URL typos earn Google $497 million per year, study says
Summary: Google could be earning some $497 million a year from the registered owners of website addresses that mimic typographical errors in existing sites, according to a new study.
Google could be earning some $497 million a year from the registered owners of website addresses that mimic typographical errors in existing sites, according to a new study.
Harvard University researchers Tyler Moore and Benjamin Edelman estimate that Google could be making millions from the practice, known as "typosquatting," because its network of display ads -- from which it receives a cut of the profits -- run on the typo'd sites.
If it's a frequently misspelled site address -- for example, zddnet.com instead of yours truly --the tactic could pay off handsomely.
Moore and Edelman used a list of common spelling mistakes to generate another list of possible typo domains for the 3,264 most popular ".com" websites, as determined by Alexa.com rankings.
With help from software, the researchers crawled 285,000 of some 900,000 "misspelled" sites to estimate what revenue the domains are generating.
Scale those results, and you're looking at some serious coin:
Expanding to the top 100,000 sites, retaining the 0.7% estimated ratio of typosquatting site, we estimate that typo domains collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors. If these typo domains were treated as a single website, that site would be ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world. It would be more popular, in unique daily visitors, than twitter.com, myspace.com, or amazon.com!
The researchers estimate that almost 60 percent of these sites have ads supplied by Google. With some back-of-the-envelope math, that amounts to $497 million per year in revenue.
It's Google's policy to remove ads from these "misspelled" domains if the owner of the original site complains.
Edelman is currently co-counsel on a lawsuit by a firm seeking damages from Google after the tech giant's ads appeared on a misspelled domain targeting the firm's website. He says the lawsuit did not influence the study's results.
Their findings were presented last month at the Financial Cryptography and Data Security conference in Tenerife, Spain.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Google: I demand a refund!
RE: URL typos earn Google $497 million per year, study says
not sure how.
Pocket change to Oboma (tax & spend)
seconds.
Pocket change to Bush (borrow & spend)
RE: Pocket Change
Without being to political.
Not very tech related, but I hope that people finally stand up and say enough to this Washington Madness. Just throw the whole bunch out of Office.Maybe then we can get people in that are actually there to do their job.
Politicians: Rip-off and rob
Let's not kid ourselves. That problem is politicians, not parties.
No country ever became viable through taxation for the simple reason that governments produce no useful product and people therefore resent the legalized robbery.
Let "the government" provide useful services for which they charge based on free market and see how long any government stays in business.
In the form of...
yeah well, not if you have a brain..
have a brain
Apparently I can't read zddnet.com at work.
Yeah, right
While the balance of the story may be true though that quote throws that into some doubt I'd have to point out to Googlephobes that such things are likely to happen any time the display of an ad is based on a search result when someone mistypes the search key.
Then again, I guess Andrew and Benjamin Edelman think that Google should be global babysitter.
Oh yeah, and contrary to the inflammatory headline the study says that Google could be making that much as in maybe, might and "oh boy let's toss this number at a wall and see if it sticks" for the blogger/reporter community. It's sticking to Andrew's wall quite nicely.
There is a story here but it isn't what Andrew and Benjamin Edelman are spinning.
ttfn
John
web appendix, methodology & alternatives
We've published the raw data underlying our findings. See for yourself: Our web appendix has numerous key details (biggest typosquatters, most-typosquatting nameservers, screenshots, etc.).
Your analogy to ordinary search results is inapt. No law prohibits Google from showing ads when users misspell search terms. But when users misspell domain names, the federal ACPA is squarely on point -- prohibiting "us[ing]" the domains, and making no exception for "use" that consists of showing advertisements.
As to the methodology of our estimate: Google knows the true numbers. Google could tell us how much money is at issue if Google were so inclined. But they've been silent. Estimation is an appropriate response. We've posted the details of our estimation methodology; there's nothing secret about how we reached our bottom line, and anyone who wants to suggest another estimation procedure or result is certainly free to do so. Perhaps you can do better. I look forward to your contribution!
Ben Edelman
So?
If I typo an URL and get a bunch of ads instead of the page I expected, I'm most likely going to double-check my typing, not assume that the ads are the correct site.
Even if I do click on an ad, so what?
While I think it's kind of slimy to take advantage of a user who can't type (or just doesn't know the correct url), I can't for the life of me see what should be illegal about it, or on what basis the owner of the correct spelling has the right to sue.
Imagine vending machines in a bus station where lots of people drop coins that roll under the machines. You may think it's money grubbing to do so, but should it be [i]illegal[/i] to sweep under the machines?
I can't even see calling it Trademark Infringement unless there's something on the found page that purports it to be the intended page.
Self-advertising is common on typo sites
Many typosquatting domains display pay-per-click links promoting the same merchants that are targeted by typosquatting, a practice we call "self-advertising typosquatting." See this page for examples:
http://www.benedelman.org/typosquatting/selfadvertising-screenshots.html
Wow, some SMART cybersquatters for a change!
land upon never have any relevant advertising. I'm
surprised that some actually put some thinking
into their websites. I always just re-check my
spelling or switch out the .com with a .net or
just Google it(and not from that site).
I'm sure those Saks Fifth Avenue cybersquatters
actually do make some good money, considering most
people would just click the link.
This is complete...
At least give me $10 millions Google!
Click fraud on Google's content network is a big problem
content network is enormous and Google is profiting from
this.
Read my detailed findings at
http://www.muhimbi.com/blog/2010/02/using-google-adwords-
on-content.html
RE: URL typos earn Google $497 million per year, study says
Jess
www.anonymous-tools.se.tc
I wouldn't blame Google
blaming a credit card company because robbers
can use a card to break into a house(it's a
piece of plastic that can fit into crevices,
cut & bent if needed).
While Google COULD do more to discourage this
usage(I hate cybersquatters too), it wouldn't
be worth their time to actually track down
offenders. They can accept complaints, but
ultimately it's up to the trademark owner to
find offenders, in any form of trademark
infringement.