IT.COM

poll .Tech or .Technology?

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

If you like nGTLDs and Technology what do you prefer?

  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.
  • .Tech

  • .Technology

  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.

Results are only viewable after voting.

Wass

Established Member
Impact
1,403
Long or Short?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Not so much experienced in domaining, but if I would be a company involved in, let's say, "Artificial brain" technology, I'd buy:

mybrandname.tech and artificialbrain.technology. And I will redirect artificialbrain.technology to mybrandname.tech
 
0
•••
This is the biggest problem with nTLD's .. ICANN had no vision looking forward to see what sort of mess they would create with multiple versions of the same (or extremely similar) damn extensions.

It's completely fine and even good that there should be BOTH .tech and .technology!

HOWEVER ...


Both TLD's should come together as a pair and ideally resolve to the same page.

Having .car, .cars, .auto and .autos is just a money grab that ultimately creates confusion and is one of the biggest long-term obstacles facing the ngTLD program!


You simply can't use CompanyX.tech if there is another company out there already using CompanyX.technology .. it's just too confusing.

How ICANN did not see this sort of confusing mess of a conflict is beyond comprehension! It's really inexcusable and whoever was behind letting multiple versions of the same TLD-concept get released should really be removed from ICANN ... PERIOD. and a bunch of DAMN EXCLAMATION POINTS !!!!!!!


PS .. I voted for .tech ... lol
Oh it's ICANN's fault not the hubris of the registries. Also ICANN's fault no one want these names. Poor registry(s) we should start a just giving page, it's not their fault it's turned into a puddle of pigeon s**t.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Ummm.. although admittedly .com's are by far the most saught after extention .. tons of people including end users want these domains. Although just not nearly in the volumes domain "prospectors" were hoping for.

If you're smart you will find some good ngTLD domains out there ... and if you're smart you will also avoid a lot of them like the plague.

The mess of 1cent domains (for spamming reasons) as well as multiple TLD's with the same meaning are two big long term obstacles hindering the general view of ngTLD's. Beyond those and a few other factors each domain should be looked at and valued as the individual domains they are ...

That being said .. most of the ngTLD's registered by domainers were bad purchases that will never be resold. Nobody is denying that fact ... but it also can't be denied that there are some good ones out there. To make blanket claims that all are bad or all are good just show that most people are blindly making statements they feel will best portray their current portfolio. Those heavily invested in ngTLD's are screaming for their validity .. while those invested in .com are screaming against them.

If you take a step back it's pretty clear most people on both sides give opinion without much thought.


The one that is certain in my eyes is that ICANN made a couple serious mistakes that have hurt the long term growth of ngTLD's as a whole.
 
0
•••
This is the biggest problem with nTLD's .. ICANN had no vision looking forward to see what sort of mess they would create with multiple versions of the same (or extremely similar) damn extensions.

It's completely fine and even good that there should be BOTH .tech and .technology!

HOWEVER ...


Both TLD's should come together as a pair and ideally resolve to the same page.

Having .car, .cars, .auto and .autos is just a money grab that ultimately creates confusion and is one of the biggest long-term obstacles facing the ngTLD program!


You simply can't use CompanyX.tech if there is another company out there already using CompanyX.technology .. it's just too confusing.

How ICANN did not see this sort of confusing mess of a conflict is beyond comprehension! It's really inexcusable and whoever was behind letting multiple versions of the same TLD-concept get released should really be removed from ICANN ... PERIOD. and a bunch of DAMN EXCLAMATION POINTS !!!!!!!


PS .. I voted for .tech ... lol
Someone who confuses Electric.Car with Electric.Cars also confuses ElectricCar.com with ElectricCars.com or not ?
 
0
•••
Someone who confuses Electric.Car with Electric.Cars also confuses ElectricCar.com with ElectricCars.com or not ?

Possibly .. lol .. probably ... but the big difference is that both of those are left of the dot .. beyond the control of ICANN policies.

At the end of the day "perfect" domain names will be clear enough and avoid even the possibility of ambiguity.

But your question actually reinforces my point ... there is a lot of confusion sometimes between domain names even within .com ... this has been a fact for over 20 years ... so why expand the domain universe reinforcing those very flaws that were supposed to be avoided and with just an ounce of vision could have very easily been minimised!

The ngTLD's were supposed to be about developing clearly distinguished communities .. but they just made it the same old .garbage/.trash ...
 
Last edited:
0
•••
I personally like more longer one, .technology :)
 
0
•••
0
•••
I think smaller companies would use .tech and larger corporations would use .technology
 
Last edited:
0
•••
0
•••
I am late to this discussion but here are my thoughts.... (admittedly only in nuance different from those already expressed;
(1) I voted .tech and in general prefer that (shorter, snappier, more used)
(2) The exception would be if a company had the name e.g. Acme Technology then I would purchase the .technology one (as others said, in most cases good to cover both as well as AcmeTechnology.com to prevent customer confusion).
(3) Another exception might be a firm that sold high end consumer technology, and favoured the more formal appeal of the longer word. Alternatively, a reference site might use it depending on which is more common in that specific discipline.
(4) I agree that it is a mess and we should not have both, and various singular polar combinations. Ugh...
 
0
•••
Back