Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 55
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: April 9, 2008 - 10:39 am
Posted By: mvandemar 151 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com)
Category: Google SEO
19 Comments
Went Hot: April 9, 2008 - 10:39 am
Posted By: mvandemar 151 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com)
Category: Google SEO
19 Comments
Top 10 Most Sphunn
In What's New
- 10 Myths about Google Chrome Browse... (21)
- Four Good Reasons to Use the Alt At... (20)
- 3M Carjacks the Post-It Note Jaguar (19)
- How Google Chrome Will Win the Brow... (19)
- This is What Innovation is All Abou... (18)
- Is this Really Where the Profession... (18)
- In Social Media- Think About Yourse... (16)
- The Dilemma Over Deep Linking (16)
- How to Seduce the Cash-Strapped Sho... (15)
- 7 PPC Budget Saving Tips - Video Po... (14)
Latest Comments
- Thanks javaun. :) Always appreciate the feedback, and heck, it's a good t…
- @g1smd I find it very funny that you are again resorting to usi…
- Some useful tips and trigger-keywords from the MS AdCenter team. One to boo…
- @nagger: I'd love to invent a new language but I have to use the one availa…
- The way I see it, since there isn't a whole lot of attention to environment…
- @purposeinc: EvilGreenMonkey responded similarly to my "Greatest Hits" post…
- The way I see it, since EvilGreenMonkey manually sets the standards for qua…
- So question... (first) I know in the past that validation was not considere…
- - read more -
Save the date for:
• SMX China (Nanjing) - Sept. 23-24
• SMX Stockholm - Sept. 23-24: See who's speaking or register now.
• SMX East (New York City) - Oct.
6-8: See the agenda or register today and save!
• SMX London - Nov. 4-5: Pre-agenda rate now available. Click here.
Comments
The actions of NS make it seem like they are following some black hat guidebook.
Absolutely unbelievable, thanks for breaking this Michael.
Talk about a company that just doesn't get it. Most people won't realize what's going on, but those of us who do are going to steer everyone away from NS. How can they actually think their practices are a good idea.
An equally seedy company that I recommend all to stay away from is Globat. It wouldn't surprise me if they pull similar tactics.
It's only a matter of time before they lose enough revenue from their shady business model causing them to smarten up.... Well... In a perfect world anyways.
I don't see any evidence that Netsol did anything scammy, as described. It's a misconfigured DNS record, which is the responsibility of the webmaster. If the webmaster chose to HOST as well as HOST DNS on the REGISTAR, then the webmaster needs to configure the DNS records properly for resolving www, mail, and subdomains.
Most people are smart enough to NOT host on the registrar, so they by default set that wildcard to point everything to the DNS HOSTING company, where it gets configured. You can misconfigure it there as well, causing the same impact (a customized error page).
So where's the proof of scamminess? Loks like sloppy webmastering to me. Easy to blameit on Netsol, though, and gain backlinks.
johnandrews, no offense that just shows a lack of technical understanding on your end then. Wildcard subdomains are not the result of a "misconfiguration". They must be very specifically set up, on both the DNS and webserver, in order to function at all.
Well I'm glad I looked back at this thread. Your comment leaves people with the wrong impression ;-)
No offense taken, but I think you assume too fast. There is a perspective here that you may not share: exceptions should be handled. If you leave something "unset" then you have no right to complain when strange things happen. The webmaster is responsible for DNS. If the webmaster chooses to leave defaults preset to whatever they are, then the webmaster should not be too surprised if things change unexpectedly.
I'm not aware of Netsol going in and changes people's configured DNS settings. As I read this, they simply started showing their error page for unconfigured subdomains. In fact, their terms of use very specifically gives them that right see http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreement.jsp
This isn't a web hosting company that decided to add wildcard DNS to every customer ... it's a registrar.... I think "configure your DNS" was added to webmastering 101 back in 2004 after Verisign did the exact same thing.
I am always open to learning but I suspect my technical prowess currently is adequate, thanks.
John, you are still wrong, now on multiple points. You don't know what you are talking about, and you really should research before commenting.
There are exactly 2 parts in the TOS that could possibly be construed to apply to what they are doing. The first states this:
You also agree that any domain name directory, sub-directory, file name or path (e.g. ) that does not resolve to an active web page on your Web site being hosted by Network Solutions, may be used by Network Solutions to place a "parking" page, "under construction" page, or other temporary page that may include promotions and advertisements for, and links to, Network Solutions' Web site, Network Solutions product and service offerings, third-party Web sites, third-party product and service offerings, and/or Internet search engines.
This isn't about directories or paths where there are missing files, however, this is about subdomains, which are not actually mentioned at all, which eliminates that section from pertaining. You also have this part as well:
You acknowledge and agree that any or all domain names that are (i) registered with Network Solutions, (ii) hosted on a Network Solutions domain name server, and (iii) do not otherwise resolve to an active Web site, may resolve to an "under construction" or similar temporary Web page ("Under Construction Page"), and...
The key element in that section is where it states and (iii) do not otherwise resolve to an active Web site... it is basically saying that until you put a site up, NetSol is free to show a "coming soon" or "domain parked" page instead. However, NetSol is in fact hijacking the subdomains of developed websites. These are not parked domains, they are live websites exhibiting this behavior.
Lastly, John, this is not a case leaving a preset. It's not in the DNS controls.
Interesting point Michael but by that logic, Network Solutions would also be prevented from showing their advertising/landing pages on the www version of any domain?
My (admittedly non-professional) take is that any part of your domain should belong to you. Every path, subdomain, www/non-www, and other shit, even if you don't make use of it.
Now this particular company or any other may be slimy enough to place the legally necessary self-authorization to skim the traffic of my domain for their own benefit somewhere in a "War and Peace"-length contract, but that still doesn't make it an ethical practice.
Nick, I don't follow... you mean in place of where 404's go? That's covered in the first part that I quoted. If you mean before a domain is developed (when it is parked) then that is covered in the second part.
If you meant something else then I'm not sure what you are referring to...
No i meant that technically www is also a subdomain. If NetSol aren't allowed to place their pages on subdomains, they also wouldn't be alllowed to do this on the www version of any domain?
For example, http://sphinn.com could have adverts, http://www.sphinn.com could not.
I'm just surprised if they haven't covered this, it would limit their advertising a lot. It does seem that way from the TOS unless they have this covered with 'directory, sub-directory, file name or path'. They do all seem references to a file system though, not a domain system (subdomains/hosts).
Nick, I'm still not following what you are trying to say. Where on the www domain do you think they should be allowed to put their ads...?
As per their TOS, if you own example.com, and you have it configured so that example.com and www.example.com both point to the same place, and you have blog.example.com, forum.example.com, etc, and you have a 404 on any of those subdomains, then by default NetSol is alowed to put ads or a parked page in place of the 404.
If you own example.com and haven't put any site up at all, then by default NetSol is allowed to put a parked page (with ads and links) up until you do...
It's not that they aren't allowed to place the ads on the 404 pages of subdomains, but are... it's that they are creating subdomains on which to put them.
mvandemar for all of your colorful banter and insulting references, you ignored my claim - that they weren't changing configured DNS settings. If you had set your DNS to include subdomains, those were not changed. If you set your domain to use your own or your web hosts DNS servers, nothing was changed. The TOS says if you don't publish on it, they can put their page in its place. Even you confirmed that with quotes from their documents.
I've barely bothered to read the article and haven't done any research on this topic that you seem to have studied in great detail, yet I'm still right and you're still just stating opinions. You tell me I'm wrong, that I don't know what I am talking about, yet my statement is still correct. Where are the sour grapes coming from?
Your argument seems to be based on forceful re-statement of opinion. Surely you can do better than that? I'm pretty sure the readers have lost the point by now... that if you don't handle all server requests coming in to your site (with content, whether it is accompanied by a 404 response code or not), NetSol reserves the right to serve ads instead.
This is SEO 101, mvandemar... enforce strict URLs and be sure to properly handle all the rest (custom 404 pages, 301/302 redirects, and yes, DNS to cover subdomains...part of strict URL management). I warned about trusting DNS providers for the same reasons almost 2 years ago.
I've barely bothered to read the article and haven't done any research on this topic that you seem to have studied in great detail
You do realize that one line sums up your entire knowledge base of this subject and indicates how much attention should be given to your opinion on this, don't you? You literally have no fucking clue what you are talking about... but since the majority of other people who read this won't understand the technical aspects of this either, you can post pretty much anything you want, fully safe in the knowledge that everyone who reads this will be just too damn busy to check your claims.
You are one of the worst kind of internet trolls out there, bud, posting misinformation, guesswork, and complete bs as fact, leaving bits of debris of psuedo-knowledge out there for innocent people who might be trying to learn something out there to find. I'm done with you myself.
More maligning commentary and still no basis of fact. Sad to see on Sphinn.
Readers are usually less naive than you think. It's unfortunate that registrars feel they have to take advantage of sloppiness in the system, but understandable that they will try to monetize what has been left unmonetized. They are out to earn a profit just like you. If they didn't do it today, someone would do it tomorrow.
Webmasters are free to control their DNS and should do so. If they set their DNS properly, NetSol's actions in this case would not have any effect on them, and would only impact their less-astute competitors. Why don't you address that? Twice now you've said I'm wrong, yet you don't address the point that if you had configured your DNS settings to resolve requests, this NetSol action would have had no impact on your site.
I think that's how markets work. Maybe what we see here is a raising of the bar of requirements? You can't just leave your DNS settings unset anymore. You need to set a wildcard yourself, to handle all requests. Many of us have been doing that for years. Verisign started putting ads on unconfigured URls back in 2004.
As for your claims that I post misinformation, put up or shut up. I don't enjoy
your style of "discussion" but I'd rather see discussion that leads to clarity than Sphinn posts that make wild sensationalistic claims not based in fact. If NetSol is evil on this, I'd like to know about it. So far, all I see is "aggressive" at best. Caveat emptor.
Not to detract from the flame war above ;) but I'd like to point out that if Google would simply start enforcing their so-called ban on subdomain spamming, then there would be no benefit to this and it would be a moot point.
The sad point of fact is that not only is subdomain spam alive and well, it's doing better than ever. Google "any city here"+apartments for a great example.
Google needs to clean up their subdomain spam filled SERPs, then there would be no problem.
Ok, back to the flame war :)
Not to detract from the flame war above ;) but I'd like to point out that if Google would simply start enforcing their so-called ban on subdomain spamming, then there would be no benefit to this and it would be a moot point.
Actually I think you missed the point GetPageOne... this isn't about someone spamming Google, it's about NetSol setting up a system that can potentially get their innocents clients banned from Google, because G could construe them as being subdomain spammers.