Live data from Hacker News

X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

nerology.substack.com

71–80 of 201 posts

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#71
post #5

One letter domains has the same issue as many of the gTLDs, they aren't particularly useful in terms of brand recognition. X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. Take bob.builders, it's a perfectly valid domain, but if you see it on the back of a van, even if it's www.bob.builders, it's not recognizably as a website. www.b.com has the exact same problem, even x.com / www.x.com is ju…

> X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. Just "x" alone isn't really the brand. It's more like "x.com" is the canonical name. From that perspective, "x" or "x.com" is about as good as brand recognition can get. It's simple and perfectly descriptive of an "everything app" and payment processing business.

I personally like brand names that _look_ like they could be words, but aren't like Spotify, Twitter, Monzo, Reddit, Google etc.

Believe they need to be short and easy to Google even if you don't know how to spell them (not saying the above brand names are perfect). Find it annoying hearing Xero having to be spelt out on the radio to stop people going to zero.com.

Not particularly a fan of combining two English words together like Facebook, Freetrade, GitHub etc. but the worst is when companies try to own a common word like Apple.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#72
post #5

One letter domains has the same issue as many of the gTLDs, they aren't particularly useful in terms of brand recognition. X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. Take bob.builders, it's a perfectly valid domain, but if you see it on the back of a van, even if it's www.bob.builders, it's not recognizably as a website. www.b.com has the exact same problem, even x.com / www.x.com is ju…

> X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. I don't know that it is self-evident. The open source implementation of the X Window System is provided by the x.org foundation. https://x.org/wiki/

X.org is maybe not in the same bucket as X.com. x.org is very tech oriented and the people who visit that site are much more likely to appreciate the unusual domain.

It doesn't change the fact that it looks a bit weird.

I think any domain that is shorter than it's tld looks a bit funky and requires a second look to process that it is real.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#73
post #22

Wow, http://g.org is weird. Wonder what the story behind it is.

Other than the login, there's a quite interesting Code of Conduct. Name of company/org is just missing and it describes things like using electronic time cards and equal employment opportunity, which is kind of funny if it actually is freemasonry related (I think they would be one sex only)

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#75

Incidental: I’ve seen people increasingly using x.com links in their articles. How does that happen? As far as I can tell, it just redirects to twitter.com and that’s where everything is, but it doesn’t seem likely that everyone’s changing twitter to x, so is there something that is giving these links? I have far less confidence that x.com links will continue to work for years than twitter.com links.

I assume if you're using the Twitter app and click "share link" it gives you an X-y one.

You assume correctly. Though x.com redirects to twitter.com, for what it's worth.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#76
post #74

I thought there's a minimum length for domains. How was Twitter even allowed to get x.com?

There used to be a minimum length for .com, .net, and .org. It was enforced by the registry to avoid confusion or special-case privileging.

When domain names became big business, those rules were changed.

Another old rule is that the domain name could not start with a digit.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#79
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identical to https://g.org/?page=rv Coincidence ?

not coincidence, one is "in good we trust", the other one is "in code we trust"

Now I'm really curious. The terms make it sound like there's a social media component once you create an account
Post reply on HN