cam girls . com
 

So camgirls.com does not rank for "cam girls" - lol!

yeah, that happened a while back

think his site got hit during the general g00gle smack-down on sm whitelabels

It is owned by a guy that has been banned on here a while ago. I can not recall his nick.

You mean that lunatic Graeme?

Graham Cooper. Complete nutjob.

Dick Smith food extortionist refused bail

https://gfy.com/members/cam_girls/

Seems he got himself banned again at some stage.

nothing new...

That is definitely a premium cam domain .....

Duplicate content.

He spent 0.5mil on that domain hope he made his money back??

as i remember, it was a $350k domain.

that domain was #1 or very high for various "cam girls" keywords and phrases for a long time so even if it's banned now i guess he returned the investment and made profit.

If any of you had any idea what revenue that site pulls in you would be talking a different story.. whatever :drinkup

Yeah, he's more than tripled his 350k investment. Before streamate white labels got the duplicate content penalty, camgirls was pulling in hundreds of spenders from the serps and his advertising. I'm sure its cooled off now, but he had a really nice base of regular spenders. Wonder if the domain is still controlled by Rick Latona who made a sizable loan to Graham in the beginning.

@vending_machine

btw, why is everyone forced to use streamate whois info on white label domains and camgirls.com has privacy turned on?

Probably a special situation because of the pawn loan on the domain where Latonas needed domain control as collateral.

what difference does that make since anyone can own that domain either rick or graham, they require physical address and phone in whois info changed to them (streamate), even e-mail address doesn't have to be from streamate, but it can be from owner.

Court Won't Order Google To Lift Manual Block For "Thin Content" | ICF v. Google

Welcome to the past -- this affected all white labels -- not just Streamate's

ICF Technology, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 2:2013cv02068 - Document 28 (W.D. Wash. 2013) :: Justia

Thin content was the issue -- UNIQUE content is king

didn't know they went this far with it :)

It makes all the difference because Latona isn't going to comply with the streamate white label stipulations, yet streamate definitely wanted their brand on this premium domain. Streamate doesn't want domain owners establishing a white label with them and then moving their spenders to another brand. If Latona had to seize the domain for non payment, he'd most likely move the domain elsewhere and he's going to want his info in the whois.