new
You have to look at the registrations before February 2016 and after. But this kind of information is not available to you except through graphs on various websites.
Thank you for your info. Hope you did not deduce the discount period from the graph.
I provided the example for XYZ showing that it was available for 18 cents.
Don't troll again by not answering my question. Please read my question carefully. I asked you the discounted price of .accountant, not .xyz. You should say a big thanks to Bob who helped you answer.
You haven't a clue about web usage metrics. You haven't a clue about what web usage means. You don't understand what is being measured or the methodology. Try learning.
I know all of these, but not your surveys. Your surveys are not made by any authority and have no transparency. No one knows the methodology of the surveys, no one knows how you define a lander as adult/gambling related, and no one can verify the accuracy of your surveys. You need to try very best to learn how to be credible, otherwise your surveys have little to no value in spite of your huge effort in making the surveys.
You are trolling. You haven't cited any data. Merely posting links to a non-expert article about the latest Verisign Domain Name Industry Brief (that's where Business Wire got its figure) and NTLDstats is not providing data.
Business Wire is the global leader in press release distribution and regulatory disclosure, which is much more credible than you. Also, the article author cited figures from the most reliable source (Verisign), which is much more reliable than the source of your surveys. I cited a data from the article as data for my deduction. Besides, there are historical number of registrations from the graph titled "new gTLD Domains" on NTLDstats. The earliest data of the graph is as of 1 Feb, 2014. Please have a careful look.
Please stop trolling again. Try your best to learn to be a credible person.
There is a big difference between reported data and detected data. The former is dependent on the accuracy of the sources and their methodology. The latter on the methodology. The DNS abuse report focused on DNS abuse. Webspam is not considered DNS abuse.
The report is reporting of detected data. I said many times before that my argument (.com improper web usage is more than and have a greater impact than ngTLD improper web usage) is not based on solely web spam, but also other kinds of improper web usage, so the report supports my argument. Please stop trolling.
Your "argument" is simply that you think that you are the smartest person on the thread for simply having an opinion about how smart you are. It is not based on any data and providing any data to show that you are wrong will simply be ignored.
I think you are describing yourself. While there are data more credible than you that oppose your opinion, you say they are not data or just simply ignore them. Also, you enjoy showing your surveys that have no credibility in an attempt to show how smart you are. But in fact, you are only smart in trolling by ignoring credible data, repeatedly contradicting yourself, repeatedly providing irrelevant info, and repeatedly not answering questions that the answers oppose your belief or understanding.
Well that's a step in the right direction. But here's the important thing: different TLDs have different levels of web usage.
I am always in the right direction. Just you are still not in the right direction by saying credible data are not data, unreasonably challenging my reasoning and mentioning many irrelevant info.
No. I used WED not WEB. The WEB gTLD has not even launched yet. Perhaps like your being unaware of ACCOUNTANT, you didn't realise that either.
It is a typo. It should be .wed. Thanks for correcting me about the typo. But you should thank me to provide you an opportunity to troll by not answering my question. As you don't quote my question in your reply, I guess you want to troll me by escaping from answering my question that the answer may oppose your opinion. Let me quote here: "Then the failure of .wed 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."
Please answer.