that I close hundreds of move requests in my free time, right? You want to talk about malicious negligence, you come to Seattle and look me up, and I'll explain it to you, personally. Or else, you do the work required to become an admin, and start doing a better job than I do; you'll be welcome to it. Spit.
Now, when I close these move requests, I read the entire contents of the Move Request discussion. You didn't bother to contribute to it, and I didn't read the whole talk page. Maybe I should have, but I'm already doing a lot more than I get paid to do.
Everybody who bothered to say anything, in the section dedicated to discussing the move, said to leave it here. When it's unanimous, I generally don't try to dig any further; those are usually the easy cases. There's generally not someone hanging around with arguments they're just refraining from making in the designated place.
In this case, it turns out that "Domain tasting" is the term used in all the sources, and the only reason I see people opposing the move is that they think there should be separate articles. In that case, we might as well have this article at Domain tasting and let Domain kiting split off if it turns out to have that much encyclopedic content about it. I've merged the history and deleted most of the back and forth cut-and-paste moves and reversions as dead weight. Now if anybody wants to move the page back to Domain kiting, please give some evidence that the term is more common, especially when all of the article's sources use the term "Domain tasting".
At least all the history is merged now. Just say no to cut-and-paste moves, and to revert-warring anything. This could have been resolved weeks ago if people had bothered to communicate properly. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorting this out

So there are two article histories, at Domain tasting and Domain kiting, with quite a bit of overlap between the two. Apparently, there's quite a bit of overlap between the two concepts as well. We need to answer a few questions, and then we'll want to do some history merging and cleaning up after some cut-and-paste moves, forks, etc.

From what I've read here, it appears that "domain kiting" is a subset of "domain tasting". The first question is whether we should have one article or two. Is domain kiting notable enough alone to merit a separate article? Once we decide that, we can talk about titles. What do people think? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Domain kiting is just another word for the exact same thing. One or two people in the filed (like Bob Parsons, CEO of GoGaddy) coined a new term for it and some people like to think that it is a subset of the other with a different definition. Any difference there might be can be summed up in a sentence on the domain tasting article and does not require a full separate article -- and it's especially ridiculous that anyone would try to redirect tasting to kiting as everyone here admits that tasting is the preferred term in the industry, as used by ICANN and others in technical papers. DreamGuy
If for page history sense you want to move this page, just copy the current contents of tasting and replace what's here with that and then move the page. Problem solved. DreamGuy 06:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Phishing?

I came here from a comment on BoingBoing stating that domain tasting is used to put up a quick use domain for phishing scams. Anyone seen any sources for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.200.20 (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed generic top level domain reference to second level domain

Since this article has absolutely nothing to do with registering "top level domains." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesses555 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits do not address the issue of naming convention or inclusion of domain kiting, only the request for further citations and neutral point of view in the Controversy section, along with minor edits for grammar and flow.

USEP/Courses/Intellectual Property law

My edits do not address the issue of naming convention or inclusion of domain kiting, only the request for further citations and neutral point of view in the Controversy section, along with minor edits for grammar and flow. Adrianeu (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Domain Tasting and Spam

Domain tasting is notorious for being used for spam, and it is the most popular use for domain tasting. There are many references on this and I have added a few. Please don't revert, discuss it here. Corwin8 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Domain tasting's primary aim is to make money from PPC advertising. The article reflected this until you changed it. That Spamresource.com blog post is really quite irrelevant as it is just recycling commentary. Domain tasting may *also* have been used for spam but the bulk of it was used for PPC. The entire day's drops of some TLDs was being tasted during the height of the Domain Tasting problem. You've rewritten the article so that it seems that the primary use is for spam. This is wrong. I am going to revert and add a section on its minor use in spam. If you can get some references (reliable sites rather than just blogs) that quantify the spam problem as it relates to domain tasting, that would be useful. Jmccormac (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Jmccormac, thanks for replying. Can you suggest how to word this article, with proper edits, to reflect both our positions? I've provided references to support how popular domain tasting is for spammers. Testing has shown me that I've gotten spam from valid SMTP servers that suddenly disappear a few days later when the domain registration doesn't exist. I've provided references for that, too. Corwin8 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The spam activity would probably need a separate section with some indictation of how patterns have shifted. There is still an element of Domain Tasting but it is not as pronounced as it used to be during the peak of the activity. A lot of spam activity would use cheap or no-fee registrations. The low cost of .cn domains a few years ago made their use as spam domains attractive. Domain Tasting depended on complicit registrars that would enable large numbers of domains (tens of thousands a day) to be tasted. Some of those involved set up their own registrars using front companies for each registrar. The process by which a domain was evaluated is important as it explained how the tasters decided which domains to keep and which to drop. That section should be restored. The important thing with Domain Tasting used for spamming is whether the domain is a TLD/gTLD (com/net/org/biz/info) or an open ccTLD like .tk which allows for free registrations. The article essentially covers the TLDs/gTLDs as that's where the main activity happened. The Sophos and Infoworld links seem to concentrate on the PPC and monetisation aspect but make reference to spam and malware. The hard part is quantifying the level of spam registrations as opposed to to the level of Domain Tasting. Even with the data (and I've been tracking domain registration patterns and zonefiles since 2000), it was hard to distinguish the spam domains due to most of the drops being picked up by taster registrars and most of them going directly to PPC parking. The Conficker problem was also occurring roughly around the same time that Domain Tasting peaked so there is a possibility that the effects might have been confused with Domain Tasting. Some registries now add domains used by Conficker to sinkhole/graveyard nameservers. A whois lookup for domains on these nameservers will not return any data. Jmccormac (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject Intellectual Property law and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domain_tasting/Archives/2013&oldid=1131122235"