3 ms·

Why not switch to a .nyt TLD? Or .times?

by hackuser 10y ago

ceejayoz 10y ago
Because it costs $185k, involves a bunch of work and infrastructure, and wouldn't really benefit them?
- Preemo 10y ago
  This. Also, most people just plainly do not understand the new TLDs yet; and sadly I don't think they will ever become mainstream anytime soon. Deviate from .com .net .ca .org and most people become clueless. Especially when users are sending an email, try explaining name@newyork.times is simply the address when a user insists there's a typo and it's missing .com or equivalent. Unfortunately adding a www. before, say on a business card, to denote it's a web address is counter-intuitive in most cases as that just lengthens the domain when typically the reason why one would get/migrate to a new TLD is to shorten it/make it easy to remember.
  - zippergz 10y ago
    Made worse by the fact that non-technical people DO make such errors with some frequency. I don't know how many times I've seen someone's email address as "www.joe@example.com" or "joe@example," even on printed material that you'd hope people would carefully proof-read.
  - JimmyAustin 10y ago
    My personal email is me at james aust.in, and its constantly a pain to read to people, especially over the phone. I started saying it as me at "me at james austin with a dot before the in", but eventually settled on "me at james aust dot in". Only way to get it on the first try.
    - wyldfire 10y ago
      IMO the latter sounds clearer to me. I think I'm pretty savvy but if I listened to the former on the phone I would have to take a second to parse it and then I would read back something like the latter to you to confirm I got it right.
zeveb 10y ago
I really wish that it had been times.ny.ny.us instead, but I guess it's all water under the bridge at this point.
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  If you're going to wish for that, then maybe it should have been: us.ny.ny.times In other words, the entire domain name system should read left to right as top of hierarchy to bottom of hierarchy.
  - kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
    The destination is what people care about. Not where it sits in a hierarchy. Janet was rightfully killed off.
untog 10y ago
Why would you, though? Especially when you only have one site. (as an aside, there is a The Times newspaper in the UK and I'm sure many other places. I suspect ownership of .times would become a lot more bother than it was worth, very quickly)

Why not switch to a .nyt TLD? Or .times?

ceejayoz 10y ago

Because it costs $185k, involves a bunch of work and infrastructure, and wouldn't really benefit them?

Preemo 10y ago
This. Also, most people just plainly do not understand the new TLDs yet; and sadly I don't think they will ever become mainstream anytime soon. Deviate from .com .net .ca .org and most people become clueless. Especially when users are sending an email, try explaining name@newyork.times is simply the address when a user insists there's a typo and it's missing .com or equivalent. Unfortunately adding a www. before, say on a business card, to denote it's a web address is counter-intuitive in most cases as that just lengthens the domain when typically the reason why one would get/migrate to a new TLD is to shorten it/make it easy to remember.
- zippergz 10y ago
  Made worse by the fact that non-technical people DO make such errors with some frequency. I don't know how many times I've seen someone's email address as "www.joe@example.com" or "joe@example," even on printed material that you'd hope people would carefully proof-read.
- JimmyAustin 10y ago
  My personal email is me at james aust.in, and its constantly a pain to read to people, especially over the phone. I started saying it as me at "me at james austin with a dot before the in", but eventually settled on "me at james aust dot in". Only way to get it on the first try.
  - wyldfire 10y ago
    IMO the latter sounds clearer to me. I think I'm pretty savvy but if I listened to the former on the phone I would have to take a second to parse it and then I would read back something like the latter to you to confirm I got it right.

zeveb 10y ago

I really wish that it had been times.ny.ny.us instead, but I guess it's all water under the bridge at this point.

PhantomGremlin 10y ago
If you're going to wish for that, then maybe it should have been: us.ny.ny.times In other words, the entire domain name system should read left to right as top of hierarchy to bottom of hierarchy.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  The destination is what people care about. Not where it sits in a hierarchy. Janet was rightfully killed off.

untog 10y ago

Why would you, though? Especially when you only have one site. (as an aside, there is a The Times newspaper in the UK and I'm sure many other places. I suspect ownership of .times would become a lot more bother than it was worth, very quickly)