Cybersquatting – the solution!
But it buggers up Web design
[We came up with a solution to cybersquatting and asked for opinions. And that's exactly what we got. Sorry to those that don't feature but time is a limiter here. Most liked it, a few thought it needed work and a few offered refinements]
I did enjoy your article about cybersquatting, but I must disagree with you on using buttons to solve said problem. The biggest problem I had is that even with a pay-per-flay legal battle, there are still many companies that go by the same name that have the money to effectively turn another Web site into a button farm.
I'll give you this example: I've been playing around with the idea of a company named Morningstar. My catchphrase would be something to the effect of "Lucipher was an entrepreneur" but, being raised in the new economy, I checked out domain names to see who I am in competition with. there are quite a few different firms that mention Morningstar -- some closely related to others (Morningstar Design, Morningstart Design, Inc.) what were to happen if all of these sites put buttons on other peoples' sites?
I think it would be more chaotic and a devious way to shut down a competing Web site by overloading their frontpage space with buttons. I think that even with all the ideas we have out there to solve cybersquatting, I think the best idea would be to duel it out in the spiky, firey, overall nasty, arena of death. cheers!
As a designer I have to demand that there is no way in hell I should have to destroy the aesthetic integrity of a possible design by adding someone else's buttons to my site.
Uh uh. Ain't gonna happen. Websites ain't cigarette packs honey, but I'd be happy to light yer ass up sometime....
Star Michael Tripper
I definitely think its a good idea, except it must not be the only possible course of action.
What if said vulture.com was a porn site. I'm sure vulture inc wouldn't want to associate
themselves with the website. Or imagine barbie having a link to their company site from barbie.co.to (assume it was a pornsite). Uhm... no.
It definitely works in cases in which websites are not morally devious (through association).
Hear, hear. Good solution, agree completely.
Great idea with this! (solution to cybersqatting).. in an ideal situation it could be extended a bit further to implement new html tags for putting these kind of links in pages. This way future web browsers could determine the difference between the links to other 'related' companies and the content of the page and then take these links off the page itself and put them in a drop-down menu or something within the browser's toolbar? spot on! :)
In fact new browser feature idea! The web started off being all about linking to other peoples sites with related material etc, well rather than having separate "links" pages, in future browsers why not have a drop down box within the toolbar - "Related links.." the content of which is determined by some new html tags within whatever page you're viewing.
A very tired and rambling,
A maximum of FIVE links for a site with a disputed trademark?! That seems a little excessive to me. And a standardized button (with undoubtedly crappy design) would totally screw up page composition. Speaking as a web designer and a person who thinks the Internet should be as free from regulation as possible (after all, that's what it's always been about, eh?), I think your solution needs refinement.
Granted, linking another company's site is better that the big company robbing the little company of said disputed URL. But the link should be flexible. It should be visible on the front page, above the 'fold' (400 pixels down) as it were, but it could look however you wanted it, even text. And just the one, please.
Keep up the good work at the Reg.
That's a great idea.
I'd be more than happy to do that, and I think most non self-absorbed businesses would think likewise.
Only problem is, ICANN charges $1,000 for companies to go to arbitration - kind of a low risk gamble to get control of a valuable business asset. By doing the buttons, they do not get control so would be less likely to go to ICANN.
You think I'm being cynical? You betcha. When ICANN arbitration decides companies can take generic everyday word domains like current.com, crew.com and traditions.com from people - this helps encourage other companies to "have a go" - and they get their $1,000 each time.
It's a fun world!
Why maintain one button per site that might logically be found at that URL, max five perhaps. Just one button that takes you to a page of buttons/links. That way, the cybersquatter would have a minimum of
clutter on his first page, and the number of latecoming contenders to the URL throne can be virtually unlimited.
Not a bad idea. But it won't work. Companies are greedy, they won't be happy with just a link. That and just wait until everyone starts yelling about how they deserve the link. You will have Vulture Inc., Vulture Corp. UK, Vulture lovers of the world, we start talking to vultures (using those wonderful do all Transmeta chips) and they want their name back, not to mention pore old famous football (or soccer ;-) ) player Jeff Vulture who just has to tell everyone about his great accomplishments (and how to buy an autographed T-Shirt).
I think we have to face it the people who purchase a domain name and use it for their personal or small business have just as much a right to use that domain exclusively as anyone else. Now I don't like the people who register 10,000 domain names with no intention of using them just selling them for a profit. These are not entrepreneurs these are people abusing a system that was designed for real entrepreneurs and individuals to have easy affordable access to name space on the Internet. Those "cybersquatters" should be shot, plain and simple. Well, IMHO.
Sponsored: Virtual application patterns