An Epic fail by a business publication covering the new gTLD’s, the Chicago Grid posted a story entitled “Will the switch from .com to .Chicago benefit businesses?
Never mind the entire publication is wrapped with advertising from Dunkin’ Donuts and made my eye’s bleed.
As Taylor Swift said “I knew you were trouble then”
Of course there wasn’t even a new gTLD application submitted for .Chicago.
The subtitle of the article: “Customers will have to embrace the 1,000 new domains opening in 2014 for companies to see a boost“.
What does that even mean?
Customers of what or whom and why do customers have to embrace 1,000 new domains opening in 2014?
“To see a boost of what?”
Maybe they mean consumers, not customers but still makes no sense.
Next sentence in the article:
“New year, new domain.
“About 1,000 new domain extensions are about to go live and can be had for as little as $20 from Internet retailers like GoDaddy or Network Solutions.”
Well actually many new gTLD’s will be priced lower and the article even quote’s representitives of .club and .xyz each of which plan to have a retail price of $10 or lower, saying later on in the article
“He also hopes to negotiate lower-than-market prices with retailers to sell new domain names for $9.99 for one-year registration fees to democratize the process”
Fail
Next Sentence:
“The expansion beyond com, .gov, .org is unprecedented and will open the way for people to create websites and email addresses ending in just about any word imaginable — from .Chicago to .jeans to .security to .YourNameGoesHere.”
Maybe if the application period was still opened it arguably would be a valid sentence although in the case of .Chicago you would have had to gotten the cities backing. However the application period closed over a year and a half ago so you won’t have the ability to “create websites and email addresses ending in just about any word imaginable”
Never mind once again there is not a .Chicago TLD coming out in the first round but no one applied for .Jeans either. 2 out of 3 example’s don’t exist
Fail
Next sentence:
“But beware falling off the Twitter-sphere. If you use a domain name extension longer than four characters, say .chicago, Twitter won’t create a link for it when you tweet”
Not now, but again .Chicago isn’t a new gTLD so if worrying about how someone writing mike.chicago into Twitter is the least of the problems.
Fail
Later in the article the author says:
“Critics say the new domain name extensions will offer new opportunities for cybersquatters, Anonymous-style hackers and trademark and patent trolls, and give pornographers their own .xxx suffix.”
Hello .XXX is going coming up on its third year this month, its not part of the new gTLD program. Its an existing TLD.
It has over 120,000 domain names registered.
Already.
The author could have mentioned .sex or .porn or .adult as a new gTLD for “pornographers” but instead they went with the one extension that is already in existence.
Finally The ChicagoGrid.com says this
“Prominent domain attorney John Berryhill, who runs the blog thedomains.com, says he trusts the marketplace to determine the winners and losers among the new domain names.”
Mr. Berryhill I guess your commenting too much on TheDomains.com
and while we are on the topic I have no idea of why you told Mr. Schwartz that his poll was Bullshit.
You have to be kidding me guys.
Epic Fail?
This would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetically sad.
people publishing stuff like this should actually do research but this is the sort of way regular folks talk amongst themselves in the grocery line when speaking about stuff they have little to no clue about..
and this is at the pretty far end of the “no research and i just made it up based on what could be true” spectrum, but beyond that, whats funny to me are some commenters on forums/blogs expect the public to take an interests in following all the geeky little unfoldings of this new gTLD thing.. like most people have no clue what ICANN even is and the way some people predict the failures of this new gTLD thing saying things like “the public knows better” and “consumers arnt dumb” then name their little technical reasons why… i dont think regular people follow things THAT closely when people writing what are supposed to be legit researched articles cant even be bothered to get simple facts close to right.
This article reminds me an art movement from the early 20th century called Dadaism where “Dada rejected reason and logic, prizing nonsense, irrationality and intuition”(wikipedia.org).
Writer should be pronounced as artist from hereafter since she practised the dada way of writing:
1. Select an interesting section of text
2. Cut each word out individually
3. Put the paper words in a bag, or pile them on your work surface, and mix.
4. Pull words out one by one and write them down until you run out, creating a uniquely randomized poem.
5. Keep in mind that you still control the line breaks – moving them around can create quite a lot of variation in the meaning and feel of your Dada poem.
6. Try some variations: cut out phrases instead of individual words, for a slightly more coherent result, or start with a few pages of text and cut out only the phrases that grab your attention.
(ehow.com)
@Berkens,
I told you so!
It’s hard to have sympathy for anyone pursuing over 700 ntlds. I don’t blame the poor reporter for being confused. Who runs this joint anyways?
Remember that document Berryhill got you to sign?
Mike, are you suggesting I don’t run TheDomains?
Okay, fine. Tell Judy to get out of my house, too.