Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

templetons.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 71 posts

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#5

Post by gnabgib »

lolinder wrote: post #4

Needs (2011): http://web.archive.org/web/20110321001950/https://www.temple...

It might even be older according to the main page ("mostly written in 2001")[0]. Sure would be helpful if the author included a publish date. Many blog entries (and stack overflow type solutions) need time context (it may have been the solution/a reasonable position at the time)

https://www.templetons.com/brad/dns/

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#7

Post by pm90 »

quicksilver03 wrote: post #3

I would tolerate the ICANN TLD money-grabbing scheme, but the "new" TLDs are a little more than an indication of bad taste. I can't be the only one to dislike anything more than 3 characters in a TLD, like .cloud or .engineering.

What’s the problem with longer length tlds?

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#8

Post by lolinder »

gnabgib wrote: post #5
lolinder wrote: post #4

Needs (2011): http://web.archive.org/web/20110321001950/https://www.temple...

It might even be older according to the main page ("mostly written in 2001")[0]. Sure would be helpful if the author included a publish date. Many blog entries (and stack overflow type solutions) need time context (it may have been the solution/a reasonable position at the time ) https://www.templetons.com/brad/dns/

You're right, it could be much older. I thought 2011 seemed likely because that's the earliest the web archive has and that's the year that the new gTLD program really got rolling. However, it looks from some of his other content that he might have been referring to discussions that were started in 2000 and 2001:

http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#9

Post by paulryanrogers »

pm90 wrote: post #7
quicksilver03 wrote: post #3

I would tolerate the ICANN TLD money-grabbing scheme, but the "new" TLDs are a little more than an indication of bad taste. I can't be the only one to dislike anything more than 3 characters in a TLD, like .cloud or .engineering.

What’s the problem with longer length tlds?

In practice URLs often cannot be more than 2K characters. It's also more work to type and bytes to transmit and harder to see on small screens. For many use cases these are irreverent, but they do matter to some.
Post reply on HN