[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Gross Deletes

[John L]

> I disagree that this argument is absurd.  They are helping you correct your
> typing mistakes, and the fee is not charged to you, but if it is a paid
> link, paid by the advertiser, which the owner gets a very small portion.
> The more popular the site, the more spelling mistakes will occur.

This only corrects spelling for sites that are willing to pay for traffic, 
and in cases where there are multiple sites lexically nearby, you get the 
one that pays the most.  Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't find any 
value in selling my eyeballs like that, and there are plenty of useful 
sites that don't pay for traffic at all.  Look at my www.abuse.net, for 
example, with a budget of $0.

R's,
John

>> > Is it a question of stability, or just someone doing something we don't
>> like
>> > to see?
>> 
>> I certainly consider it to be a stability issue.  Every month fifty
>> million domains appear, sit parked for 4.99 days, then disappear.  Most of
>> them are typosquats, misspelling of established domains.  Speculators have
>> argued that all these squats provide a service: they usually have a paid
>> link to the domain the user actually wanted, and if you land on the squat,
>> you or your search engine must have made a mistake which they are helping
>> you rectify for a small fee.
>> 
>> I find this argument absurd.  If I want my spelling corrected (which I do,
>> being a lousy typist), I want to use a corrector of my choice, triggered
>> off an NXDOMAIN response in my browser, not some random speculator.  And,
>> of course, the squats are of no help fixing typos in mail and all the
>> other Internet services other than the web.