Re: [ga] New Research: "Registrations in Open ccTLDs"

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Inline response below -

TSG.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Ben Edelman" <edelman@law.harvard.edu>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] New Research: "Registrations in Open ccTLDs"


> Ben and all assembly members,
>
> Ben Edelman wrote:
>
> > GA members have on multiple occasions discussed registrations in open
> > ccTLDs -- remarking on ccTLDs like .CC, .TV, and .WS which have opened
their
> > registration systems to anyone interested, worldwide.  In recent
research, I
> > have investigated the ways that these ccTLDs are used, placing
particular
> > emphasis on their apparent use and non-use, on defensive registrations,
on
> > warehousing, and on cybersquatting.  In my recent "Registrations in Open
> > ccTLDs," I attempt to quantify each of these behaviors.
> >
> > I first report the number of open ccTLD web pages indexed by Google,
finding
> > open ccTLDs to be less than one one-hundredth as large as .COM when
measured
> > in this way.
>
>   Yes this is a problem with allot of search engines as has been pointed
out
> some time ago on this forum and maintained on a number of occasions by
> various media sources such as Wired, and CMBC..  However using google
> or any search engine that I am familiar with or have used myself doesn't
in
> any way reflect accurately the registration of domain names in ccTLD
> name spaces in comparison with .COM or even .NET...


There is some insane idea here that the .COM and other TLD entries in most
Search Engines are correct and this is fatuous at best. The fact is that a
serious statistctical amount of the pages catalogued are broken links (in
that they are totally gone) or are moved ones. And yet Google and other Open
Directory list members list them as ACTIVE and VALID... My take is that this
in moving forward will be their biggest problem to solve, that is
continuously being ableto demonstrate thattheir links are live and good.

The issue to date has been that in developing their business that they need
to claim some number of pages catalogued. The problem is that they are more
interested in the total number of pages and not in the total number of
provably active pages. This means that there is no real method of
determining the what and where with whom in today's Search Systems.

What is clearly going to happen is that the market will push the Search
Engines to refresh their listings from active pages only and the real value
of Google may be in getting it to willingly trim the dead listings from its
infrastructure.

Todd Glassey

SNIP --

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html