I don't get any of this

[Adidas]

So, Yahoo bans arbitrage, Google squashes so many sites it's even attacking innocent publishers, and the sky is falling.

BUT - at the end of the day I look at the Kevin Ham sites or the Shilling sites and I'm left wondering : how did they source these ads then? Surely, if goog/yah/ms were really willing to destroy them they would just cut off the feeds to the IPs that host these sites.

Or are they?

 

[Trexi]

May I ask who is Kevin Ham.? Anyway, arbitrage in my opinion ought to be allowed.

 

[bojianh]

Kevin ham is that guy who got all the .cm Cameroon domains over 300million uniques a month!

 

[Sameh]

May I ask who is Kevin Ham.? Anyway, arbitrage in my opinion ought to be allowed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ham

 

[bojianh]

Haha. I forgot Wiki. And yup, all the info's for you here.

 

[CharlieA]

If your domains get enough traffic, you're eligible for Google's parked domain program. You need a lot of traffic though.

 

[Marck]

So, Yahoo bans arbitrage, Google squashes so many sites it's even attacking innocent publishers, and the sky is falling.

BUT - at the end of the day I look at the Kevin Ham sites or the Shilling sites and I'm left wondering : how did they source these ads then? Surely, if goog/yah/ms were really willing to destroy them they would just cut off the feeds to the IPs that host these sites.

Or are they?

Kevin Ham represents so much traffic from a single source he is worth the risk and the hassles.

 

[snoop]

BUT - at the end of the day I look at the Kevin Ham sites or the Shilling sites and I'm left wondering : how did they source these ads then? Surely, if goog/yah/ms were really willing to destroy them they would just cut off the feeds to the IPs that host these sites.

Or are they?

Why would yahoo want to kill of these high quality traffic sources?