| 11:45 pm on Jun 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I never knew these forums would have a filter.
The topic was entitled . x x x
| 12:19 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's possible to release alternative TLDs intended to serve specific niches. But at the end, all they serve is a second chance for those who have lost on the dot com game. The reality is that dot com will stay as the king for all niches until the next revolution. Who knows what that'll be...
| 12:24 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The reality is that dot com will stay as the king for all niches |
I think there's a variety of reasons that this extension may prove to be an exception. Any browser extension or filter in wide use would kill conversions for equivalent .com adult names. Not to mention search engines etc...
| 12:44 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I read something recently about this as well. A kind of voluntary self-regulation for adult sites. Would this make it easier for parents, school libraries by setting the browser to ignore the request?
| 1:54 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Then look at it this way: If you were an adult website owner and knew that your sites will be banned, filtered just because you use .x x x TLD, would you register one?
This only works if the "authority" makes it an obligation for all adult content websites.
But then there comes the problems of lost traffic. Will they forward .com traffic to . x x x? Who will pay the loss if that won't be allowed?
Not an easy solution. The more reliable solution is to filter by content, not by TLD. Countries like Saudi Arabia do this. So, schools and parents can do too. There are software to filter content if you want to.
Bottom line is that it's almost impossible to 100% successfully filter all bad-"harmful" content. Google's cache can be used to by pass these filters and you can't do anything to filter out image-only-with-no-alt-tag-no-meta-tag pages.
| 9:54 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Would this make it easier for parents, school libraries by setting the browser to ignore the request? |
Yes, it would make it a lot easier, but as said above, it would not completly 100% filter bad material, but the effect would be more drastic.
Most filters are based on words, such "hardcore" and so on, but there's always websites out there that delibertly make their site to avoid them.
However, like said, on a whole it could cost people lots of money, but if you're going to lose traffic why would you want to re-register a dot x x x domain?
Even if there became a law on this, it still might be hard to enforce as different countrys have different laws. What might be illigal here, might be legal in France - so this would also become a problem.
| 6:03 pm on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|However, like said, on a whole it could cost people lots of money, but if you're going to lose traffic why would you want to re-register a dot x x x domain? |
Doesn't the attempt to limit that content create a market of its own? If the filter is based on the extension you have to account for the traffic for the filter turned off.
It's a matter of concern of adult affiliates imo.
| 7:53 pm on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What do you mean, I am not sure that I understand.
| 8:11 pm on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If a browser set to safe-search is filtering based on the adult extension of course some non adult extension sites would get through. But conversely...when that safesearch is turned off, wouldn't the majority of sites returned be registered under the adult extension?
I'm only saying it's a possibility but it would reinforce the industry separation that I presume ICANN is trying to accomplish.
| 8:13 pm on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Who knows what that'll be... |
That will be removal of any limit on what can be used as TLD -- anything should go. Additionally a minimum fixed annual fee of at least $10 per domain should be charged.
These two measures would kill cyber-squatters dead -- there will be too many domains to grab, and too expensive to keep them.
| 9:01 pm on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Increasing the number of TLDs defies the whole point of DNS as being a tree, with delegation. Also it would greatly increase the load on the root servers. They get a large number of requests for addresses in the non-existent ".elvis" TLD as it is...
| 9:56 am on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. How do you think they would go about it though, if they did of course, because they obviously recognise the bennafits of such a thing - but how will they get this across when if it is enforced, there will still be various loop holes. Such as redirection.
| 8:02 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, atleast the good names will bought up like bread back in egypt BC.
| 8:10 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Also it would greatly increase the load on the root servers |
I am not convinced that will be the case -- myself I visit a handful of sites every day, had it not been for my crawler then I don't think I would have generated any non-cached DNS queries.
Add to this that hardware and memory is dirt cheap. A good hash of an arbitrary domain name, plus its IP should not take more than 20 bytes (and I know what I am talking about -- I have written my own hash function to save memory). 100 mln domains can be cached completed in under 2 Gigs of RAM that can be purchased for 120 GBP. Servers with fast processors are cheap too -- $10 per domain a year for 100 mln domains should generate $1 bln revenue, all of which should bypass middlemen and go towards maintaining root servers.
This is not 80s and technical reasons for limiting number of domains by TLD no longer apply. However I don't hold my breath to see what I proposed happening any time soon -- there is way too much vested interest in keeping situation the way it is: and here I mean parasites who register millions of parked domains to host PPC ads on them. Otherwise what kind of fool would pay millions for a bloody domain name?
I am bitter here because domain that I wanted was sniped by company who just parked it to host bloody PPC ads. These parasites exist only because of artificial limitation of current domain name system :(
| 9:47 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|These parasites exist only because of artificial limitation of current domain name system |
What do you mean by that? I'm not sure I understand.
| 11:42 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|What do you mean by that? I'm not sure I understand. |
If it was possible to register any domain name without limit (ie goodword1.goodword2) and each registration had a significant cost, then it would become uneconomical to buy millions of domains counting on misspells: it will be possible to get good easily memorable domain by anyone who needs it.
Yeah I wish - current status quo suits far too many people :(
| 9:44 am on Jul 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Oh right, I understand. Why do they do that? Why are things limited like that, if there are such oppertunitys?
| 10:51 am on Jul 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Wouldn't work because
|If it was possible to register any domain name without limit (ie goodword1.goodword2) and each registration had a significant cost, then it would become uneconomical to buy millions of domains counting on misspells: it will be possible to get good easily memorable domain by anyone who needs it. |
as you expand the choice of .tld .com will simply become the must have domain.
The whole point of .tlds is to create logical subgroups once you have more than a handful nobody bothers remembering the others.
Take country codes for example how many do most people know? - Their own and perhaps a couple of others perhaps? For the best part most of the 250 or so ccTLDs are unknown to most people.
Whereas everybody knows .com!
| 8:17 pm on Jul 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is no financial benefit that I can see to an adult site owner from the visit of 12 year olds. No credit card. Just server bandwidth.
And you get praise from parents for self-regulating.
I also read that adult sites are a huge part of internet traffic and revenue. If .#*$! domains existed, that is where this traffic would look first (if they use the address bar), so that's where the site owner will want to be.
There would not be any change in SE ranking, I assume.
So why not?