IT.COM

opinion Name some domains you think actually look BETTER as a gTLD than a dot com

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Hootsifer

Top Member
Impact
968
2
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Happy.World is better than Happy.Com
Good.Money
is better than Good.Com

Be REAL! The world is big, the Life is beautiful and colorful.
Don't be boring, old-fashioned, don't get stuck on the old three-letter meaning!

Be Creative! :)
“Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things.”— Theodore Levitt
“Creativity can solve almost any problem. The creative act, the defeat of habit by originality, overcomes everything.”— George Lois
 
0
•••
If I would buy caftans.com I would definitely buy caftans.shop but it is also taken. The other extensions are useless in this generic.
Yet .shop version is a must have in my opinion.
caftans.click
 
0
•••
Love this name......LoveYouLong.Time
 
1
•••
SPANISH.XYZ

It's available.
 
0
•••
martech.blog > martechblog.com

easier.brand
easier.market
easier.link
easier.read
easier.recall
easier.type
 
Last edited:
1
•••
3
•••
Great thread @Shuttlepro ! Even drew the Domain King here for a few days! Kudos!!
 
3
•••
Ha yes and I truly value and appreciate his responses and input. Listen to him, he knows his stuff.
 
3
•••
Ha yes and I truly value and appreciate his responses and input. Listen to him, he knows his stuff.

No he doesn't.

Hence his desperate 'return' from 'retirement' tweeting and posting

Welcome to the evolution of domaining. Survival of the fittest, not the loudest.

Schilling knows what's up - and strategically positioned himself accordingly. As do everyone else who isn't a .commie

Corporations like G,AMZN,FB et. al. don't collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an armada of .gTLDs keyword or branded for kicks.

I'm seeing gTLDs everywhere because I don't surf in the .commie ghetto

Expect .com values to keep dropping YoY because Economics 101

.com is dead, long live the .gTLDs (Ask the french the origin of this phrase)
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Corporations like G,AMZN,FB et. al. don't collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an armada of .gTLDs keyword or branded for kicks.

I think that corporations also spend hundreds of millions on useless protective registrations each year like brand.xxx

did Facebook even apply for a TLD?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmi...st-internet-landgrab-in-history/#74e852c8728f
https://ntldstats.com/tld/facebook

If they did not what does this tell us? One of the largest internet companies not using their own TLD?

I'm seeing gTLDs everywhere because I don't surf in the .commie ghetto

I don't know when I visited the last site using a TLD excluding the ones that I visit because of threads like this one. It's not that I am avoiding them, I just don't happen to end up on one.

.com is dead, long live the .gTLDs (Ask the french the origin of this phrase)

http://domainnamewire.com/2017/04/28/verisign-credits-super-bowl-for-strong-quarter/

for a dead extension the aftermarket is still pretty strong unlike nGTLD sales.

in my opinion the new TLDs have maybe a few million genuine regs(excluding freebies, speculators etc.) about the size of .info. So far it's not threatening.

thinking about it, further rounds will be lower quality TLDs, far more junk will be released. I don't think that all TLDs can be sustainable. if the current ones don't gain any traction the new releases won't either.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Schilling knows what's up - and strategically positioned himself accordingly.

indeed. he is buying up .com and .net like crazy.
 
0
•••
1
•••
0
•••
.com market: end-users, ngTLD market: domainers
You know .com had few end-users 25 years ago.. same with GTLD's.. slow but steady!
 
1
•••
.com has been reduced to just 301 redirects and email and chips

nobody is buying .com for branding and marketing except noobs

dxc.com
cba.com
 
0
•••
.com has been reduced to just 301 redirects and email and chips

nobody is buying .com for branding and marketing except noobs

dxc.com
cba.com

Lol. The weekly reported sales would disagree.

Brad
 
0
•••
0
•••
Which weekly reported sales would disagree?

Saying nobody is buying .COM except noobs is quite a disconnect from reality.

Feel free to check out NameBio.com or DNJournal.com.

There are plenty of .COM sales daily on GoDaddy, NameJet, DropCatch, Afternic, BuyDomains, and many other sites.

Brad
 
1
•••
Checked out DNJournal:

#1 BeAmazed.com is a just a redirect to a youtube channel
#2 Candidly.com is just a redirect to kandid.ly
 
0
•••
Checked out DNJournal:

#1 BeAmazed.com is a just a redirect to a youtube channel
#2 Candidly.com is just a redirect to kandid.ly

WOW! Clear and compelling evidence that .COM must be dead.

These handful of examples carry far greater weight than the many millions of dollars a month in .COM sales.
Thanks for opening my eyes!

(end sarcasm)

Brad
 
2
•••
Green.zone
Apps.guru
Program.codes
Rummy.live
Utsav.store (Utsav - Festival)
Utsav.shop
 
1
•••
Considering Mike Mann's desperate posts (which are provoked by his drop in sales), I would say that ngtlds have 25% of the end-user share.
 
2
•••
Considering Mike Mann's desperate posts (which are provoked by his drop in sales), I would say that ngtlds have 25% of the end-user share.

i think that Namebio, registration stats and Alexa stats are better indicators than Mike Mann's posts.

Godaddy have just a few million regs so the average joe isn't buying them.

The average buyer is Chinese, probably with more money than experience, bulk buyer, buying words on the right of the dot that many of his countrymen would not understand and that would not be used in their domains, with a mixture of english language words and things like 7782qxc.TLD
 
0
•••
1
•••
Ok, so you do believe that new gTLDs are easier to read? I thought it was the other way around.

In that case here is my contribution:

Inter.com

Of course, it only works with phrases that fit together.

Thanks,
Brandon
 
1
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back