Live data from Hacker News

The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

templetons.com

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#12
post #5
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 can tell the writing is very old because it mentions .ibm as an example of super well-known and wealthy corporation. No mention of Google nor Amazon.

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#14
> It creates a three-tier world. The big boys who have TLDs, the cheaper boys who have .com

The prophecy didn't come true. Granted the big boys got their .googles and .amazons, but good old .coms are still a thing and not considered "cheaper".

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#16

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.

I agree with this. I feel it takes away from the standardization or uniformity 2 and 3 char TLDs bring to domains. Also it does feel like a bait and switch- where for so many years three character tlds (and then 2 char tlds) were so valuable and sought after, only to have these >3 char tlds come along and change the landscape/market.

Additionally, I always found it interesting how the .xxx TLD never took off (was essentially DOA), even after they were so popular and valueable in the pre-sale auctions icann and others conducted b4 their introduction/release several years ago.

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#17

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.

I’m never going to remember a domain with a silly tld. I don’t necessarily think badly of the company when I see a link to one (I mostly think “fuck you ICANN”) but it is anti-memorable.

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#18

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#19

I bought a LOT of .biz domains, turns out carriers often block people from receiving SMS messages containing email addresses at these TLDs, without notifying me or them. Probably because they're often used for spam? (I bought em because they were cheap.)

If they're cheap for you, they're cheap for spammers, too.

Re: The Problem with Vanity TLDs (2011)

#20
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where is 2K a limit these days?
Post reply on HN