Comments on: Interesting that JohnMu's most recent hangout had more questions about domains… Search Engine Optimisation Ireland Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:03:56 +0100 hourly 1 By: Jim Munro Wed, 06 Nov 2013 14:14:12 +0000 I think you are both absolutely right and what you say makes logical sense, Alistair but I can't imagine anything being done about this fiasco.

It might be that they do not recognise the inherent immorality of their method of dealing with the issue.

By: Alistair Lattimore Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:45:57 +0000 I don't see how offering a reset option isn't in everyone's interest Richard.

If you buy a domain and it is penalised (which you won't necessarily know), being able to reset is very important as we've discussed at length before on DSQ.

For a legitimate business owner who unknowingly gets penalised it offers a last bastion of salvation without having to start over on a new domain which for some businesses with a lot of branding sitting behind their domain would be a very bad outcome for them.

If you're a spammer and reset, who cares in the grand scheme of things – they need to start over. If anyone thinks that $9 to register a new domain is going to set a spammer back they are dreaming – in which case I say they should let them burn the same domain to the ground over and over – what do I care.

As a mechanism to avoid people resetting and trying to work out where the limit is in the algorithm, you might only allow 1 reset per domain per rolling 12 month window. Then again, that is probably a mute point as well, per the $9 comment above – if you're spamming to work out what the limit is – you'll be more than prepared to keep spending $9 on a domain to reverse engineer the algorithms so they aren't really helping themselves in that scenario I don't think.