discuss .GDN coming soon...

[mad409]

I'm trying to figure this one out. Are they trying to be generic like xyz and fyi? I'm wondering why the high general availability of $239.00 per year?

Am I missing something or is this a money grab right out of the starting gate?

Any thoughts on .GDN?

 

[mad409]

LOL you can type UTC time in Google, it's 2:44 am UTC time now (7th December).

Ok so I did have it right, then landrush has started.. TY.

 

[techname]

Does anyone know if they are available from the usual suspects such as Namecheap and GoDaddy?

 

[mad409]

Does anyone know if they are available from the usual suspects such as Namecheap and GoDaddy?

I registered one only at 101domain.com, you can go there. GA isn't available yet but I paid extra for landrush. Landrush has launched but it still says pending, whenever that happens it's normally not good news.

I'll probably get an email saying it's reserved, premium etc.. It might go through, time will tell.

 

[mad409]

Anyone reg a .GDN and it went through?

I've only registered 2, first one showed available and not reserved. Waited and finally requested a refund.Tried a second one, still in pending and probably won't go through either. Gonna need to do anther refund request it appears.

I've been told by a contact that their API is all messed up, nothing shows reserved until it hits them and then they make a decision to reject the request or approve. I was also told with this one to email my rep first, see if they can reg it before paying for the domain to avoid doing all these card refunds...

Looks like a very bumpy start for .gdn. Pricing is high and their internal system seems broke. Is there any regs going through?

 

[JB Lions]

Any thoughts on .GDN?

Since you asked, therefore this post is on topic. The reg numbers jumped about 35,000 this week, I think due to it being 0.49 cents - https://namestat.org/gdn

Also, I just happened to be checking Spamhaus and they have it listed as:

27.1 % bad - https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/

Don't think the .49 cents is going to help that.

 

[mad409]

The reg numbers jumped about 35,000 this week, I think due to it being 0.49 cents - https://namestat.org/gdn

Also, I just happened to be checking Spamhaus and they have it listed as:

27.1 % bad - https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/

Don't think the .49 cents is going to help that.

I don't worry about spamhaus, it's a tool like estibot, alexa etc. and never will be accurate IMO. Example, no way .com and as long as it's existed has only a 6.2% bad when that's all I receive in my inbox daily!

You're trying to make this a price issue but .accountant has a 56.5% bad, it's being sold at GD for $27.99 per year. Therefore your theory, or want to be theory is flawed. Again, JMO...

 

[JB Lions]

I don't worry about spamhaus, it's a tool like estibot, alexa etc. and never will be accurate IMO. Example, no way .com and as long as it's existed has only a 6.2% bad when that's all I receive in my inbox daily!

You're trying to make this a price issue but .accountant has a 56.5 bad, it's being sold at GD for $27.99 per year therefore your theory, or want to be theory is flawed. Again, JMO...

C'mon, basic math, you know this. .com has over 126,000,000 regs, of course volume you get a lot. But percentage wise 27.1% > 6.2%

The method they use for all of them is the same.

.com also has the benefit of being widely known/used, unlike these new ones. Not a good start to have that high of a number.

"price issue"

Again, you know this. Any extension in the world that sells cheaply, attracts spammers/scammers. Obvious stuff. These are throwaway domains to them, they'll get the cheapest they can get their hands on. Some other people here at NP have posted about blocking certain other new extensions because of the spam.

 

[mad409]

C'mon, basic math, you know this. .com has over 126,000,000 regs, of course volume you get a lot. But percentage wise 27.1% > 6.2%

The method they use for all of them is the same.

.com also has the benefit of being widely known/used, unlike these new ones. Not a good start to have that high of a number.

"price issue"

Again, you know this. Any extension in the world that sells cheaply, attracts spammers/scammers. Obvious stuff. These are throwaway domains to them, they'll get the cheapest they can get their hands on.

Whats your point? .accountant @ $27.00 per year has a higher spam rating than .gdn, spamhaus is flawed or your cheap theory is. Which one is it?

 

[JB Lions]

It still holds, look at the other names on the list. You're trying to use an exception to make a case, instead of the rule. Are you seriously trying to say spammers don't go after cheap domains? Simple yes or no.

Obvious stuff

"See a pattern here? All of the big ones are cheap domains. In fact, all of the domains on this chart can be picked up for $2 or less at some registrars (although some only through limited time specials)."

http://domainnamewire.com/2015/06/19/cheap-domain-names-are-spammers-favorites/

 

[mad409]

It still holds, look at the other names on the list. You're trying to use an exception to make a case, instead of the rule. Are you seriously trying to say spammers don't go after cheap domains? Simple yes or no.

Obvious stuff

"See a pattern here? All of the big ones are cheap domains. In fact, all of the domains on this chart can be picked up for $2 or less at some registrars (although some only through limited time specials)."

http://domainnamewire.com/2015/06/19/cheap-domain-names-are-spammers-favorites/

OK JB whatever, I'm more focused on building a diverse portfolio of domains, making sales in my spare time than trying to bring down new extensions such as .GDN.

Crunch and munch all ya want reading stats.. At least they're not in the top 10..

 

[-EM-]

It still holds, look at the other names on the list. You're trying to use an exception to make a case, instead of the rule. Are you seriously trying to say spammers don't go after cheap domains? Simple yes or no.

Obvious stuff

"See a pattern here? All of the big ones are cheap domains. In fact, all of the domains on this chart can be picked up for $2 or less at some registrars (although some only through limited time specials)."

http://domainnamewire.com/2015/06/19/cheap-domain-names-are-spammers-favorites/

What's the point if you get 90% of spams from com domains and 10% from other extensions? So now if one TLD sells less than com it is a bad TLD because of potential risc for spam?

 

[mad409]

What's the point if you get 90% of spams from com domains and 10% from other extensions? So now if one TLD sells less than com it is a bad TLD because of potential risc for spam?

All extensions have spam, despite the price and honestly .com is the king of spam/fraud in my inbox daily. The debate on spam is merely a smoke and gun attempt to degrade .gdn, among other new extensions.

It's also a fact that spamhaus has assisted in taking away at least one NP members domain, back to the registry because of so called spam. If I remember correctly this was resolved but clearly indicates their system is flawed and can't be trusted.

So you're correct, no point here just people holding domains since 1999 that have never sold, can't adjust to a new extensions such as .gdn.

 

[Kate]

OK JB whatever, I'm more focused on building a diverse portfolio of domains, making sales in my spare time than trying to bring down new extensions such as .GDN.

Diversification is good, but if you diversify only in bad extensions it's the same as no diversification at all.

All extensions have spam, despite the price and honestly .com is the king of spam/fraud in my inbox daily. The debate on spam is merely a smoke and gun attempt to degrade .gdn, among other new extensions.

Not true. First of all, the registry it has spammed. For some extensions like .xyz .top my personal observed spam rate is 100%, because I have received several E-mails from these domains, and they were all spam. Not a single one legitimate E-mail.

Even without the issue of spam, this TLD is pretty bad. But if people only experience spam from this or that extension, they will quickly discard them as extensions to avoid.

 

[JB Lions]

Also, I just happened to be checking Spamhaus and they have it listed as:

27.1 % bad - https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/

Don't think the .49 cents is going to help that.

Guess I was right, they just made the top 10 list, now 52.6% bad according to Spamhaus - https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/

 

[Jurgen Wolf]

The more important is Badness Index (score)... not percentage...

 

[mad409]

Wow not sure if I'll be able to sleep tonight...

 

[mad409]

Guess I was right, they just made the top 10 list, now 52.6% bad according to Spamhaus - https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/

Do you actually put a lot of merit behind what they say and do? I did just a little searching tonight and can't find a lot of good but it is the Internet so I'm not sure what to think...

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/spamhaus-london-england-south-yorkshire-c112627.html

 

[DaveX]

.gd seems a better deal and shorter. IMO

 

[mad409]

Grenada, .gd is fine but a ccTLD. I just like .gdn because it's more generic.

 

[DaveX]

gotcha