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!

 

[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.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

I thought I might add as a note that after deep discounting has ended and a bit of time passed an extension can recover reputation to some degree. We certainly saw this in .xyz that (I believe) was abused during the period of penny registrations many years ago, but now for years has been middle of the road or better in Spamhaus.

In terms of the former Famous Four extensions, they are not all the same, but now that more than a year has passed since the end of deep discounting their Spamhaus scores of .science are 8.9% with a score of 0.34 and .win is 10.9% with 0.55, both slightly better than the major legacy extensions. Most of the others are not yet as good with .men and .party, perhaps not surprisingly, the worst (scores of 1.76 and 1.49 which are much worse than .com).

Nevertheless the best lack of abuse tend to be extensions with constant or near constant fees, like .one and the Google extensions and a few others. The Spamhaus stats for all three of .app, .page and .dev are 0.1% bad with a score of 0.01, among the very best of all extensions, and orders of magnitude better than the dominant legacy ones. Clearly some registries do a better job than others.

Bob

 

[jmcc]

I thought I might add as a note that after deep discounting has ended and a bit of time passed an extension can recover reputation to some degree. We certainly saw this in .xyz that (I believe) was abused during the period of penny registrations many years ago, but now for years has been middle of the road or better in Spamhaus.

The XYZ is a very unusual gTLD, Bob,
Discounting is a very cynical numbers game for the registry in that a small percentage of the discounted domain names will renew. But XYZ seems to be a more diverse, in country of registrations, gTLD than others and there is underlying usage. It is also a truly generic TLD where many of the others are actually domain hacks. That domain hack nature where people will think that they have misheard and add ".com" to the domain name, will take a long time to overcome with the public

Nevertheless the best lack of abuse tend to be extensions with constant or near constant fees, like .one and the Google extensions and a few others. The Spamhaus stats for all three of .app, .page and .dev are 0.1% bad with a score of 0.01, among the very best of all extensions, and orders of magnitude better than the dominant legacy ones. Clearly some registries do a better job than others.

It is really a simple equation. Higher registration fees make disposable domain names of the type used for spamming too expensive for spammers and other bad actors.

Regards...jmcc

 

[jmcc]

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.

Yep. But if you don't know the stats then you won't know if the game is rigged and you are just making the registry richer and yourself poorer. If the TLD is being actively developed by end-users then it will be a lot easier to sell a domain name than if the TLD was a wasteland of parking and "coming soon" pages.

Regards...jmcc

 

[jmcc]

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 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.

You gave .accountant as an example, then you must know very well about the gTLD including its discounted price.

My focus is on statistics and usage rather than pricing.

Then you must have the responsibility to give us the discounted price as well, not ask your opinion listeners to help you do research.

I provided the example for XYZ showing that it was available for 18 cents.

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?

When it is simply trolling, yes.

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

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 know that templated content includes PPC landers, sales landers and affiliate landers.

Well that's a step in the right direction. But here's the important thing: different TLDs have different levels of web usage.

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)

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.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Bob Hawkes]

I am not sure how critical information on past price of .accountant is, but since it was asked about above, you can see past discounting using the history graph at TLD-List. Here is the link for accountant then scroll down to bottom and shows previous few years of best registration, transfer and renewal rates. In this case $0.48+$0.18 at Namecheap registration was best much of the time but you can see the big jump more than a year ago when deep discounting of former FFM extensions was abandoned.
https://tld-list.com/tld/accountant
Bob

 

[Jurgen Wolf]

If the TLD is being actively developed by end-users then it will be a lot easier to sell a domain name than if the TLD was a wasteland of parking and "coming soon" pages.

Many domains I sold - still parked... even years elapsed - but they on nameservers set by me (Bodis/ParkingCrew).
A lot of endusers are buying domains just to have them or for future development.

 

[Haroon Basha]

.xyz is horribly miserable performance .

 

[Henry Y]

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.

 

[Jurgen Wolf]

Can you continue this battle DIRECTLY (DM)???

 

[trap3]

.chimp
.banana