3 ms·
That aspect is only talked about at the very end almost as an aside, and the phrasing is "[some ccTLDs are] more likely to be ok [than other ccTLDs]", "it might
by seszett 3y ago
That aspect is only talked about at the very end almost as an aside, and the phrasing is "[some ccTLDs are] more likely to be ok [than other ccTLDs]", "it might be somewhat safer" and "gTLDs are at least lower risk than ccTLDs".
This certainly suggests a different conclusion than "don't buy ccTLDs unless you live there".
I would say the conclusion of this article is actually "don't buy ccTLDs except maybe in some cases that I won't even discuss since they seem so rare to me". I would say on the other hand that buying a domain with the ccTLD of the country you're operating in is a must, and especially so if you're operating in a few neighbouring countries.
- James_K 3y ago> This certainly suggests a different conclusion than "don't buy ccTLDs unless you live there". From the article's conclusion: > Are ccTLDs Ever Useful? > I certainly don’t think it’s a good idea to register a domain under a ccTLD for “vanity” purposes: because it makes a word, is the same as a file extension you like, or because it looks cool. > Finally, it might be somewhat safer to register under a ccTLD if you live in the location involved. At least then you might have a better idea of whether your domain is likely to get pulled out from underneath you. Unfortunately, as the .eu example shows, living somewhere today is no guarantee you’ll still be living there tomorrow, even if you don’t move house. He makes the fair point that, even if they are intended for residents, it may not always be safe for them either.
- mthoms 3y ago>That aspect is only talked about at the very end almost as an aside It's talked about at the end because that's usually where the conclusion goes. Everything talked about before that is providing evidence for said conclusion. What an odd interpretation. To me it reads as the entire point of the article.