i love the "parkde domans" typo

hah I came to say the same!

I think the examples you provide are not all very convincing:

reddit;
redit.com registrated on 2002-11-22
reddit.com registrated on 2005-04-29

Seems to me redit.com was first!

guardia.co.uk;
guardia is actually a common word, all ads on this site are unrelated to the newspaper (named after a common word also), but related to security.

easy-share.com;
easyshare.com registrated in 1998. With the dash in 2005. Yes easy-shar.com is a typo domain, but isn't easy-share.com not also infringing on the (older) name "easyshare.com"?

techcrunc.com;
yes seems like a brand infringement, but techcrunch could start a dispute procedure at the ICANN to get this domainname in their hands within months.

Two typos in the title field is not so common :)

Three typos if already counting – and I would not be so kind to call them typos. They are spelling errors, which should have shown up while editing.

Since I found all three, I deserve a vacation here:

[tripcart.com/usa-regions/New-York-City,Guided-Tours.aspx]

Yv., I think the main question is not whether the domain was first or whether it is an actual word, but more like: what's the percentage of people ending up there actually looking for another site? (And how useful is the page where they end up on?) The visitors of the page are what generates clicks, which is what generates payments from Google towards the domain owner. If people actually look to find information at guardia.co.uk what kind of info is that? Or redit.com?

Philipp., but how is the 'usefulness' for you to judge? How do you know the intentions of people typing in redit.com? I don't think I understand your point. You prefer having the owner redit.com to forward it to reddit.com? Does reddit.com have more right to those visitors? Does reddit.com have more rights to monetize traffic compared to redit.com because they made a 'full' website?
It's sounds a bit like some kind of policing where only ads are allowed if you make quality content. How is a parking page different from a ask.com search result page filled with ads?

(ps: to be clear I agree on techcrunc.com and scobleiser.com to be abusing somebody else's work, but disagree on the others).

They take money from advertisers to do good (investment in Free Software,innovation and recyclable energies). The only problem is that they screw advertisers in the way, and they make those squatters earn money.

> It's sounds a bit like some kind of policing where only
> ads are allowed if you make quality content.

Google AdSense for Domain's own policy says you're not allowed to typesquat and use their service, so it's not for us but for Google to judge.

By the way, Google has a "quality" policy in search results, too.... webmaster guidelines say “Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other auto-generated pages that don’t add much value for users coming from search engines.” Naturally that is a different topic, but it goes to show that Google does aim to evaluate "quality" sometimes.

Redit.com is a bit more of a gray zone, but let's take Techcrunc.com, or Scobleiser.com. Wouldn't you say it's on the scammy side, and that thus Google helps finance something that's on the scammy side?

(By the way, I also get a feeling all these domain parkers clutter up the domain space, meaning it is often hard to register a new domain name, even when you actually have a real site planned... but that's not the issue with Typosquatting, as it only "blocks" on typos.)

[Added an update with Yv's first comment.]

In fact I didn't saw the typo 'Gogle' from two different computers :)

The fix is not needed, these are part of this Blogoscoped community :)

You're not helping by hyperlinking to them.

Scjm, all the domain links in the post are using nofollow.

> ...all the domain links in the post are using nofollow

According to Wikipedia, Ask.com ignores nofollow, so the typosquatters are getting link juice on at least one search engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow

Pretty sure the "typos" in the title are an intentional joke. :)

Now talk about nissan.com. Is that cybersquatting?

Domain names should not be handed out like candy. What's needed is some kind of arbitration process; similar to the "disambiguation pages" on Wikimedia's sites, where interested parties can register their claim with the registrar. This way, the U-tube/YouTube and Nissan/Nissan Motor conflicts wouldn't still be ongoing.

Whereas similar trademarks can usually be determined from context which owner is being referred to, a domain name pretends to be an authority, yet isn't because it can only ever favor one claimant.

Roger, I'm not worried about bots, I'm worried about people clicking them, giving them page impressions and possible clicks.

You all sound a bit jealous that there is a group of businesses (domainers) that don't need google (or SE rankings in general), but where google (more ad views) needs them!

I can only give them the props that they are able to earn a good living without needing any SEO, content, linkbait, design, etc..

Some nice resources:
domaining.com
dnjournal.com

rich: read this: digest.com/Big_Story.php