Talk:Domain parking/Archives/2013

2013 2015 2016

NPOV

This article tries to promote domain parking as a positive thing, using marketing speak and without mentioning the problems it causes. Towel401 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I make my living in the domain name industry and the article seems pretty fair to me. Saying parking is good or bad is an opinion which would need to be backed up by facts -- facts which would be difficult to support conclusively either way. Parked domains may display advertisements that a user may find interesting, especially if the owner of the domain name takes the time to target his ads to his audience. Similarly, parked domains may provide revenue for a webmaster which he can then use to better develop it at a later date.

Downside of what some people do with parking is also obvious -- not ever planning to use the domains for any purpose other than to serve up advertisements on them. Reece111 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's called "Domaining", not "Domaineering"... Can someone please correct that -- I just did a couple days ago and someone changed it back for reasons unbeknownst to me. Reece111 (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about this article making Domain Parking look like something good when it's not. Personally, I think domain parking is kind of in the same category as Spam (electronic). Are there any reputable sources that discuss possible ways to curb domain parking? Cazort (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To characterize domain parking as "good" or "bad" is akin to calling billboard, radio or tv advertising "good" or "bad". If the ads convert into sales, then from the advertisers perspective the medium is worth paying for. Obviously, the consumer benefited as well as they saw something they liked and bought. Domain advertising works well enough or the market mechanism would have dumped it as being non-profitable long ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.182.162 (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This article defining domaineering is clear, well balanced and accurate. The article portrays domaineering as a form of advertising and domaining more as speculating on domain names. The article doesn't make either domaineering or domaining look good or bad, it just shows the difference between the two and explains how they use domain parking differently. The article is fair, informative and enlightening about domaineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.160.196 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Domaineering", the word is never used within the industry or by people involved in any domain names monetization related activities. Domaining is only proper word for it. It should be neither negative or positive, but simply the description of the business.

It's also not up to wikipedia to decide if parking is "good" or "bad", neutral point of view should be adhered according to the editing guidelines. Lysimachos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

If a parked domain doesn't bring in the revenue, domaineers typically quickly drop it and it becomes available for someone else to use as they see fit. The parked domain names that are renewed are therefore presumably commercially viable for domaineering. Take the generic domain name: toothpaste dot com. Isn't that generic domain name being used as an advertising vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.190.74 (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone named OhNoitsJamie deleted links that were useful to someone reading the article. They were not spam. They were 1) a link to give an example of what a Parked Domain is, which is something that is very germane to the idea of even having this article (so that someone not certain would have a firsthand example what a Parked Domain looks like), and 2) a link that is useful to the broad community of users who would be interested in removing Parked Domain results from their Google, Yahoo, or other searches. Not a bit of the two links I added I think could really be considered as advertisement/spam. This was purely informational and an aid to readers. Steve Sybesma (ssybesma), Lafayette, CO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssybesma (talk • contribs) 04:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Professor William Lorenz and the importance of sources/links

Please see WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Domain parking page is now protected. However if Canadian Professor William Lorenz did indeed identify "domaineering" then surely there are links or published sources to prove it. This is why I deleted the reference to him at the end of the Domaineering section. Jmccormac (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A simple web search will establish that Prof. William Lorenz does indeed exist and is the originator of the concept "domaineering" as more or less synonymous with "domain advertising". Please see for example: Urban Dictionary or Webster's Online dictionary references. Additionally, there are not found any competing claims to the origins of topic. "Domaineering" appears to be balanced and neutral scholarly article which is devoid of advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.37.185 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason for this is that all those sources are relying on the Wikipedia article. Outside of that, there is no independent verification such as a published paper or article by this professor or a magazine interview. The only link to a professor by that name seems to be a "ratemyprofessor" link for a professor at Erie Community College. Look at the results of the websearch and see how closely they follow the phrasing of the Wikipedia article. Normally when someone identifies a trend such as this, there is a pattern of supporting references and links. The pattern in this case seems to be clearly only using the Wikipedia article. Jmccormac (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly some of the Urban Dictionary definitions seem to be edits by one Wm. Lorenz. Jmccormac (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While the Wikipedia article on "domaineering" may incorporate something akin to the websearch references connected to a Prof. Lorenz, of which there may be more than one person so named and titled, some of those websearch results predate the Wikipedia article on this topic.

How many of those websearch references are referring to the same articles or the Urban Dictionary edits by Wm. Lorenz? The Prof. Lorenz claim was added to the Wikipedia article in December 2008. The problem is that there is no evidence to support this claim other than a bunch of self-referential pages all using the Wikipedia article and perhaps, the Urban Dictionary edits created by one Wm. Lorenz. The problem is that there is no independent verification of the claim. I think that it may be an attempt to create a term rather than the identification of any trend. The practice of registering domain names purely for their advertising value has been well established. The terms "domainer" and "domaining" have become far more accepted as a description of the practice. Can you provide a reliable, published, reference on this claim? Jmccormac (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to "domaineering" as an Internet advertising technique, please note that an Urban Dictionary reference by Lorenz is dated October 14, 2007 and that a Webster's Open Dictionary reference by Lorenz is dated October 5, 2007...both published over a full year before the December 2008 Wikipedia article on "domaineering". No earlier references to identifying and defining "domaineering" more or less as synonomous with domain advertising can be found online. Therefore, the Wikipedia article presumably and so far correctly attempts to assign credit where it's due by giving a nod of attribution to Lorenz as the originator of identifying and defining the concept of "domaineering" apart from that of "domaining". Domaineering is a discrete part of domain parking...as is domaining. However, they are not the same and this Wiki article attempts to clarify the difference between the two terms. Toward that end, the term "domaineering" seems to be gaining a rising acceptance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.37.185 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason that there are no references that predate Lorenz's self-referential editing of those sources for the term is simply because it is purely an attempt to coin a phrase. The registration of domain names purely for the purpose of advertising is well known and it is part of the practice of Domaining - a practice with a far greater set of references in online, print and broadcast media. Lorenz did not identify the process and merely tried to attach a name to a pre-existing practice that was, by that time, already well named and referenced. Therefore I do not think that it is a standalone practice that is any different from domaining. As for the term gaining a rising acceptance, anything published on Wikipedia tends to be copied ruthlessly by blogs and by technology journalists. The mere addition of the rather grandiosely titled Canadian Professor William Lorenz gives it an undue credibility for those unfamiliar with the domain business. And scholarly articles, from what I remember of them, always tend to have citations for their sources - unlike this one. The problem is that there are no independent sources that corroborate your claim about Professor William Lorenz discovering "domaineering" while almost everyone on the internet seemed to be engaged in registering domain names and putting PPC adverts on them in the biggest boom market the domain business had seen since the late 1990s. And they tended to refer to it as "domaining". Jmccormac (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there, Jmccormac. No need to use inflamatory statements like "grandiosely titled" unless you know for a fact that the title is spurious. Ummm, like where's your evidentiary references for your latest allegation of another fake claim? Please enlighten us. See requiring proof works both ways. I have been following this little repartee with some amusement, because it appears you haven't done your homework: didn't you you initially deny or infer denial that a Prof. Lorenz didn't even exist?' i.e, see "no reference to Professor William Lorenz found" when in fact an easy web-search located at least two or more with that name and title. Then you allege that a 2008 Wikipedia article had no references to the topic when in fact there again were found with an easy web-search references to "domaineering' back to 2007 by Lorenz which is a year or more earlier. Now, is revealed your perhaps some of your real yet hidden agenda...you just don't like the term "domaineering" in favor of "domaining". Well, that's your perogative not to like it...just like it's the legitimate perogative of Lorenz or anyone else to try and create some new Internet jargon. All words and terms have to start somewhere and with someone. The Internet is all about innovation. The proof in the pudding though is in the new term's acceptance...and the term "domaineering" at nearly 100,000 strong Google search references now seems pretty well accepted. In some circles, domaining doesn't enjoy the highest reputation due to the speculative aspect of it. Perhaps you can't see the author's point that "domaineering" is "domaining" without the speculation. It's just pure domain advertising. In any event, Wikipedia needs to remain neutral if it is to have any credibility, even though being neutral is sometimes a political danger in the world of Internet politics. Incidentially, at the end of the day, what's been accomplished? Wikipedia article on "domaineering" still stands intact, however, now without any attributes as to the origin of the term "domaineering" even though there is no real controversy raised over it's beginnings.

BTW, Diz World uses the term "imagineering" instead of just "imagining". BTW, Disney doesn't just say their creative staff does "imagining", they call what they do "imagineering". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.153 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The way that it was phrased was quite grandiose. Naturally when some lazy journalists or people outside the domain business see a term such as 'Professor' they accept it without questioning it. The problem is that there is no independent verification of either the term or its creation by the professor. There is an edit on Urban Dictionary by one Wm. Lorenz who may or may not be the same individual. There is still no independent reference to the identification of the practice in any journal, magazine, or reliable reference work. All there is, at the moment, is a self-referential claim without any reference. Merely adding a claim to the end of the section is just not good enough. It requires a reliable reference.

As for the number of times that the term was found in Google - that's not a verification either considering the way that Wikipedia data is copied and used as the basis for blogs and webpages. If anything that's a tribute to Wikipedia's propagation. I think that the term "domaining" has a greater age and is more accepted. The problem is that there is no independent verification of this term and it seems to be just an attempt at coining a phrase for a practice that had been going on for years and was better known by the term "domaining". The references in the Urban Dictionary were edited apparently by one Wm. Lorenz. That's not an independent reference and seems very much a self-reference Wikipedia:RS. On Wikipedia, the references have to be verifiable and this one is not. Perhaps you can provide some reference work where the practice of "domaineering" is outlined or even attributed. As for Google, a search for "domaining" shows 1,090,000 results whereas a search for "domaineering" shows 11800 hits.Jmccormac (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As outlined in WP:TALK this page is not for endless debates. Anyone wanting to say that a certain person did something, must provide verification (that is, a reliable source) – arguments without sources are irrelevant. As Jmccormac explained, the zillion Google hits are due to the exploitation of Wikipedia by low-value web sites that copy stuff from here. Also, if something like "domaineering" or "Prof Lorenz" is sufficiently significant to be mentioned, there will be sources that are more reliable than Urban Dictionary. The recent AFD discussion established that Domaining is merged to Domain name speculation and it will not be possible (without significant discussion and a change in consensus) to keep any material that is not strictly related to "domain parking" in this article, so it is very likely that the "Domaineering" section will be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq for supporting exactly the point the "domaineering" author was aiming for: that "Domaining" is speculation and is best associated to aptly enough titled "Domain name speculation". "Domaineering", however, is NOT speculation as it's Wiki article indicates...rather, it is synonymous with "domain advertising" and therefore most properly belongs under the Domain Parking heading.

As to using Urban Dictionary or Webster's Open Dictionary as reference sources: if that's all there is...then that's all there is. In the absence of another verifiable competing claim to the origin of the term...just have to go with what's there. Nothing forbids their use as references by Wikipedia and as Internet publications on record their content can't just be ignored. There is also no apparent reason here to doubt their veracity on this issue. As reliable sources, they should be deemed truthful and accurate until proven otherwise. There's absolutely no basis here for rejecting their content outright.

ps: Google search is showing 99,000 hits on "domaineering" at the time of this writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.37.185 (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. At least read "must provide verification". Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jonuniq, Thank you for the link and I see your point a bit clearer now. Perhaps a compromise can be reached on the origin and meaning of the term "domaineering" which clearly has gained some popularity apart from that of "domaining"? Something along the line of the first known references to domaineering as a distinct Internet advertising practice appeared in 2007 authored by one William Lorenz? The Urban Dictionary and Webster's Open Dictionary Internet publications under common copyright law are unimpeachably reliable sources to establish the date of those references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.37.185 (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As they are self-edited websites, and are not subject to fact checking, they are not reliable sources. This is the kernel of the argument. Why are you so concerned with pushing for the inclusion of William Lorenz as the originator of the term "domaineering"? Jmccormac (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Domaineering is not just a bastardization of domaining but a quite different creature that's emerging. As a watcher of sorts of domain industry trends, IMHO, the Wikipedia article on domaineering is an important and controversial work because it separates the business model of domaineering ( advertising ) from that of domaining ( speculating ). Some legal websites have been astute in picking up on that not insignificant nuance possibly in that the domaineer ( advertiser ) may enjoy certain and different protections than the domainer ( speculator ) in the intellectual property arenas like WIPO. It also defends or might even boost the domain parking industry's reputation by tilting it more towards it's use by domaineers than that of domainers.

ps. Methinks a certain editor ought to recuse themself on this topic, because as others have pointed out, your apparent personal stance on the topic of domaineering and domaining may be coloring what should be strict neutrality. Verifying authorship issues aside, the reference sources cited above are reliable as to the date of the publication of their content and therefore useful in a historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.29.6.2 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case being argued before Supreme Court. And recusal is not an option. The IP of the above post can be traced back to generalaccess.ecc.edu which is, according to the whois for ecc.edu, Erie Community College where, coincidentally, a Professor William Lorenz is on the faculty. The problem is that there is no verifiable source that distinguishes domaineering from the practice of domaining (domain name speculation). The practice of purchasing domain names purely for the purpose of putting PPC advertising on them has been part of domain name speculation for years before its supposed "discovery" by Prof. Lorenz. As for the claim that "domaineers" enjoy certain and different protections in a WIPO action (the UDRP), that's not accurate and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the protection of trademarks as opposed to generic terms which are not generally protected. The only thing that the Urban Dictionary and Websters Open Online Dictionary confirm is the date on which one William Lorenz edited the entries. They are not fact checked. They are not reliable. And there is no independent corroborating evidence such as a peer reviewed paper, a magazine interview, a reference from a book. Can you provide such a reference? Jmccormac (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jmccormac, As to answer your earlier post...only in the interest of maintaining the historical record of the topic of domaineering. The dates of publishment of the reference sources are part of that historical record and those dates, although not necessarily the authorship of the content, are generally reliable. That certain reference sources may or may not be more verifiable as to the origin of their content is not disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.37.185 (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I did some checking on the most obvious use of the term "domaineering" - that of its use as a domain name. Surprisingly, it was apparently in existence as a .com in 2000. It was deleted in May 2002. It was registered again in January 2003 and dropped in January 2004. The domain was then reregistered again in 2004. The domaineering.net has been continually registered since 2000. The .org has only been registered since October 2007. The domain is parked with parked.com. The .biz is also registered (October 2007) apparently by the same registrant as the .org version. The Urban Dictionary reference to "Domaineering" was dated 14 October 2007 as was the reference to "Domaineer". The .info was registered in July 2007 and is owned by a different registrant. It too is parked. The search engines tend to give a low rating to parked domains, especially when they appear on known PPC parking nameservers. The domaineer.com domain was also in existence in 2000. Likewise for the .net and .org of that term. It is, I'm sure you'll agree, a rather curious timeline of events as the use of the term "domaineering" as a domain name actually predates its origination by Professor William Lorenz. Jmccormac (talk) 00:24,

20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just mi 2 centavos of worthless opinion, however, after reviewing the original domaineerting article's text, ( some of which was removed from Wikipedia for reasons that might include offending someone's notions of literary style as being too "grandiose" ), which reads: "The earliest known verifiable identification and defining of domaineering as a distinct Internet advertising practice is attributed to Canadian Professor William Lorenz." does not anywhere indicate that Prof. William Lorenz conjured up the word "domaineering" from scratch. Rather, the Wiki's article's removed sentence in question only indicated Lorenz's contribution as basically identifying and defining domaineering as a type of Internet advertising. He's not attributed to creating a new word but only attributed to at best (re)defining an old word in a new, or at least "earliest known verifiable", creative way. Great care must be taken in reading the Wiki articles text so as to arrive at the proper interpretation(s).

As to the statement in an earlier post that "domaineers ( advertisers ) may enjoy certain and different protections than the domaineer ( speculators ) in the intellectual property arenas" may have to do with i) of paragraph 4(c) below taken from a WIPO decision as the Wikipedia article on domaineering suggests advertising may be considered a bonifide offering of a service that the domain speculator may not enjoy claiming as a "legitimate interest" type defense. That notion is best left to the legal profession to evaluate.

"B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out in particular, but without limitation, three circumstances which, if proved by a respondent, shall be evidence of a respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii), namely:

(i) before any notice of the dispute to respondent, respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; or

(ii) respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."

It does also strike me that Wikipedia editing is going very far afield in trying to discredit the article on domaineering. The article is clear in portraying domaineering as a form of Internet advertising and only that, not as speculating on domains as found in domaining. The article raises a some valid points worthy of discussion and therefore has merit remaining as a Wikipedia article.

addendum: The Merriam-Webster's Open Dictionary shows for the word "domaineering" the following:

"domaineering

(noun) : the creation or purchase of domain names for resale or advertising purposes Domaineering is the business of acquiring and monetizing Internet domain names for their use primarily as an advertising medium rather than as intellectual property investments for resale as in domaining. Submitted by: Wm. Lorenz from Canada on Oct. 31, 2008 00:10

(noun) : the practice of creating or acquiring domain names for monetization Domaineering was viewed by the Internet marketer as developing online billboards of sorts which could be utilized to generate revenue from advertising. Submitted by: Wm Lorenz from Canada on Oct. 05, 2007 21:34"

Please use this page to improve the article with short suggestions for what should happen to the article; see WP:TALK

This is not a forum: text that does not comply with WP:TALK should be deleted.

Please sign your message: on the last line, type a space and four tildes (" ~~~~").

The fact that someone went to an open web site and posted their own definition of "domaineering" using any made-up name they liked, is precisely the reason that the sentence was removed from the article, in accordance with WP:V. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So is this domaineering section Original Research? Jmccormac (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I haven't done more than respond to issues on talk pages for a while, and I have not paid attention to all the editing that has occurred. I do not see any reference for "domaineering" and I would be happy to delete all occurrences of the term. Particularly in this article, it seems to be totally irrelevant and it is only distractions elsewhere that have prevented me from deleting the section myself. Johnuniq (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Domaineering section - Delete or Keep?

With the lack of reliable references to the practice of Domaineering, should the section be deleted? Jmccormac (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The Domaineering section reads like an article within an article (that is, it appears to have little relevance other than the claim that domain parking is used by people called domaineers). Furthermore, it is quite likely that the term is a neologism invented by domain speculators in an attempt to sound "nicer" than other titles. My attempts at searching show that there are hundreds (thousands?) of web sites who have essentially copied each other in order to promote their domain parking business. I have not found any reliable analysis using the term "domaineer" (no doubt some reports will be found, but they would need to use the term in a significant manner to justify its use here). Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• RetainThe contention that domaineering "is a neologism invented by domain speculators in an attempt to sound nicer than other titles" is in itself pure speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support that statement. Domaineering is just another word for what is known as "domain name advertising", ( i.e., using generic domain names to attract website visitors instead of or in conjunction with keywords ). Domaineering / domain advertising does NOT involve speculation and does not belong in the editor's pet article "domain name speculation" about domaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.152 (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BURDEN. We do not keep text because no one can prove it is wrong. We only keep text that can be verified. Also, no reason to have that section in this article has been given. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This is clearly an attempt to have Wikipedia provide credibility for an attempt to establish "domaineering" as a definition. The timeline is potential evidence. The domains 'domaineering.org' and 'domaineering.biz' seem to have been registered around the time that the Urban Dictionary edits were created. Some time later, the domaineering stuff starts being added to Wikipedia. The interesting thing is that on the domaineering.org parking page there is this "Want more about domain parking? Please see www.Domain--Parking.com and www.DomainParking.pro". While the whois for the first domain is protected by a privacy guard, the second is not. Now as was pointed out earlier in in the page, there could be many individuals with the name William Lorenz. However it is a remarkable set of coincidences. And then there is the lack of reliable sources. So would Wikipedia give instant credibility to this attempt to coin a phrase? Cui bono? Jmccormac (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a blog that carries the same broad definition of domaineering: It is dated 19 April 2007 and predates the Urban Dictionary entries. It is a rant against domaineering and would probably not constitute a WP:RS reliable source. Jmccormac (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• KeepJmccormac, Thank you for the useful research. Although the blog cited is adverse to domaineering it nonetheless recognizes the this type of Internet advertising practice occurs and in fairness the Wikipedia article on domaineering does acknowledge that there are opponents of this type of advertising. In any event, why couldn't or shouldn't a blog be a reliable source when a magazine article might suffice as one? Is or could be an Internet blog be considered a virtual magazine of sorts? Maybe there's such a thing as a secondary supporting reference source which by itself is not quite sufficient but in conjunction with other secondary supporting reference sources might collectively be enough to establish a credible claim that the subject is worthy of a Wikipedia entry.

Johnuniq, thank you for continuing to framing the issue. Here's an opinion as to why domaineering belongs with the domain parking domain parking article: The purveyors of domain parking services provide the advertising feeds for domaineers and domaineers provide the generic domain names that the advertisers seek and pay for to attract potential customers to their websites. Put them together and SHAZAM! Domaineering / domain advertising occurs. It's like peanut butter and jelly...separately not much...but put them together and you have delicious synergy! Domaineers need the ad feeds and domain parking companies need the generic domains. Each needs the other...like two halves of the same coin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.37.185 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are generally expressions of opinions. And unless the blogger is an expert in their field, they don't really carry much weight as reliable sources. The problem with the text is that it has been spammed all over the web and has been posted on many domain industry blogs as comments. The propagation of the domaineering piece seems more like an organised campaign by one or more individuals to have domaineering accepted as a definition. The problem is that it all seems to lead back to those two domains mentioned above and mainly dates from the time of their registration. There are no academic citations of the term that I can see. There is no mainstream use of the term. The issue as it stands is that there are no reliable sources for the term and that it appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to give the phrase credibility. Indeed most of the cases of its use tend to be drawing on its publication on Wikipedia rather than than any natural usage.Jmccormac (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Include with domain parking. Domaineering in a conventional useage could not exist without domain parking, although the practice of domain advertising is somewhat vague to wit: Some folks in searching fof a hotel might go to H*tels.com, a seemingly generic domain if there ever was one. H*tels.com, BTW, is a registered trademark. H*tels.com, at least in part, provides advertising for hotel chains. Is it not accurate then to state then that H*tels.com then engages in some degree of domaineering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.190.205 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well H*tels.com has been registered since 1994. It is not accurate to consider that it engages in domaineering as it is a fully developed website offering a service. Registering a domain and putting PPC advertising on it is quite a different thing as such a domain is minimally developed often with the registrant choosing the advertising keywords. The power of generic domains is such that people will type such a URL such as the h*tels.com one into the browser's address bar thinking that there is such a website. This is the basis of Direct navigation. Jmccormac (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No explanations or sources have been provided to support keeping the section, and Jmccormac has provided a likely explanation for why the out-of-place section was added. I have therefore removed the section. I took the opportunity to also make several tweaks to wording, but I don't feel strongly attached to any of the minor changes that I made. Johnuniq

(talk) 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the degree of development is different, however, that's a slippery slope to argue as be they large or small, the underlying concept is basically the same...to make money off selling advertising using a generic domain. The providing of advertising itself constitutes the offering of a bonifide service. Domaineering. Take off the blinders. See the matrix. Even big search engines do it. They just don't like sharing part of their lunch and especially so with the little guy.

Some years back there was an old dairy farm between two recently built upscale residential neighborhoods. Now, some of those well-heeled city folks didn't like the smell of agriculture near their nice homes. They said "that farmland would be worth more if put to better use like more residential development". Maybe so, but that farmer just kept on farming because that's the best use he knew for the property and after all he was there first. So it is with domains that some consider virtual real estate.

While the outcome of this pretense of tag-team editing was predictable from the start, it is not to the credit of Wikipedia that it was allowed to occur. First it was the power of Wikipedia that allowed the article on domaineering to propagate over the Internet. Now it's possibly a conspiracy of domaineers looking for a nicer title. I personally have no doubt it's the same little green aliens that abducted me for probing experiments.

• • • Please bring the article back.*** Well stated, commentor. If the the competing rather negative article on domain name speculation wasn't authored, er make that "edited" by a certain Wiki editor, I might not have cast such a jaundiced eye toward their "conclusions" which seem mostly personal and speculative inferences wrapped with red herring tidbits of fact. Fallacies of reasoning. I found the article on domaineering factual and the reasons clear and compelling as to why it belonged under the "domain parking" heading. With some modification to the historical record regarding origins of the term, the domaineering article seemed eminently worthy of Wikipedia. Maybe I'll watch the movie "A Beautiful Mind". On second thought, I just been reading the musings of at least one and that's enough beauty for today.

ps: Those alien experiments...was that the Holid@y Inn? I know a young lady who claims the same thing happened to her while on a date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.37.185 (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)