[deleted]
Never buy a .online domain
221–230 of 513 posts
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most alternative tlds are more expensive than .com after first year teaser rates expire though
There are various gTLD that are cheaper. For example, .top is great and among the cheapest. It however is falsely maligned by those with small brains who stereotype things.
I like .top domains as well but .de might make more sense.
Considering .top domains have cheap registration and renewal. To me, it does feel as if .top are very speculative. I liked to search random things in tld-list to find unique-word. so like random.top but my past experience says that .top domains are bought quite a lot/very speculative.
If possible I like .de but I think that .top are fine too. Both are great for what its worth.
> It however is falsely maligned by those with small brains who stereotype things.
I didn't know about this, can you please elaborate more about it?
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#223> Not adding the domain to Google Search Console immediately. I don't need their analytics and wasn't really planning on having any content on the domain, so I thought, why bother? Big, big mistake. I'm not particularly familiar with SEO or the massive black box that is Google Search - is this really as critical as the author makes it seem? I have both .lol and .party domains, both through porkbun (and the TLDs seem…
Yeah I'm guessing the TLD was the main signal, based on other comments linking to a thread about "Pinggy", who was also using a .online. The fact that Namecheap is giving them out for free means they probably are more scammy on average.
I've also never added domains to Google Search Console and haven't had blacklisting issue other than with a free .ml (another "cursed" TLD) site that was by default assumed to be spam by Facebook Messenger.
It's unfortunate that this category exists, but I don't share the OP's .com purism; I've used a mix of TLDs and even the cheap ones like .fyi and .cc haven't come under extra scrutiny as far as I can tell.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
How was this Google’s fault? Seems clearly like Radix’s fault.
If a newspaper publishes a false story about a business and someone takes it upon themselves to attack the business, it's partially the newspaper's fault.
If a newspaper publishes a story about a business and someone takes it upon themselves to attack the business, the attacker is at fault, regardless of the veracity of the newspapers claims.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are various gTLD that are cheaper. For example, .top is great and among the cheapest. It however is falsely maligned by those with small brains who stereotype things.
I like .top domains as well but .de might make more sense. Considering .top domains have cheap registration and renewal. To me, it does feel as if .top are very speculative. I liked to search random things in tld-list to find unique-word. so like random.top but my past experience says that .top domains are bought quite a lot/very speculative. If possible I like .de but I think that .top are fine too. Both are great f…
> I didn't know about this, can you please elaborate more about it?
Those with small brains who stereotype things often claim that .top is used only for scams, and that if a site is using .top, it means they're a scam site. In making this foolish assertion, they confuse P(A|B) with P(B|A). To continue, see the ChatGPT share 699f272e-475c-8012-ae9a-a89bd136fd01
> it does feel as if .top are very speculative
Sure, they can be, but again it's no reason to stereotype. They can be or become whatever they want to be.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google should not be allowed to make libelous statements without consequences.
How is any kind of antivirus or threat detection software supposed to operate on this standard? Libel suits can be financially catastrophic, so even a tiny false positive rate could present risk that disincentivizes producing such software at all. And a threat detection mechanism that has a 0.0% false positive rate is conservative to the point of being nearly useless.
You document your claims with concrete evidence of fraud. That will be your libel defense. No evidence means you bear the full responsibility of a fuckup.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#227Side note: My empirical experience is that vanity domains are disliked by some enterprise security systems. I have a friend who owns a .homes domain which ended up being blocked by quad9 as well as the enterprise security system of a friend's work for ~half a year. The block cleared by itself. I had the same experience while buying another TLD. For ~1 month, certain people whose ISP "helpfully" had "safe browsing" fe…
Even (uncommon) country TLD's too. I own a .vg domain which is a perfect match with the initials of my last name. My mails end up in spam quite often too, despite having set up SPF, DKIM, DMARC and all that stuff correctly. It's just not common so some security systems block it.
It's not just about being common, it's also about the share of abuse coming from such domains.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a newspaper publishes a false story about a business and someone takes it upon themselves to attack the business, it's partially the newspaper's fault.
If a newspaper publishes a story about a business and someone takes it upon themselves to attack the business, the attacker is at fault, regardless of the veracity of the newspapers claims.
I am in Canada, but I think it is the same in the US? A newspaper can be responsible here. For example, if they say "people should riot" and a riot happens, the newspaper could be responsible for all actions that resulted the same as if they were the ones doing the crime.
Same with if they become aware of defamation and fail to retract and make a statement. But newspapers will generally also thoroughly investigate themselves to make sure what they are publishing is true.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#229Unfortunate story. It wasn't clear to me that the .online TLD led to Google blacklisting the site. Why did you think that was connected?
The problem isn't Google Safe Search backlisting the side (I mean that also is a problem, but a very different one). The problem is the vanity domain registrar Radix using that as a reason to _put the whole domain on hold, including all subdomains, email entries etc._ This means: - no way to fix accidental wrong "safe search" blacklisting - if it was your main domain no mails with all the things it entails - no way t…
At the same time given the already terrible reputation of such vanity TLDs, being this hard on abuse might be the only survivable way.
That's not me saying there shouldn't be a warning and a recourse, but the time-to-profit for domain abuse is really short so anti-abuse actions have to be quick.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't sell their list to you. They give it to you for free. Using their list costs them money. Pumping up numbers gains them nothing but the headache of PR issues when they get a false positive. Spyware filters used to boast about how many domains they filter out because they wanted you to buy their filters instead of someone else's. By the time they hit a false positive, they've already sold a year's subscr…
Step 1: Get everyone to use your free internet filter Step 2: Alter filters to mark newly-registered domains and low-traffic websites as "potentially harmful". Step 3: Charge a lot of money for "business verification" - which gives them a fancy badge somewhere and incidentally makes their website trustworthy in the eyes of your filter. Step 4: Profit! The Big Tech cartel has been doing this pretty successfully with e…
>pretty successfully with email
Indeed. I was going to register an account somewhere the other day, and the signup form had a list of acceptable email domains. Gmail, Protonmail, Outlook, Yahoo, Icloud... a few others. It's not the first time that's happened to me. Sad.
EDIT: Didn't even include Fastmail, who's pretty big after all. They host MX for my domain, so I could have "circumvented" it that way with their disposable address feature, but nope.