×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Ascendancy of .co

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the milking-the-cash-cow dept.

The Internet 164

An anonymous reader tipped the fact that, with the .com namespace getting pretty well mined out, GoDaddy.com's front page for domain registrations now defaults to .co instead of .com. The article claims that GoDaddy registers about half of new domain names. Neither the article nor GoDaddy makes it explicit that .co is a ccTLD belonging to Colombia, or that registering one costs about three times as much as a .com, at $29.99 per year. And if you select a .co domain name from GoDaddy's front page, a number of TLD variants are presented alongside .co — but .com is not among them.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

164 comments

citibank.co (4, Funny)

HongPong (226840) | more than 3 years ago | (#34220976)

now with moar than $100 billion in frictionless laundered money. That's what we call .colocation!

Re:citibank.co (1, Interesting)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221000)

With the US government increasingly taking over .com domains they don't like (torrent and video streaming sites and pharmacy and gambling sites that are only illegal in the US) it's only good that GoDaddy promotes ccTLD's outside US gov control.

GoDaddy stories on Slashdot (4, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221268)

Here are stories about GoDaddy on Slashdot, in order by date, to 2010-09-11:

Go Daddy Usurps Network Solutions [slashdot.org] (2005-05-04)

GoDaddy Serves Blank Pages to Safari & Opera [slashdot.org] (2005-12-08)

GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft [slashdot.org] (2006-03-23)

GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage [slashdot.org] (2006-06-17)

GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat [slashdot.org] (2006-09-16)

MySpace and GoDaddy Shut Down Security Site [slashdot.org] (2007-01-26) That incident prompted this web site:
Exposing the Many Reasons Not to Trust GoDaddy with Your Domain Names [nodaddy.com] .

Alternative Registrars to GoDaddy? [slashdot.org] (2007-02-03)

GoDaddy Bobbles DST Changeover? [slashdot.org] (2007-03-11)

850K RegisterFly Domains Moved To GoDaddy [slashdot.org] (2007-05-29)

According to this March 11, 2008 story in Wired, GoDaddy shut down an entire web site of 250,000 pages because of one archived mailing list comment: GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com [wired.com] . See below for Slashdot's story about RateMyCop.com.

GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com [slashdot.org] (2008-03-12)

ICANN Moves Against GoDaddy Domain Lockdowns [slashdot.org] (2008-04-08)

GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers [slashdot.org] (2008-06-29)

KnujOn Updates Top 10 Spam-Friendly Registrars List [slashdot.org] (2009-02-06, 80 comments) GoDaddy is on the list.

R.I.P. FTP [slashdot.org] (2009-07-13, 359 comments) The GoDaddy web site is extremely complicated. Quote: "In that case, why don't more people switch to administering their sites via SFTP instead of FTP? Here are the steps it took me to enable SFTP on my GoDaddy hosting account. Feel free to use this as a reference, but the obvious point is that as long as this many steps are required, it's safe to say that most users won't be switching: 1) Go to the 'Hosting' menu and pick 'My Hosting Account.' 2) Next to the name of your website, pick 'Manage Account.' This will open the Hosting Control Center. 3) In Hosting Control Center, click to expand the 'Settings' options. 4) In the 'Settings' control panel, click the 'SSH' icon. 5) You will see a page saying 'SSH is not set up', and prompting you to enter a phone number so that their automated service can call you with a PIN number. After you enter your phone number, the phone rings a second later, and you enter the PIN in a form on the GoDaddy website. 6 ) You will then see a page which says: Current Hosting Account Status: Pending Account Change -- Your request to enable SSH is being processed. This upgrade may take up to 24 hours." [Punctuation and emphasis changed for clarity.]

Registrars Still Ignoring ICANN Rules [slashdot.org] (2009-07-22, 122 comments) Quote: "GoDaddy (and their reseller arm, Wild West Domains) have a different problem: They still block transfers for 60 days after a registrant's contact update, even after the ICANN update specifically prohibited doing so. They freely admit it, too."

GoDaddy Wants Your Root Password [slashdot.org] (2010-02-24, 236 comments)

Massive Number of GoDaddy WordPress Blogs Hacked [slashdot.org] (2010-04-26, 112 comments)

GoDaddy Up For Auction [slashdot.org] (2010-09-11, 191 comments)

What registrar would you recommend? (3, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221312)

Help those of us who have domains registered with GoDaddy. What registrar would you recommend?

Re:What registrar would you recommend? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221354)

I've never had a problem with Namecheap (an Enom reseller). For weird domains, I use OVH. For really weird domains, EuroDNS.

Re:What registrar would you recommend? (1)

benji fr (632243) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221404)

or bookmyname.com (handled by free, one big french isp) for cheap tld's and gandi.net (the first concurrent of verisign in history) for weird tld's.

for most weird tld, eurodns, yes ;)

Namecheap (5, Informative)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221546)

I've been using Namecheap for years, and they've been pretty awesome. They have a nice set of DNS management tools, they notify me of all important things, and as their name implies, they're inexpensive.

Another thing I like about Namecheap is that you can delegate control over your names to other people. I run a suite of hobby gaming web sites, and I've made contingency plans in case I get hit by a proverbial bus. (Or a real one.) I've given one of the other site admins permissions over the names so that if need be, he can manage them or even move them to another registrar. Obviously, I trust him implicitly, but the point is that if something happens to me, the names aren't just up for grabs once the registration expires. They may exist, but I don't know of another registrar that allows you to delegate permissions like this.

I can't speak about their technical support; I've never had to use it.

Just to prove I'm not a shill for the company (I'm only affiliated with them as being a customer), if there's one thing that's stupid about them, it's their name. I mean, "Namecheap"? Makes them sound so, I dunno, Wal-Martish, especially given what has been a good record so far with me.

Re:Namecheap (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222728)

I agree - I host over 100 domains through Namecheap, and have never had any problem with them. I left GoDaddy because of their PlaySkool, Javascript intense interface, long before I had enough domains to be worried about the privacy and security implications.

I also like money. A lot. In that line, here's an affiliate link to Namecheap [namecheap.com] that might make me some :)

Re:What registrar would you recommend? (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221686)

For weird domains, I use OVH. For really weird domains, EuroDNS.

What do you mean by "weird domains"? Are you referring to something like "ifuckfishinmydreams.com" where the name itself is weird or "nationalreview.com" where all the writers are weird, or "lookbook.nu" where the idea is weird or...?

(Note: "ifuckfishinmydreams.com" is not a real website. But it you're interested in owning that domain, drop me an email. We can talk.)

Re:What registrar would you recommend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222192)

I mean the more unusual TLDs, like .asia, .cat, .pro, .lv, etc.

Re:What registrar would you recommend? (2, Interesting)

cjcela (1539859) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221412)

I use dreamhost for both registrar and hosting. So far it has been excellent.

Re:What registrar would you recommend? (1)

Eggbloke (1698408) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221526)

I use 123reg for my .co.uk domain. £6 for 2 years. Never had any problems with them.

Re:What registrar would you recommend? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221928)

I've been registering with 1&1 for years now. I have a free hosting account (developer preview) from 5 years ago. In any case, they charge $10 a year for .com - used to be $6 a year.

Re:What registrar would you recommend? (1, Interesting)

RavenChild (854835) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222156)

I love 1&1. I've held about 10 domains with them for the past 6 years and only had a problem once (They lost all my DNS settings+subdomains but gave me a free year, awesome service). Whenever I hear someone talking about setting up a site with GoDaddy I cringe and point them to using 1&1 if it's not too late. I don't like the price hikes they've been doing but I suppose it is understandable.

NearlyFreeSpeech (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222336)

www.nearlyfreespeech.net is the best registrar and webhost anywhere. Rock bottom prices, clean website, and absolutely no bullshit. Just sayin' as a satisfied customer for three years.

Re:What registrar would you recommend? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222470)

We used namecheap for quite a while, and AWS for hosting. Just recently, we have grown to the point that safenames made a lot more sense, and still with AWS for hosting. We run our own mail, and are considering running our own dns on and internal sever, and an AWS slice for redundancy.

Re:What registrar would you recommend? (1)

lexidation (1825996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223016)

I've used mediatemple.net for years. They're brilliant. Seem to be known mainly in design circles. Virtually problem-free but when any kind of issue does arise, the support is excellent.

It's not mined out. (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221006)

It's squatted, sniped, tasted, and front-run out.

When a speculator can register thousands of names and move them around for free by playing the system, is there any wonder that .com is "mined out"? When a registrar front-runs domain names (Network Solutions) and fills the space with reserved names for itself, is there any wonder that .com is "mined out"?

Get rid of domain tasting and other shenanigans and the problem will go away.

--
BMO

Re:It's not mined out. (0, Troll)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221024)

How is year 2007 by the way? We others are already living in the 2010 and here in the future, ICANN has fixed that.

Re:It's not mined out. (0, Troll)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221534)

Obviously, they didn't, ya dumb motherfucker or the problem would not still be happening. Maybe they fixed one small aspect of the problem, but it's easy to get around.

Re:It's not mined out. (3, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221038)

This.

Also 'investors'. A little while back I read an online article by someone congratulating themselves on investing in .com names. He was going through a dictionary, finding obscure words and testing to see if they were available, then buying them up. He had about 30 dictionary words and he was going to make money on the idea, also encouraging others to do the same.

It's one of those times when you wish you could reach through the screen and strangle the person on the other side. Squatters, 'investors' and other assorted asshats have between them sat on pretty much and word or word combination in existence, meaning that 99% of them just aren't used, ever.

It's a shame that money-hungry tools have been able to do this. Maybe the internet was better in the early 90s.

Re:It's not mined out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221078)

It's our (the geeks') fault for setting it up so that these opportunities exist. Every time the topic of additional top level domains comes up, the same people who complain about domain squatting also get up in arms about making a scarce resource less scarce and thereby less attractive for squatting.

Re:It's not mined out. (3, Insightful)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221084)

The easy solution would be a "use it or lose it" rule where the ownership of a domain that is just parked will be revoked when someone else would like to register it.

Re:It's not mined out. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221096)

You can trivially set up a mail account, subscribe to a few newsletters and ignore any "use it or lose it" kind of rules. The internet is more than just the web, remember?

Re:It's not mined out. (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221908)

I have a domain that I currently use only for email but it is still in use. The Web is not the Net.

And who is going judge what constitutes "use" anyway? Are you going to visit each of millions of Web sites and determine which are "real" and which are merely parked?

Re:It's not mined out. (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222716)

I know that WWW ist just one of many services. And a definition of "use" (or better of what kind of behaviour leads to losing the domain) that eliminates most of the speculants and cybersquatters but doesn't hurt other people shouldn't be too difficult to find.

And if it's only done on request by someone with serious interest in using the domain, there would be no need to "visit millions of websites".

Re:It's not mined out. (1)

wshs (602011) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223080)

If it has a for sale page up the week after registration, or it's hosted via sedo or information.com or other popular cybersquatters, that is a good indicator it's not in use.

Re:It's not mined out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221164)

Here's a shocker for you - there's also not much unclaimed real estate just waiting for you to come by and snap it up.

Re:It's not mined out. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221630)

Apologies in advance; this is going to be harsh... It's called capitalism - supply and demand, scarcity, etc. The hippielove ideal of the internet is long gone. These days it's nothing for a company to spend $5k, $50k or more for a generic domain that drives traffic to their site. A single magazine spread can cost that much for a month. It's not squatting or anything else you want to label it, it really is investing in a valuable asset.

What you're really saying is that you're jealous you didn't register these names. Out here in the real world valuable things have a price tag. If you're not aggressive enough to take advantage of it then the rest of the world will pass you by in a heartbeat.

Re:It's not mined out. (3, Insightful)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221766)

If idiots stopped paying more than $10 for a domain then it wouldn't be a problem. Every time I've contacted a domain owner about a domain I laugh at them and re-offer $10 for their shitty domain when they tell me it "costs $595".

The problem is that you have idiots accepting ridiculous amounts for worthless domains when the domain doesn't even matter anymore. I've been to many a site with a meaningless domain or a domain that is very long or a domain with a random tld and they've had no problem with traffic because they have a good website or provide something that people need.

People may not be paying (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222278)

The squatters may just think people will pay. Remember that for something like this to happen there doesn't have to be an actual worthwhile market, just the perception of one. You get all kinds of dumb, greedy, people who get in to shit.

A great example is back in the day when eBay was young and some domain squatters decided to buy up domains they thought might be worthwhile and try to sell them. So the funniest one I came across was a guy who had registered generalmills.cc and wanted to sell it for $10,000,000. That's right, ten million dollars. His sales pitch was you could buy it and then "Make them pay whatever you liked for the rights." Of course General Mills happily owned generalmills.com at the time and didn't seem to have an interest in others. What's more, a company can nab a domain name that is their trademark if they wish (these days through ICANN, back then through the courts). I e-mailed him calling him an idiot more or less and got one of the most caustic, hate filled responses defending his business claiming he made millions "regularly" on sales. I pointed out to him that he had no sales on eBay thus far, and got more hate in response.

It was quite clear that he though he'd got a brilliant scam, which was successful only in his own mind. He was just waiting for his big payday... Which of course never came.

Re:It's not mined out. (2, Insightful)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222748)

In some cases, it makes financial sense to pay some. I was looking to start a gun reviews site a while back, and had a $500 budget for a domain name. I found one - I think it was gunreviews.org - and sent them an email offering $500. I got an automated response that they would not be accepting any offers under $2,500.

Meawhile, something like "buyviagraonline.com" would be worth thousands.

A money grab (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221222)

Disclaimer: I loathe GoDaddy.com. Their commercials are downright offensive, their service is expensive crap, and I've known many people burned by them.

Having said that, I can't imagine that this is anything but a money grab by GoDaddy.com. When I read this, two thoughts came to mind.

First, they'll probably catch a lot of people who are not technically savvy enough to noticed that they're registering a .co instead of a .com. I know, how can someone be technically savvy enough to know they need a domain name and go through the process of registering it, but not know they need a .com? The easy answer is marketing goobs. Where I used to work, the marketing decided that .biz would be the next "hot" thing, and changed all of the company letter head, business cards, and ad copy to [company].biz, even though we still owned our .com name. It was a dismal failure, of course. We even got complaints from employees and customers because e-mails were bouncing due to spam systems and/or software that didn't recognize .biz as a legal address didn't work with our domain name. Eventually, the powers-that-be finally made the marketing department relent and they changed it back, but it was still an expensive, needless, unmitigated disaster.

Second, even for technically savvy people, if .co becomes a popular alternative, it's yet one more TLD that competent businesses will have to register. Any business worth its salt now has to register [company].com, [company].org, and [company].net. I run some hobby gaming sites, and even I register those three for my sites to make sure that no one tries to squat my site names. It seems painfully obvious to me that GoDaddy wants to add another TLD--and another $30 to their coffers for every domain name registered--by "legitimizing" .co domain names. If I were dumb enough to use them as a registrar, that means if I don't want someone squatting my site name, now I'll have to register [site].co as well. Worse, I really need to make double sure that I register that one because it's so easy to mistype .com as .co.

So no thank you. As far as I'm concerned, unless you run a business out of Bogotá, having a .co domain is like having a .biz domain--kind of stupid, and any non-Colombian business or organization that tries to use one instead of .com will be treated as fly-by-night by me, most likely a scammer or spammer.

Re:A money grab (5, Insightful)

axx (1000412) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221286)

Small thing: many people don't even type in the domain name in full, with the TLD.

A *lot* of people type in “facebook” to go to facebook.com, or even “facebook login” to login to facebook, completely unaware of the magic that happens behind the scenes.
Do you remember what happened on that ReadWriteWeb article about Facebook's new login page ? The comments are unbelievable and yet. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php [readwriteweb.com]

Also, this is why Google knows that bit more about what sites people visit. Everytime people don't enter the TLD, their browser does a swift “I'm feeling lucky” search and takes them to the result.

So the .com vs .co problem might not be that much of an issue these days.

Re:A money grab (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221554)

Holy shit... that's the best way to show just how sheep-like people are. Fuck, I didn't think it was that bad.

Re:A money grab (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223094)

Sheep? I take it you don't utilize any thermostats in the heating of your house? Shun automatic transmission?

For that matter, why not remember and write in IP in the browser bar?

Re:A money grab (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221850)

To get to slashdot.org (I don't use facebook), I hit Ctrl+T, then the letter s, then the right arrow key, then enter. Once you've been to a site once, you barely need to think at all these days.

Re:A money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222652)

WTFOMGBBQ!!

Man, I was aware that there are some dumb people out there, but this is a new high. Granted, there are many older people who probably have never learned what the Web is really about (URLs and stuff), but some don't look a day over 30.

So, parking pages do bring revenue after all. Go figure.

Re:A money grab (1, Redundant)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221308)

So the only reason that you are against it is so you do not need to pay more for another domain name. And yet by registering three daomain names (com, net, org) you and almost everybody else are using up those names.

I always thought these com, net, org and all others are not a good idea. The best would have been to just use the ones for each country. That would have made this site slashdot.us. "But what about international organizations like debian?" I hear you ask. Well, either take the one where the organisation is registerd, the founder is located, the cheapest one or one for each country if you want.. And While I am ranting about stuff that wil never change, it would have been better to have it named in revers e.g. us.slashdot Or even http://us/slashdot [us]

Oh well.

Re:A money grab (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221460)

There is a .us TLD. No company wants to use it though, because it has no brand recognition at all. When people want to find a company, they type companyname.com - not companyname.us.

Here is proof, in the form of a registry desperatly trying and failing to get people to buy .us domains: http://www.neustar.us/ [neustar.us]

Re:A money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221338)

As far as I'm concerned, unless you run a business out of Bogotá, having a .co domain is like having a .biz domain--kind of stupid, and any non-Colombian business or organization that tries to use one instead of .com will be treated as fly-by-night by me, most likely a scammer or spammer.

But that can shift.

Look at it this way. Dot com /is/ pretty mined out, and 'co' is well established in our language as shortform for 'company'. Most people /aren't/ savvy -- they don't care much about domain name structure, they just want to get to a site. They follow links in tweets, and click first results in search engines. It's all the same to them if it's foo.com or foo.co or foo.co.uk, as long as they get to foo.

We're going to have a number of businesses and interest groups realize that, so go ahead and use a dot-co in order get the name they want to use. The numbers of those sites will only increase because the dot-com supply will only go down. Pretty soon we'll have enough good dot-co sites that you can't risk skipping such a link as a likely scammer, because it's not so likely anymore. Which is the tipping point where it doesn't matter anymore -- dot-co has gained colloquial, if not official, meaning as 'commercial'.

(The problem with 'biz' is is looks unprofessional to everyone. Dot-co only looks unprofessional to geeks who understand country codes. And we're always complaining about things that no-one understands, so nobody is going to care when we mention it.)

Re:A money grab (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222448)

I agree with everything you said except the ads being offensive. Using girls to sell domains may be many things, but offensive?

Re:A money grab (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222670)

And think of the money from all those media companies relocating to Tuvalu! The office space it a bit tight, but still... What a view!

Re:It's not mined out. (5, Informative)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221364)

Get rid of domain tasting

It's pretty much gone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting [wikipedia.org]

"ICANN reported in August 2009, that prior to implementing excess domain deletion charges, the peak month for domain tastings was over 15 million domain names. After the $0.20 fee was implemented, this dropped to around 2 million domain names per month. As a result of the further increase in charges for excess domain deletions, implemented starting April 2009, the number of domain tastings dropped to below 60 thousand per month."

I know from personal experience that a domain I had let lapse and was sat on for years became available again after the ICANN policy was put in place.

Re:It's not mined out. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221430)

before we need IPV12

Re:It's not mined out. (1)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222458)

Yes, its frustrating. I am trying to come with the a .com name and most of the a names are squatted (Registered but no website or godaddy.com website.)

.co for company ? (4, Insightful)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221014)

.co.uk
.co.jp
.co.nz

are already in use as a company designator so why not ? but what about the collision with the Colombia state domain ?

Re:.co for company ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221148)

*whoosh*

Re:.co for company ? (4, Funny)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221196)

...and .co.ck

(Cook Islands, really, look it up!)

Re:.co for company ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221294)

suck.my.co.ck

Re:.co for company ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221316)

I'm surprised there has never been a my.co.ck pr0n page.

Re:.co for company ? (1)

empedocles (679389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223262)

So far it seems to work when you say it out loud. Writing it or reading it is another challenge.

Unfortunately, the most common response we've gotten from my company's .co domain is "there's a typo in your email/business card/publication etc." i.e. "you forgot the 'm'"

We're using another name instead with a .com for our primary url. Still waiting for people to be accustomed to the .co domain. Too bad since our .co domain would be much simpler.

The right question (2, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221046)

The question we should ask ourselves is whether or not we should accept domain name registration as a commercial practice. The moment we say 'yes' to this question, and it seems to me that this was the general answer since very early in the life of the DNS, we shouldn't neither be surprised nor shocked to see common commercial practices being used by these registrar.

If you buy the nice looking shirt for twice the price right at the entrance of the store, it's your problem I guess. But still, there's a difference. Most of us are aware of common commercial practice to lure clients into more expensive product. We sometimes choose to ignore or forget them, but we still are globally aware of them. But, somehow, we forget that similar rules apply to online businesses as well, probably due to the lack of personal interaction.

Re:The right question (4, Interesting)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221378)

The question we should ask ourselves is whether or not we should accept domain name registration as a commercial practice.

How about a resounding yes? The vast majority of sites on the internet are used for businesses. ".com" is short for "commercial," you know. If you want to talk about taking ".org" domains out of the commercial registration pool, there are practices that might be put in place to restrict their use in a way that ".edu" and ".gov" are used. I think you would be a little late to the party, though.

Re:The right question (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221572)

Just so we are clear on that, I'm not suggesting anything. I honestly do not know the right answer to this complex question myself.

But I want to put emphasis on the point that I'm talking about the registration process of a domain name, not the actual websites behind theses names. I'm referring to the fact that registrars are commercial websites themselves, employing commercial tactics I would expect from every other commercial websites or store.

Dirty business (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221050)

The internet is fuel to two dirty business: domain names and CA business. One is asking money for words, or creating ass-expensive database records, the other is selling "trust" and abusing the word in every meaning.

Godaddy mistake? (2, Interesting)

wlad (1171323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221062)

Is it only GoDaddy doing this? In which case it might just as well simply be a mistake. Who, in their right mind, would choose the Columbian domain instead of one of the many new top level domains as new default?

Who's your Godaddy, mistake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221108)

Where else are the drug cartels going to park their new sites?

Re:Godaddy mistake? (2, Interesting)

amaupin (721551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221188)

I use Godaddy almost exclusively for my many (too many) domains... that said, let's be honest.

It's not a mistake. Their checkout process is designed to wave as many unnecessary - yet seemingly useful - options as possible in front of novice domain customers, in hopes that one or two will fall into their basket by mistake. No doubt their logs are full of new customers landing and searching for an unavailable .com domain, repeat, repeat, repeat, give up.

Now by defaulting to .co and hiding .com they can sell a shit ton of Columbian domains like "smithfamily.co" to unsuspecting customers, and at a higher price, too!

Re:Godaddy mistake? (4, Interesting)

RDW (41497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221202)

Yes, no mistake. They were pushing this even before it became available for sale:

http://community.godaddy.com/godaddy/co-claim-your-opportunity/ [godaddy.com]

'Pre-registration is now open for the newest truly global and recognizable domain name extension to come along in years: .co -- It's used everywhere as an abbreviation for Company, Corporation, and Commerce. Let it vault your company into the global Internet marketplace!

Here's your chance to grab domain names that have been taken for years with the .com extension. Pre-registration includes application periods for trademark holders and others.'

Re:Godaddy mistake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222296)

Neither Columbia the school or the city have their own TLD.

Re:Godaddy mistake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222722)

Just nitpicking:

Columbia [wikipedia.org] is any of dozens of places and geographical features north of Rio Grande. Colombia [wikipedia.org] is the country in South America you're speaking of -- land of coffee, guerrillas and really hot chicks :)

garbage domains (2, Insightful)

newviewmedia.com (1137457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221112)

No different from .tv or any other new top level domain. It is currently possible to open up any tld you want now (.city .dog .etc) if you have around $100,000 and the capabilities to manage a registrar through Icaan. However, .com, .net .org and country tld will always be king in people minds. .travel has been around forever and nobody uses it. Expect more of the same with all these new domains coming on the market.

Re:garbage domains (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221192)

.co is a country TLD. It's just misused, in largely the same was as .me, .nu, and many others.

Re:garbage domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221210)

.co is a country TLD. It's just misused, in largely the same was as .me, .nu, and many others.

Which is the reason I went with a .name domain for my personal website and personal email. Misuse of country TLDs should be actively discouraged.

Re:garbage domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221232)

What would you consider misuse of a country TLD? Domains are administrative boundaries. If you're ok with using a domain that is governed by the rules of a company or government in a foreign country, and you abide by their rules, then what is wrong with that?

Re:garbage domains (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221498)

What would you consider misuse of a country TLD? Domains are administrative boundaries. If you're ok with using a domain that is governed by the rules of a company or government in a foreign country, and you abide by their rules, then what is wrong with that?

Of course the entire top level domain thing is largely broken from today's point of view, because it's so US-centric. Non-country domains should be global. Country domains should be somehow related to that country.

What I mean is, if you go to porn.<country tld>, you should get porn site from that country, or at least content with "performers" who are mostly from that country, and advertising meant for that country, even for foreign web clients, because presumably they're planning a vacation or something. And porn.com should take me to an international site, with properly targeted ads and service links and all that, while porn.org should take me to some non-profit porn organization that is relevant globally. Anything else is highly improper, a scam, outright immoral.

Same of course applies to other Web content, as insignificant as it is compared to porn.

</tongueincheek>

Re:garbage domains (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222760)

What would you consider misuse of a country TLD? Domains are administrative boundaries. If you're ok with using a domain that is governed by the rules of a company or government in a foreign country, and you abide by their rules, then what is wrong with that?

Since I live in the US, not only am I OK with it, I see it as a significant benefit!

Re:garbage domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34223176)

No different from .tv or any other new top level domain. It is currently possible to open up any tld you want now (.city .dog .etc) if you have around $100,000 and the capabilities to manage a registrar through Icaan.

This is good news for those who want to run the prestigious domain name, www.clownpenis.fart.

Let's call it scam when it is a scam (3, Insightful)

Englabenny (625607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221134)

It's a scam to sell off .co domains as .com domains, and it should be outed as such by slashdot.

Re:Let's call it scam when it is a scam (2, Interesting)

sdnoob (917382) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221162)

agreed. just another way for godaddy to profit from the clueless or too-lazy-to-read-what-they're-doing... which is a pretty large percentage of their customer base.

Regular business = scam (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221478)

Yes, it's a shameless scheme to grab money from people not paying attention. Like the car industry, food industry, vitamins, candy, beer, cigarettes, shoes, weapons, and just about every other business. Smoothly mislead people into spending it and thinking they are happy with what they got. *Actually* helping people, as in applying your knowledge of the subject and advising the most intelligent solutions, is not always relevant, and is frequently called stupid, nerdy, or weird. It rules our society, It's called "business" or "marketing", and it's main objective is to extract your money with whatever product excuse, produce as little as possible, hopefully you will soon send it in the local landfill.

Re:Let's call it scam when it is a scam (3, Interesting)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221352)

It's a scam to sell off .co domains as .com domains, and it should be outed as such by slashdot.

I smell lawsuit. Unwary and dumb users expect to have their hands held in this day and age.

This is a really uninformed error by the world's largest registrar. If you don't have a big blue banner that says "This is NOT a .COM domain - .CO domains are from COlumbia!" you are automatically setting yourself up for a class-action suit which you will assuredly lose or settle.

But maybe the GoDaddy lawyers already figured out the cost of the suit, the settlement and the legal fees, and the 90% markup still leaves more on the table than an ultra-competitive .com price. In which case, we are the sheeple and will be eaten soon by the GoDragon.

Fuck the ccTLDs anyway... (1)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221348)

I saw the stupid Twitter-140-character-limit-moronity-mandated URL-shortened http://flic.kr/ [flic.kr] the other day, and I thought, the concept of ccTLDs are dead! Why not just use http://flickr/ [flickr] if you're going to do that.

Yeah, the Internet is getting stupider and stupider every second...

Re:Fuck the ccTLDs anyway... (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221376)

YOu can buyu your own tld to rule the world for about $185.000 according to this article [itworld.com] which is really a doable amount for the internet monopolists.

Re:Fuck the ccTLDs anyway... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221706)

YOu can buyu your own tld to rule the world for about $185.000

$185? Sweet, I'll take 1,000!

Re:Fuck the ccTLDs anyway... (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223020)

if you want one Tld, why sepcify in 3 decimals that you want exactly one, and then forget to specify which one? That is no way to rule the world mister Anonymous. ;)

Re:Fuck the ccTLDs anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221432)

while at it, FUCKR might be a more universal service....

Re:Fuck the ccTLDs anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222566)

Yeah, the Internet is getting stupider and stupider every second...

and amazingly enough, AOL has nothing to do with it this time....

Vote with yr wallet. (3, Insightful)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221360)

If you disagree with Godaddy's business practices, vote with your wallet and use other registrars and hosting services. What could possibly be gained by trying to force them back into defaulting to .com again? There's no guarantee that .com will stay the de facto standard for domain names in the future. My money is on .us domains, personally. But I don't see it happening, sadly; people would rather spend hours whining at lawmakers to litigate other tech companies like Facebook and Google into shape than actually stop using their services...

Re:Vote with yr wallet. (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221624)

When a monopoly provides a service you desperately need, it's hard to stop them from milking you for all you're worth.

You have to maintain an internet presence these days, and failure to "keep with the times" may well jeopardize your ability to do business, hold down a job, and so on.

So you pay the piper.

Re:Vote with yr wallet. (2, Insightful)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222392)

I got rid of my Facebook and GMail accounts because I disagreed with their policies and their business practices. I had over 300 Facebook friends and my world hasn't come crashing down around me. People sometimes confuse what they need with what they want.

Re:Vote with yr wallet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222800)

Godaddy is not even a little bit a monopoly.

Re:Vote with yr wallet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222836)

If you disagree with Godaddy's business practices, vote with your wallet and use other registrars and hosting services.

Free Market libertarian I hope not?

While there are actions of GoDaddy that are perhaps not rising to the level of warranting regulation, there are plenty that are, so I hope you are not suggesting the typical "Let the Free Market take care of everything" mentality which overcomes certain libertarians.

That kind of position is just too extreme for me, as bad as their claims of how any government regulation is apparently the imposition of a totalitarian nanny state that will control their lives completely.

So I hope you're not suggesting that particular meme. It might get you a lot of cheers, but it won't do really work.

Another reason... (1)

ashenden (1586069) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221422)

With IDNs on the verge of becoming mainstream, there's no place for .co. While gTLDs will be aliased to many languages, ccTLDs will only be aliased to the language of their country. So, .co is stuck as ASCII or Spanish.

Public needs to learn not everyting is dot com (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221440)

Enough of the .com square limits already. People have learned that they don't even have to remember or take note of the full domain, they just automatically fill in .com. Sometimes I think we shouldn't even have domain names, we should all just use random-string addresses for sites. Works for phone numbers. johndoe at x9tvd2k

Re:Public needs to learn not everyting is dot com (2, Informative)

wlad (1171323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221482)

Indeed. Nowadays, people just type what they want on Google. They don't type URLs anymore at all.

.us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222224)

Why isn't .us used more? (And its variants like perhaps co.us.)

Aren't you Americans patriotic? ;)

.co seems better than .ly (0, Redundant)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222850)

I doubt Colombia has serious qualms about drugs, sex, or hookers. As long as you don't criticize their drug cartels, your domain is probably safe.

"Domaining" may be on the way out. (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223064)

With the October 27th change to Google web search, "domaining" may be on the way out.

Google made huge changes when they merged "Google Places" (which is really Google business search") results into their main web search results. Search for DVD player [google.com] . There are almost no "organic search results" shown. At the top, there's "Related searches for dvd player - Brands, Stores, Types". There are two "organic" results from Amazon and Best Buy, both Google advertisers. Then a big block of "shopping results" A right side column of ads.

And that's a non-local search. On searches which imply some location ("london hotels" is a good test case), Google displays a map. For a few days, they displayed a big map in the main search area; today it's on the right, above the ads. Between the big ad block at the top, the map at the right, the ads below the the map, and the links in the main search area to the map, only a few organic results are squeezed in.

Google's organic search isn't any better than it used to be at filtering out the bottom-feeders. Down below the fold on "dvd player" search, there's still a result from "bestsoftware4download" (which tries a drive-by install of some .exe). In the "london hotels" search, there are a few junk entries. Most of the stuff visible on the first screen isn't organic search results, though. This makes "domaining" futile.

Google is still fooling around with their layout after their big change, and it hasn't settled yet. (Also, Google's layout changes if you're logged into Google and allow "personalization". The results mentioned above are not "personalized".) The trend, though, is clear. The primary results for a search with commercial intent now come from Google advertisers. Google is pushing advertisers to buy ads directly from Google, not from the "bottom feeders".

So buying up large numbers of ".co" domains may be futile. I expect we'll see many junk domains in ".com" expiring, with nobody picking them up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...