General Discussions

**Minaki** · 05-06-2006, 09:02 PM

Ok it's not gonna happen (imagine how many people would have to change their sacred domain names...) but do you think the internet would benifit if TLDs were inforced, lust like .gov and .ltd and .mil are?

So .com would only be available to COMmercial sites, .org to ORGanisations and .INFO for INFOrmational sites etc etc.

**mad_willsy** · 05-06-2006, 09:15 PM

Of course not. The org/info etc websites would loose traffic. .com gains more traffic than any other tld!

**codecrunch** · 11:54 AM

I'm probably alone - but there is nothing worse to me than going to a .org and seeing someone making bankroll with it. (filthy misspellled (lol) sex search or some other garbage)

No reason here to be against any other than the orgs - just seem to me like they should be an organiz(s)ation like they were intended to be.

**Minaki** · 05-07-2006, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Of course not. The org/info etc websites would loose traffic. .com gains more traffic than any other tld!

That's not strictly true. I site gains traffic cos of it's advertising, incoming links, word of mouth referals, etc. Not because of its TLD.
I can see why you think that though, it's cos .com has always been a bit of a buzz word so newbies to the web assume all sites are .com but if they were inforced, it would actually be easier on the newbies and they could tell what sort of site they were looking at by the TLD.

**stOx** · 05-07-2006, 09:44 AM

I think it should have been enforced from the very begining, letting anyone have pretty much whatever TLD they want is going to be one of the biggest mistakes on the internet. Catagorising sites an blocking certain sites would have been a lot easier if they were restricted to haveing certain TLD.

whats the point of having descriptive tlds (.org .info) if anyone can use them for any type of site? If it was enorced they could have introduced more TLDs .kids (childrens sites) .sex (porn) .bet (gambling) to make catagorising and blocking sites even easier.

**Tyler Cole** · 05-07-2006, 11:10 AM

No, as many users almost always go to a .com if they can't "quite remember what the domain was". So say I own X.net, and X.com is a commercial site, that is relating to my site in some way, then the user will think they have gone to the correct site. I say almost every time a user does not remember a domain, they go straight for the .com, with no questions in their minds. (At least from my experience.)

**Minaki** · 05-07-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

No, as many users almost always go to a .com if they can't "quite remember what the domain was".

That's what I was saying in my last post. Thats due to newbies not knowing what all the different TLDs mean and what they're for. As stox said, they should have been enfoced from the beginning - then it would be easier on the users to differentiate between the TLDs.

Quote:

.sex (porn)

Side Note: They're bringing out/have bought out .xxx but it's optional for Pr0n sites to have one.

**vangogh** · 05-07-2006, 02:08 PM

It would be interesting if they were enforced. I know I'd still go to .info and .org sites, probably more than .com sites. What would happen though if a .info site later decided to sell something? Would there be some governing board to review the tld? And what if it was determined they could no longer keep their tld, but the .com was no longer available.

It might work better if some tlds required a more stringent process like the .gov or .edu tlds. I can see where .org should be added to the list. I think there would always need to be some kind of catch all tld though.

It would certainly help a lot in knowing what you might find at a site if the tld was more meaningful.

**stOx** · 05-07-2006, 02:27 PM

.net could be used as a general TLD, and maybe invent one more, maybe a .www or .web

**vangogh** · 02:46 PM

That makes sense. I think there would have to be at least one general tld. One other question. What about the case where someone wants to own more than one domain to protect their brand. Wouldn't having abc.com, abc.net, abc.org, etc cause confusion if they were all different sites? Most people would probably still just use the same tld all the time as they tend to do now with .com

Or what about a site like mine where in certain sections I am clearly selling services so would qualify as a .com yet on other sections I'm giving away free information so .info. Would I be able to qualify for either tld? Both? Would one take precedence over the other so as long as I sell something then I can't use the .info?

I'm not disagreeing with the whole concept. Just playing devil's advocate a bit and trying to see how it all might work.

**Anthony~** · 05-07-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minaki

Ok it's not gonna happen (imagine how many people would have to change their sacred domain names...) but do you think the internet would benifit if TLDs were inforced, lust like .gov and .ltd and .mil are?

So .com would only be available to COMmercial sites, .org to ORGanisations and .INFO for INFOrmational sites etc etc.

No. There would be no benefit in doing so.

**Minaki** · 04:37 PM

Quote:

What would happen though if a .info site later decided to sell something?

They could have both the .info and the .com - but the content would have to be obviously seperated, for example if the user was to surf to whatever.ino it would have to take them directly to the information without trying to sell them stuff.

Quote:

.net could be used as a general TLD, and maybe invent one more, maybe a .www or .web

.NET is for NETworks

And there is a .ws (WebSite) for generic.

Quote:

Wouldn't having abc.com, abc.net, abc.org, etc cause confusion if they were all different sites? Most people would probably still just use the same tld all the time as they tend to do now with .com

Not really. It would be less confusion than there is now. There's always overlaps of names and disputes over domains. This could be lessened by enforcing naming as well like it is with .ltd - you can only have the name if your website has something to do with that name, all commercial domains would have to be the name of the company.

Quote:

No. There would be no benefit in doing so.

Not even the ones already mentioned above?

Now what would be REALLY sweet is if there was a .advert domain where all adverts HAVE to be hosted on (No advertising on a non .advert domain)
'Check here to block .ADVERT domains'

Ok to put is slightly differently...
Whats the point of having seperate TLDs if they're not enforced?

**Village Idiot** · 05-08-2006, 10:54 PM

I believe they sould be enforced and limited to a certian ammount per person per year to avoid those annoying domain farmers.

**Twinrehz** · 05-09-2006, 05:52 AM

Slightly off-topic, but it would be very nice if all pr0n-sites could have the TLD .prn, wouldn't it?

Anyway, enforcement of the webs most popular TLDs would be a really bad idea. The TLD .no is enforced, and it's a bit boruing, but it makes sense.

**Minaki** · 06:59 AM

Quote:

Slightly off-topic, but it would be very nice if all pr0n-sites could have the TLD .prn, wouldn't it?

As I already stated, they do - they have .xxx - but again, it's not enforced in any way.

Quote:

Anyway, enforcement of the webs most popular TLDs would be a really bad idea.

I'm still interested to know why people think this. Other than the obvious fact that it will be a huge pain in the behind to do it now (millions of addresses would have to be changed) Whats such a bad idea if it had been enforced from the start?

Imagine a web where you could open a search engine, and if you were only looking for information without wanting to be sold something you could un-check a box saying 'Search .com sites' or if you were looking to buy something you could search -only- .com sites without being overloaded with information. TLDs and domain names should reflect the content of the site.

Branching off from that, URLs are not really user friendly in the slightest. A URL is really just a host name of a server typed into a browser which connects to port 80. The host name, which should reflect the logical seperation of the host within an interconnected network, has now been used for the identity of a website which in most cases is completely different. Ideally, there should be a whole new naming schema for websites IMO.

I r teh 1337 hax0r: Posts: 1,337

**vangogh** · 05-09-2006, 03:08 PM

I don't think it's a bad idea, tho I doubt it's going to happen. Here's a thought. Obviously you need the domain before you put up the site (unless it's being hosted under another site temporarily) How would the initial request work since you won't be able to reference the site to see it's content before giving out the tld?

Would it be based on the credentials of the person registering? Also what happens when a domain is sold and then used for another purpose?

I'm thinking there would beed to be some kind of governing body that checks exisiting sites to see if the content matches the tld. I think that's the unworkable part given it would be quite a lot of work to continually check all those sites. And of course the expense of doing so will have to enter the picture. It would more than likely be passed on when registering the domain.

Minaki this is an interesting topic. I'm glad you asked the question. I can see benefits in it just for organizational purposes and if it can be pulled off it might even go towards making it more difficult to put up a really spammy site that anyone would ever really see. It could be an easier way for parents to block sites they don't want their children to see (at least on computers they control).

I'm still not sure it's something that could ever be completely enforced and there is something to be said for the freedom to choose whatever tld you want. I'm usually not one that likes to have governing bodies make decisions for me. It's an interesting concept though and I can see how it could be useful fo certain things.

**stOx** · 05-09-2006, 04:06 PM

It would have helped if people were made to want a catagory specific tld.
If search engines used the TLD as part of thier algo webmasters would have wanted to get a tld that would help them in the rankings.

so if someone searched "childrens activities" and 90% of the top results were .kid TLDs it would have been self regulating as webmasters would want to get thier site appearing in searches related to thier content.

**Minaki** · 05-09-2006, 06:08 PM

On top of that, you could have the generic .ws ones as unregulated - anyone could have a .ws for any purpose.
That way, more weight (from search engines and in general) would be given to sites with proper TLDs, meaning it would be in the companies interest to pay for (the right to have) a more descriptive TLD.

**vangogh** · 02:01 PM

stOx and Minaki, good ideas both. That would give site owners the incentive to go through the process for getting the tld they want and also raise the money to cover the costs of the governing board. And the .ws tld also give anyone who doesn't want to go through the process a way to still have a site.

**Twinrehz** · 05-10-2006, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minaki

As I already stated, they do - they have .xxx - but again, it's not enforced in any way.

Sorry, didn't see that at first.

But one thing they SHOULD have done, is to REQUIRE ALL stupid idiotic search sites that hog on to thousands of cool names (I bet they bring the statistic of number of websites up with at least 40%) could have an own type of TLD that noone would ever visit, THEN they might get the idea of how stupid their business is.

I. Hate. Those. Sites. Really. Badly. I don't care if it is people who need money, they culd get their money some other f***ing way! Like getting a proper JOB!

Why I think regular TLDs shouldn't be enforced, is because it lays restrictions on peoples freedom, and because .com and .net is the most cool TLDs on the web. Escpecially .net.