discuss What gTLD failed you? For example, you stocked up for nothing.

[INFJ]

What gTLD failed you? For example, you stocked up for nothing.

I'll start. I jumped on the .vip bandwagon when it first dropped. I remember picking up "lounge.vip" which was appraised for several thousand by several members. Of course, stupid me, I hung onto it....'til the end.....the very end....as in $5 end. FML.

Your turn!

 

[jmcc]

7 of 13 I sold - .life domains.
And as I see - .life renewal rate is not so bad, it is absent in your list.

This is a straight zone comparison. LIFE wasn't a top NGT in 2016. There does seem to have been a limited promotion in October -December 2017 and May - July 2018 but otherwise it is around 40% on first renewals for 2018 registrations. That's not bad for a new gTLD.It would be possible to do an exact percentage but it would take longer.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Jurgen Wolf]

I can say even more, no any Donuts nTLDs in your list, including the mentioned .life
So Donuts performance is the best among all nTLD operators.

 

[jmcc]

I can say even more, no any Donuts nTLDs in your list, including the mentioned .life
So Donuts performance is the best among all nTLD operators.

A lot stronger than some due to its markets and limited discounting in most of its NGTs. Those NGTs tend to be more stable than the heavily discounted ones.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Henry Y]

The difference is that the other domain investors have acquired their domain names organically whereas the registries in the new gTLDs have effectively used their position to withhold the "good" domain names from the market. That makes it very much a rigged market rather than the free market that exists with COM. From what I can see with the legacy gTLDs, there are some very worrying indications of consolidation happening and the web usage rates in most of the new gTLDs are not as strong as those of the legacy gTLDs or the ccTLDs. Usage drives development and registrations. Without it, a TLD will begin to stagnate. While some of the new gTLDs have signs of usage, the problem of discounting is seriously affecting some of the top NGTs to such an extent that boom and bust cycles are now a feature of them. I took a look at some of them from December 2016 and checked the deletions compared to December 2017 and December 2018. Some of them were over 80% deleted by December 2017 and over 95% deleted by December 2018. That kind of zone file replacement is only possible with extreme discounting and extreme discounting kills development.

Regards...jmcc

There is no doubt that huge discounts significantly drive up crappy domain name registrations and future deletions by domain investors, but do you have any evidence or statistics to show that huge discounts kill web usage?

 

[jmcc]

There is no doubt that huge discounts significantly drive up crappy domain name registrations and future deletions by domain investors, but do you have any evidence or statistics to show that huge discounts kill web usage?

Yes.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Henry Y]

Yes.

Regards...jmcc

Then please show us the evidence or statistics.

 

[ProDomains]

I only had one, but oh boy did it fail me: .fail

 

[jmcc]

Then please show us the evidence or statistics.

The figures are the percentage for each category of usage. They are simplified categories as the full usage category has 28 different types of usage. Templated Content covers PPC landers, sales pages and affiliate landers. No Content covers holding pages, no site response and domain names without websites. The NGTs are all full zone surveys.

NGT - Content - Templated Content - Redirects - No Content
LIFE: 3.84 - 27.39 - 20.82 - 47.96 (HTTPS redirects 7.78%)
ACCOUNTANT: 0.43 - 2.58 - 1.86 - 95.14 (HTTPS redirects 0.41%)
LOAN: 0.11 - 3.40 - 1.06 - 95.43 (HTTPS redirects 0.14%)

For COM on a 1.5 million domain name survey:
COM 14.82 - 27.62 - 27.20 - 30.37 (HTTPS redirects 10.06%)

The HTTPS redirects percentage is part of the Redirects percentage but it is a good indicator of activity in a TLD.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Henry Y]

The figures are the percentage for each category of usage. They are simplified categories as the full usage category has 28 different types of usage. Templated Content covers PPC landers, sales pages and affiliate landers. No Content covers holding pages, no site response and domain names without websites. The NGTs are all full zone surveys.

NGT - Content - Templated Content - Redirects - No Content
LIFE: 3.84 - 27.39 - 20.82 - 47.96 (HTTPS redirects 7.78%)
ACCOUNTANT: 0.43 - 2.58 - 1.86 - 95.14 (HTTPS redirects 0.41%)
LOAN: 0.11 - 3.40 - 1.06 - 95.43 (HTTPS redirects 0.14%)

For COM on a 1.5 million domain name survey:
COM 14.82 - 27.62 - 27.20 - 30.37 (HTTPS redirects 10.06%)

The HTTPS redirects percentage is part of the Redirects percentage but it is a good indicator of activity in a TLD.

Regards...jmcc

Thanks for your info. However, from the data you provided, how do you conclude that huge discounts kill web usage? Do the data cover the huge discount period? Can you share the data before and after huge discounts for easy comparison? Thank you.

 

[jmcc]

Thanks for your info. However, from the data you provided, how do you conclude that huge discounts kill web usage? Do the data cover the huge discount period? Can you share the data before and after huge discounts for easy comparison? Thank you.

I'd have to dig up the data but discounted registrations swamp developed websites (Content). They also attract the wrong kind of registrations such as Adult affiliate landers and gambling landers. This gets the discounted gTLD a bad reputation. Then there's the problem of spammers using discounted registrations as disposable domain names for spamming. There is also one constant: discounted registrations rarely have developed websites and delete when they have to be renewed at full fee.

When you see a gTLD with a few hundred developed websites and a million adult affiliate/gambling affiliate landers on discounted registrations, it is not a healthy gTLD in web usage terms.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Henry Y]

I'd have to dig up the data but discounted registrations swamp developed websites (Content). They also attract the wrong kind of registrations such as Adult affiliate landers and gambling landers. This gets the discounted gTLD a bad reputation. Then there's the problem of spammers using discounted registrations as disposable domain names for spamming. There is also one constant: discounted registrations rarely have developed websites and delete when they have to be renewed at full fee.

When you see a gTLD with a few hundred developed websites and a million adult affiliate/gambling affiliate landers on discounted registrations, it is not a healthy gTLD in web usage terms.

Regards...jmcc

I agree that huge discounts attract improper uses of discounted gTLDs, but what is the chance of internet users visiting adult affiliate/gambling affiliate landers that use discounted gTLDs or receiving spams that use discounted gTLDs in their daily life?

Adult affiliate landers, gambling landers and spamming are much more serious in .com in terms of amount, which means internet users visit these kinds of .com landers and receive .com spams more easily than other gTLDs (all spams I have received in recent years are .com). While most of the bad landers and spams use .com, it does not make .com a very bad reputation and .com still has many developed websites.

Besides, do you have any statistics that show how many discounted registrations are used for adult affiliate/gambling affiliate landers and spamming? If the improper uses only count for a small portion of discounted registrations, it does not affect reputation much and the discounted gTLD is still healthy.

 

[jmcc]

I agree that huge discounts attract improper uses of discounted gTLDs, but what is the chance of internet users visiting adult affiliate/gambling affiliate landers that use discounted gTLDs or receiving spams that use discounted gTLDs in their daily life?

For e-mail spam, many of the new gTLDs have continually featured in the Spamhaus list.
https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/

Some mailserver administrators block the new gTLDs completely. As for webspam, the ACCOUNTANT NGT was a good example of the risks of landing on an affiliate site rather than a developed site. After a few years, the content percentage completely faded.

Adult affiliate landers, gambling landers and spamming are much more serious in .com in terms of amount, which means internet users visit these kinds of .com landers and receive .com spams more easily than other gTLDs (all spams I have received in recent years are .com).

Webspam is driven by economics. The lower priced registration makes large networks of such webspam financially feasible. With COM, the registration fee acts as a deterrent and this kind of webspam is much lower as a percentage. This is also why the affiliate landers percentage is lower in the more expensive new gTLDs.

While most of the bad landers and spams use .com, it does not make .com a very bad reputation and .com still has many developed websites.

Your assumptions about COM are not based on data or an understanding of web usage. COM has genuine usage and global recognition.

Besides, do you have any statistics that show how many discounted registrations are used for adult affiliate/gambling affiliate landers and spamming? If the improper uses only count for a small portion of discounted registrations, it does not affect reputation much and the discounted gTLD is still healthy.

From December 2018 survey, 1,075,557 LOAN domain names were adult affiliate landers and 38,013 were gambling landers. Only 2,118 were active sites. The September 2018 data showed 1,325,799 adult affiliate landers and 38,980 gambling affliate landers.

Limited discounting in a healthy gTLD is fine and a small percentage of these will renew. Where discounting becomes the business model for the registry, the gTLD is in trouble and what happens is that almost the entire zone file will be deleted and replaced over the course of a year. That is a very bad thing for a gTLD. It kills the resale value of domain names.

Discounting also alters the dynamics of the discounted gTLD. Most of the discounting is targeted at the Chinese market and that's a volatile market in terms of registrations. Prior to the discounting, the gTLD may have a number of registrations spread over a large number of registrars and countries. Discounting changes the country shares of the gTLD and the gTLD begins to take on the registration characteristics of the largest registrars. They drive the new registrations and because the discounted registrations do not renew well, the renewal rates for the gTLD drop. That makes the gTLD toxic to retail registrars. They are focused on gaining customers who will continue to renew domain names. Having a gTLD dominated by discounters is a very bad thing for the credibility of the gTLD.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Larion]

A look back at the sites that went with the “smarter” new gtlds


https://www.thedomains.com/2019/10/30/new-gtlds/

 

[Henry Y]

For e-mail spam, many of the new gTLDs have continually featured in the Spamhaus list.
https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/

Some mailserver administrators block the new gTLDs completely. As for webspam, the ACCOUNTANT NGT was a good example of the risks of landing on an affiliate site rather than a developed site. After a few years, the content percentage completely faded.

I am not shocked that many new gTLDs are on the worst 10 list because there are over 1,000 extensions categorized into new gTLDs. Similarly, I am also not surprised that many new gTLDs are on the best 10 list.

I think blocking the new gTLDs completely is not the mainstream practice in the industry. As for .accountant, I am not aware of this extension. Did it have huge discount period before?

Webspam is driven by economics. The lower priced registration makes large networks of such webspam financially feasible. With COM, the registration fee acts as a deterrent and this kind of webspam is much lower as a percentage. This is also why the affiliate landers percentage is lower in the more expensive new gTLDs.

Your assumptions about COM are not based on data or an understanding of web usage. COM has genuine usage and global recognition.

You better provide the statistics for .xyz (also the source of the statistics) because people can buy a .xyz domain at $2 currently. It is one of the cheapest and most financially feasible extensions to spammers. If the percentage of .xyz affiliate landers is very high, then your argument is valid. By the way, .xyz (7.3% bad, score 0.68) is not on the worst 10 Spamhaus list, far from being on the list.

Though .com web spam is lower than some ngTLD web spam in percentage, the total number of registered .com is very high that results in much larger amount of web spams and much greater impact than ngTLD web spams:

As of Jun 30, there were 142.5 million registered .com (https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...ws-354.7-Million-Domain-Registrations-Quarter) with your provided 27.62% of .com templated content data (assuming similar percentage as of Jun 30), the number of templated content (around 39 million) was already more than the total number of registered ngTLDs (around 25 million, https://ntldstats.com/tld). So it is reasonable to deduce that most of the bad landers and spams use .com. Additionally, from our own experience, are most of the improper web uses that we encountered (affiliate landers and email spams) in recent years were .com? For me, yes.

From December 2018 survey, 1,075,557 LOAN domain names were adult affiliate landers and 38,013 were gambling landers. Only 2,118 were active sites. The September 2018 data showed 1,325,799 adult affiliate landers and 38,980 gambling affliate landers.

It would be much appreciated if you can provide the source of the data. I think many NP members would like to get more related data from the source.

Limited discounting in a healthy gTLD is fine and a small percentage of these will renew. Where discounting becomes the business model for the registry, the gTLD is in trouble and what happens is that almost the entire zone file will be deleted and replaced over the course of a year. That is a very bad thing for a gTLD. It kills the resale value of domain names.

Discounting also alters the dynamics of the discounted gTLD. Most of the discounting is targeted at the Chinese market and that's a volatile market in terms of registrations. Prior to the discounting, the gTLD may have a number of registrations spread over a large number of registrars and countries. Discounting changes the country shares of the gTLD and the gTLD begins to take on the registration characteristics of the largest registrars. They drive the new registrations and because the discounted registrations do not renew well, the renewal rates for the gTLD drop. That makes the gTLD toxic to retail registrars. They are focused on gaining customers who will continue to renew domain names. Having a gTLD dominated by discounters is a very bad thing for the credibility of the gTLD.

I think resale values are driven by domains' intrinsic values, demand and supply of similar domains. Not zone files and number of registrations.

It is completely not related to credibility as there are no lies and frauds involved. There are just normal market transactions that sellers sell at discount and buyers agree to buy at discount. Beside, while registrars lose renewals, they have new registrations at the same time if they continue discount period. It may not be so toxic to registrars. If new registrations exceed lost renewals, registrars may have a gain. But this business model loses investors' confidence continuously year by year if there are too few market sales and developed websites. So promotion to end users is needed during discount period to have more market sales and developed websites. If promotion is successful, the gTLD will be successful. Huge discounting can provide time to promote while maintaining registrations, so it is not wise to easily say that huge discounting kills a gTLD.

Country shares of gTLD are only relevant in promotion strategy and selling strategy, nothing related to failure of a gTLD.

 

[jmcc]

I think blocking the new gTLDs completely is not the mainstream practice in the industry.

Some sysadmins do block the new gTLDs.

As for .accountant, I am not aware of this extension. Did it have huge discount period before?

Found it difficult to gain market share before discounting.
https://namestat.org/accountant

You better provide the statistics for .xyz (also the source of the statistics) because people can buy a .xyz domain at $2 currently.

These are entire zone file surveys of the new gTLDs.
XYZ had 5.59% Content, 18.12% Templated, 15.05% Redirects and 61.25% No content.
73,919 were affiliate landers (3.41%) and 127,276 were adult affiliate landers (5.87%). (August 2019 survey.)

It is one of the cheapest and most financially feasible extensions to spammers. If the percentage of .xyz affiliate landers is very high, then your argument is valid. By the way, .xyz (7.3% bad, score 0.68) is not on the worst 10 Spamhaus list, far from being on the list.

Spammers always target the lowest cost registrations first and $2 is still expensive when others are selling it below $1. This isn't some college debate. These are the facts and measurements of web usage activity in gTLDs. Templated content includes PPC landers, Sales landers and affiliate landers.

So it is reasonable to deduce that most of the bad landers and spams use .com.

It is not.

Additionally, from our own experience, are most of the improper web uses that we encountered (affiliate landers and email spams) in recent years were .com? For me, yes.

As I said, your assumptions are not backed by data. When the new gTLDs started discounting, a lot of the spam and webspam activity shifted from COM and the legacy gTLDs to the discounting new gTLDs.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sadag-final-09aug17-en.pdf

It would be much appreciated if you can provide the source of the data.

I run these usage surveys. The source of the data is full zone file new gTLDs web usage surveys.

I think resale values are driven by domains' intrinsic values, demand and supply of similar domains. Not zone files and number of registrations.

Zone file numbers are not a reliable metric due to discounting.

Beside, while registrars lose renewals, they have new registrations at the same time if they continue discount period.

Heavy discounting locks a TLD into a boom and bust cycle where the registry is dependent on the next discounting offer to cover the deletions from the last one.

But this business model loses investors' confidence continuously year by year if there are too few market sales and developed websites.

http://domainincite.com/23284-famous-four-is-dead-new-registry-promises-spam-crackdown

Country shares of gTLD are only relevant in promotion strategy and selling strategy, nothing related to failure of a gTLD.

The country shares of a gTLD matter more than you think. A group of registrations from some countries will renew better than registrations from countries with more volatile markets. It is simple economics. Renewals follow the economics of the dominant markets in a gTLD. Thinking that a gTLD has a single global market misses this important point. A gTLD market is not generally one global market. It is a set of country level markets with a smaller global market.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Henry Y]

Some sysadmins do block the new gTLDs.

Not the mainstream practice in the industry, right?

Found it difficult to gain market share before discounting.

https://namestat.org/accountant

When was the huge discount period? .Accountant is very niche.

These are entire zone file surveys of the new gTLDs.

XYZ had 5.59% Content, 18.12% Templated, 15.05% Redirects and 61.25% No content.

73,919 were affiliate landers (3.41%) and 127,276 were adult affiliate landers (5.87%). (August 2019 survey.)

Please provide the link of the data source.

Spammers always target the lowest cost registrations first and $2 is still expensive when others are selling it below $1. This isn't some college debate. These are the facts and measurements of web usage activity in gTLDs. Templated content includes PPC landers, Sales landers and affiliate landers.


It is not.


As I said, your assumptions are not backed by data. When the new gTLDs started discounting, a lot of the spam and webspam activity shifted from COM and the legacy gTLDs to the discounting new gTLDs.


https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sadag-final-09aug17-en.pdf

Please give us some examples that sell at <$1 so that we can check their improper web usages and if your argument is valid. Debate is a way to know if your argument is valid, otherwise people will think your argument is pointless and misleading.

From the report your provided, on page 24: "We found that the absolute number of phishing domains has been driven by phishing domains in legacy gTLDs (mainly .com domains)." On page 27, Figure 32 shows that legacy gTLD malware domains were much more than gTLD malware domains. The report validates my argument and my own experience that the impact of .com improper web usage is greater than ngTLD improper web usage. Thank you for providing the report to support my deduction and own experience.

I said I agree that huge discounts attract improper uses of discounted gTLDs (post number 236). The report validates this argument by showing the rate of improper web uses of ngTLDs increased and pricing was one of the factors that resulted in such situation.

I run these usage surveys. The source of the data is full zone file new gTLDs web usage surveys.

Please provide the link of the data source.

The country shares of a gTLD matter more than you think. A group of registrations from some countries will renew better than registrations from countries with more volatile markets. It is simple economics. Renewals follow the economics of the dominant markets in a gTLD. Thinking that a gTLD has a single global market misses this important point. A gTLD market is not generally one global market. It is a set of country level markets with a smaller global market.

If the economics of the dominant markets worsen, it makes the registrars gain less, not fails a gTLD. There are still other countries supporting the gTLD. The registrars can change promotion strategy and selling strategy to try to re-boost revenues. Just like Apple has a dominant market in China. If the economy of China worsens, Apple will gain less but will not collapse. Apple can change promotion and selling strategies to re-boost revenue.

 

[Boudi Kai]

.Homes

 

[HotKey]

.homes GA: January 14, 2019

Declared a failure, less a year from release. The tenacity and commitment to success is admirable.

Perhaps consider a different approach to your new G investments, rather than giving up?

 

[jmcc]

When was the huge discount period? .Accountant is very niche.

During the time that Famous Four Media was running the gTLD.

Please provide the link of the data source.

I run these surveys.

Please give us some examples that sell at <$1 so that we can check their improper web usages and if your argument is valid.

https://tld-list.com/tld/xyz

This isn't an argument. This isn't some college debating society. This is the data.

The report validates my argument and my own experience that the impact of .com improper web usage is greater than ngTLD improper web usage.

The data in that report was based on reporting rather than detection. Your approach is not based on any data or methodology.

If the economics of the dominant markets worsen, it makes the registrars gain less, not fails a gTLD.

The WED NGT is currently in EBERO and a few others are candidates for firesales. ICANN decided to include a five year life-support option for failed new gTLDs with the 2012 round of new gTLDs.

There are still other countries supporting the gTLD.

It is possible to measure the percentages of country shares in a gTLD but it is also possible to derive a more useful metric. That's the number of active registrars in a gTLD. That will show how many registrars are actively selling domain names in that gTLD. A country shift, such as that due to discounting registrars targeting the Chinese market, causes a long-term shift in country percentages in a gTLD. A gTLD like XYZ started out as a gTLd with a mainly US market. After the deal with Network Solutions for free domain names, it focused on the Chinese market and this changed the market shares in the gTLD.

From the ICANN registry reports, XYZ's top 5 countries are:
China 31.49%,
USA 29.37%
Japan 20.32%
Turkey 4.83%
India 3.74$

TOP is an almost completely Chinese gTLD.
China 82.81%
USA 10.68%
India 2.76%
Panama 0.84%
Ukraine 0.72%

CLUB started out well but introduced discounting:
US 44.52%
China 42.19%
Japan 4.38%
Germany 2.25%
Russia 0.9%

The registrars can change promotion strategy and selling strategy to try to re-boost revenues.

If a gTLD is locked into a boom and bust discounting strategy, it is extremely difficult to recover because it kills demand for the gTLD.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Jurgen Wolf]

Privacy service of many registrars is bound to US.
So WHOIS stats is not reliable.

1and1 uses Germany as Privacy country.

etc.

 

[jmcc]

Privacy service of many registrars is bound to US.
So WHOIS stats is not reliable.

1and1 uses Germany as Privacy country.

etc.

The figures are for the registrars/country shares. The other limitation with that approach is that some countries have no ICANN accredited registrars. The hoster/country shares tend to be more accurate but that GDPR thing has screwed WHOIS. One of the standard methods for domain name geography was to take a sample of domain names and then check their country using WHOIS. Many registrars in the EU now block any registrant data in the WHOIS record.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Henry Y]

During the time that Famous Four Media was running the gTLD.

The gTLD was initially run by Famous Four Media on 5 Aug 2015. You said here "During the time that Famous Four Media was running the gTLD", which means the huge discount period started on 5 Aug 2015. Then how come you also said "Found it difficult to gain market share BEFORE DISCOUNTING" before (post no. 240)? Your sayings are contradicting.

Also, what was the discounted price?

I run these surveys.

There should be a source link for the raw data. Please provide the link.

People may manipulate data for their own purposes. I am not saying that you manipulate data, but data from independent 3rd parties are always more trustworthy.

This isn't an argument. This isn't some college debating society. This is the data.

I gave .xyz ($2) as an example that it is not mainly used for improper web uses under the current huge discount period. Then you said there are ngTLDs priced below $1 which are first considered by spammers. Then I asked you to provide some examples that are priced below $1. Now you gave me .xyz. What are you doing? OK, now I know .xyz is priced below $1 in some registrars, but .xyz is now not mainly used for improper web uses. Are your contradicting yourself?

I know this is data, but it was used to support your arguments:
1. "Webspam is driven by economics. The lower priced registration makes large networks of such webspam financially feasible. With COM, the registration fee acts as a deterrent and this kind of webspam is much lower as a percentage. This is also why the affiliate landers percentage is lower in the more expensive new gTLDs." (post no. 237)

2. "Spammers always target the lowest cost registrations first and $2 is still expensive when others are selling it below $1." (post no. 240)

The data in that report was based on reporting rather than detection. Your approach is not based on any data or methodology.

Are you serious? Without properly detecting the problematic domains, how can the researchers get the right figures and do the reporting? So are you suspecting the credibility of the report? If so, why did you use the report? Anyway, the report supports my arguments, even if you are now trying to find excuse to disqualify the report.

I used the figures of .com and ngTLD registrations as well as percentage of templated content for deduction. These are not data? I now know how you define data: the numbers shown by you are data. The numbers shown by others are not data.

The WED NGT is currently in EBERO and a few others are candidates for firesales. ICANN decided to include a five year life-support option for failed new gTLDs with the 2012 round of new gTLDs.

What truly fails .wed is the gTLD itself, not economic worsening of dominant markets. It is for wedding purpose, but people may perceive it as Wednesday instead of wedding. There are only 20 .wed domains. Please provide a more suitable example.

If a gTLD is locked into a boom and bust discounting strategy, it is extremely difficult to recover because it kills demand for the gTLD.

How is extremely difficult? Your saying is not backed by any data and methodology.

 

[jmcc]

The gTLD was initially run by Famous Four Media on 5 Aug 2015. You said here "During the time that Famous Four Media was running the gTLD", which means the huge discount period started on 5 Aug 2015. Then how come you also said "Found it difficult to gain market share BEFORE DISCOUNTING" before (post no. 240)? Your sayings are contradicting.

No they are not. FFM tried the normal approach. It failed. Then it introduced discounting to drive registrations in this gTLD. But you had never heard of the gTLD before it was mentioned on this thread.

Also, what was the discounted price?

Do your own research.

There should be a source link for the raw data. Please provide the link.

Try looking at the websites. I don't think that you are capable of running a website usage survey. The raw data is each of these websites. So go look at each of the websites in the new gTLDs, make a decision about how they are being used and come back to us with your findings. There are only about 25 million domain names in the new gTLDs so it might take some time.

People may manipulate data for their own purposes. I am not saying that you manipulate data, but data from independent 3rd parties are always more trustworthy.

Now you are trolling.

I gave .xyz ($2) as an example that it is not mainly used for improper web uses under the current huge discount period. Then you said there are ngTLDs priced below $1 which are first considered by spammers. Then I asked you to provide some examples that are priced below $1. Now you gave me .xyz. What are you doing? OK, now I know .xyz is priced below $1 in some registrars, but .xyz is now not mainly used for improper web uses. Are your contradicting yourself?

Trolling again? The link I gave showed that XYZ's lowest price was 18 cents.

Are you serious? Without properly detecting the problematic domains, how can the researchers get the right figures and do the reporting?

They get their DNS abuse data from blacklist providers and anti-spam websites. Webspam isn't considered DNS abuse.

So are you suspecting the credibility of the report? If so, why did you use the report? Anyway, the report supports my arguments, even if you are now trying to find excuse to disqualify the report.

To show you how the discounting in the new gTLDs has changed the economics of the situation for spammers. This is what the report mentions.

I used the figures of .com and ngTLD registrations as well as percentage of templated content for deduction.

As I pointed out earlier, Templated Content includes PPC landers, sales landers and affiliate landers. You obviously missed this and decided that all all Templated Content was the same thing even though it the categories were clearly stated.

I now know how you define data: the numbers shown by you are data. The numbers shown by others are not data.

What data have you produced? All that you seem to be doing on the thread is bloviating about your opinions.

There are only 20 .wed domains. Please provide a more suitable example.

The WED gTLd has been in EBERO since January 2018.

How is extremely difficult? Your saying is not backed by any data and methodology.

Look at the graph for LOAN. It stopped discounting in August 2018. New registration volume has collapsed.

https://namestat.org/loan

Here's another zone stuffing in progress:
https://namestat.org/buzz

Growth in the gTLD had stalled and then the zone file was stuffed. See the way that the gTLD numbers were stable for years and that huge spike? That's what zone stuffing looks like.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Henry Y]

No they are not. FFM tried the normal approach. It failed. Then it introduced discounting to drive registrations in this gTLD. But you had never heard of the gTLD before it was mentioned on this thread.

Do your own research.

Then when was the discount period? You just provided the graph of registrations without precisely mentioning the discount period, how can NPs here know how the registrations change before and after the discount period?

You gave .accountant as an example, then you must know very well about the gTLD including its discounted price. Then you must have the responsibility to give us the discounted price as well, not ask your opinion listeners to help you do research. What you are doing is like not providing answers to audience in a seminar who ask you questions and telling the audience to do research themselves. Do you think it is a right conduct?

Try looking at the websites. I don't think that you are capable of running a website usage survey. The raw data is each of these websites. So go look at each of the websites in the new gTLDs, make a decision about how they are being used and come back to us with your findings. There are only about 25 million domain names in the new gTLDs so it might take some time.

I don't think you are capable as well. Your surveys are not credible if you use this approach to do your surveys.

Now you are trolling.

Trolling again? The link I gave showed that XYZ's lowest price was 18 cents.

I did not troll, but you trolled many times before by saying the data I cited from credible sources are not data, repeatedly contradicting yourself and showing some data that are for no purpose.

They get their DNS abuse data from blacklist providers and anti-spam websites. Webspam isn't considered DNS abuse.

Then that are the detected data, which are qualified to support my argument.

My argument is based on improper web uses, not limited to web spam, so the report can be used to support my argument.

As I pointed out earlier, Templated Content includes PPC landers, sales landers and affiliate landers. You obviously missed this and decided that all all Templated Content was the same thing even though it the categories were clearly stated.

What data have you produced? All that you seem to be doing on the thread is bloviating about your opinions.

I know that templated content includes PPC landers, sales landers and affiliate landers. When number of .com templated content (39 million) is greater than total number of ngTLD registrations (25 million) by 14 million (56%). The number of .com templated content must significantly greater than that of ngTLD templated content. Let me pick the .life templated content percentage 27.39% (the highest percentage among your mentioned ngTLDs in post no. 233), the estimated highest number of ngTLD templated content is around 7 million. 39 million VS 7 million. Do you still think the number of .com bad landers is less than that of ngTLD bad landers? If yes, then please show us your so-called "data" or "methodology" to oppose my deduction. I don't accept your surveys as data reference.

You troll again. I don't produce data. I cited data from external sources and showed the links of the sources as well. Please refer to my post (post no. 239). The only data that is not credible is the percentage of templated content which is produced by you. You were the only one who produced data yourself (your surveys) and bloviated about your opinions.

The WED gTLd has been in EBERO since January 2018.

You used .web as an example to give a reply to my opinion: "If the economics of the dominant markets worsen, it makes the registrars gain less, not fails a gTLD." (post no. 244)

Then the failure of .web is caused by economic worsening of dominant markets? If not, I don't understand the purpose of showing it as an example and you troll again by showing info that are completely irrelevant.

Look at the graph for LOAN. It stopped discounting in August 2018. New registration volume has collapsed.

https://namestat.org/loan

It is an expected result. It is like business sales significantly increase on Black Friday and greatly decrease after the day. But you only showed what happened before and after the discount period without showing what the registrar is trying to do the recover. Without mentioning the recovery actions registrar is taking, how do you say it is "extremely difficult" to recover?

 

[Jurgen Wolf]

This stats doesn't matter at all, how many templates here or there etc.

Only money in your pocket matters... so if no money with decent names - then "failed gTLD" (on aftermarket).
Very simple analytics.