3 ms·
> .com is basically seen as just a mysterious string that ends URLs in much the same way that "http" begins URLs. This is 100% true. And yet, for the average p
by bscphil 7y ago
> .com is basically seen as just a mysterious string that ends URLs in much the same way that "http" begins URLs.
This is 100% true. And yet, for the average person, it's viewed as the default mysterious string that ends a website's "name". Anything else is viewed as slightly questionable, although most people are aware of .org and .net as sometimes legitimate exceptions. I think most people would be less likely to enter their credit card information on a ".biz" domain, even though they couldn't express any accurate reason why that made it less trustworthy. That's significant, even if it makes no technological difference.
- eloisant 7y agoOutside US, country tld are also very common.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoThe same heuristics apply. .<ccTLD> is roughly as trustworthy as .com is; .<class>.<ccTLD> is as trustworthy as .<tld>, where class=tld.
- bjornjaja 7y agoI think the move to more specific domains is better and .org should be a relic of the past. For instance, consider: people.org people.health people.art The last two actually imply what they are about, but the .org could be anything. Trust and faith in the service associated with a domain needs to be built with standard channels like word of mouth, advertising, good business practices, etc.
- Nullabillity 7y agoTo me an industry-specific TLD just says "We couldn't think of an original name."
- bjornjaja 7y agoHmm, yeah now that I think about it more I agree.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoWhile that's not inaccurate, I don't think it's a problem. It makes no sense to require everything to have a globally unique name.