What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
23 Comments
- cyberpope, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The title says $2.86 million.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13It goes back to those domain squatters, who buy domains and park them only so they can sell them off later on. The wiki.com domain is worth in excess of $2.86 million. I say IANA should make a rule that says if you don't use the domain for a site with actual content, you lose the domain. Domain squatting is BS and all those Made for Adsense and Sedo Parking sites are just taking up space.
- jtrost, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13@Avili
Once a person purchases a domain they own it. No company should be able to tell them what they can and cannot do with it within reason. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think Avili is talking about spam sites like those sites that have just ads and no content. alot of domains are gone and most are used up by those spams sites and those spam sites are never going to use the domain to have content, so why shouldn't X blog or site be able to get the domain so that they can use it instead of it just redirecting to a page that says "Buy this Domain for $500" or a page just filled with google ads.
what about land? I mean the government can take away your land if they want it, and they don't have to compensate you for it. So if you have a piece of land that isn't being used , there are many places where the government can just take the land away and give it to other people. This isn't the nicest practice, since you own it but then again it really goes to show that you can't really own anything that isn't tangible - so a domain is always up for grabs, and if someone didn't use it well they shouldn't have bought it. It's limited stock, and if you don't use it it's not going to just remain reserved for you. I can't speak for Avili, but I personally don't mind if someone is just holding on to a domain until they can put up their website but instead about those scummy people who buy up domains just so they can sell it later for more. I mean some sleazeball can buy up a tons of domains and hold it at ransom, and while boingboing are made up domains, think about what happens once all these various words up taken up - we end up with some domains being used and then a whole lot of "RESERVED" and parking sites.
I mean if there was a hurricane and some guy started buying and hoarding a whole lot of food and water just so that he can sell it later on for more, we'd all be pissed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4vultures. it's the people editing wikipedia that raised the word's popularity.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@jtrost
I disagree - we only have a finite amount of domains, of which only a small percentage are relevant and make sense (digg.com instead of digg494.com). With such a limited number, landing pages and MFA (made for adsense) should not receive priority domains - let them have the digg494's, and let the real sites with real content -regardless of what that content be, have the actual domains.
The main issue that I see is not in controlling ownership, but ensuring fair access to limited resources. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@avili -
Are you serious? Any domain can be made valueable by having something good there. Examples of weird domains that became valuable:
boingboing
ttz
wiki
youtube
etc...
It's all about making the URL worth something. Would "wallstreet.com" be worth anything if the Major Stock Exchanges in New York were on tenth avenue? - mr804, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1who cares?
- cozmoz365, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Avili
Once a domain has been bought they are your property, people should be able to use them as they feel fit. Just because someone else feels they can make better use of one it doesn't mean they should be aloud to just snatch it of you saying they can put it to "better use".
Besides where do you draw the line???
Here's an example of it all going horribly wrong:
iTunes domain name battle
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4473009.stm - CosmicBratt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Avili, is it filling up the tubes?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1to me it doesn't have to be a website, it can be anything that actually provides a service to reader - whether its a site about your personal life experiences or an mx record, it still is something that people could read. Whereas domain landing sites do nothing, they just selfishly hog up a domain slot that could be used by someone else. If a person has no use for a domain, then there's no reason for them to have the domain.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1don't be stupid - if your were to start your own business, do you really think ThisCompany39393.com makes you look professional? There's a limited number of coherent domains. Prefixing and Suffixing numbers and letters is not a solution and again it's only a temporary solution, plus a very large portion of the domains available are pure gibberish and not even phonetical - example: "asafasdfadsfhfahfeaf.com" I doubt anyone would want that domain, it's a nightmare to remember and I can guarantee your SEO traffic would be pure crap.
There's a funny SNL skit, where a company waits too long to get a web presence, and the only two url available is clownpenis.fart http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6210g1mtkLs
There it is! - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is similar to the problem http://www.nissan.com has been having with Nissan Motors.
The mistake Cohen made was setting a price. Even though he registered the iTunes.co.uk domain before Apple ever trademarked iTunes he set himself up for failure. By setting a price he put himself in a situation where he is perceived as being the squatter. Which lso makes me wonder, if he was running a music service on his iTunes.co.uk site why didn't he trademark iTunes? - Blandyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's amazing.
Hand over the domain. - snorri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1.is is for Iceland, dumbass.
- Cormac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Funny how these things go. Did anyone bother contacting either business to find out what's going on? Or is that too high of a journalistic standard for bloggers?
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Avili - "@jtrost
I disagree - we only have a finite amount of domains, of which only a small percentage are relevant and make sense (digg.com instead of digg494.com). With such a limited number, landing pages and MFA (made for adsense) should not receive priority domains - let them have the digg494's, and let the real sites with real content -regardless of what that content be, have the actual domains.
The main issue that I see is not in controlling ownership, but ensuring fair access to limited resources."
Hello? Is this thing on? You just debunked your own argument. If we only have a finite number of domains, what is the number? Answer, there isn't one. You illustrated it in your example of digg494.com vs digg.com. All you have to do is add another character and you have another domain.
I don't like domain squatters, but they aren't breaking any laws and they are practicing free enterprise. There isn't anything wrong with that. - 3Den, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm confused, where's the dispute?
The article just seems to indicate that the writer doesn't know the details of an obviously private business arrangement, and is trying to guess what happened. - 3Den, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nothing at all says that a domain must have a website associated with it, or even an email address.
The purpose of a domain, remember, is to abstract IP addresses into something more manageable, and nowadays to help locate other services (MX records for email, custom records for SIP & other services, etc).
The fact that the "web" became dominant does not mean we should change this fundamental concept. - jamesgott, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1My uncle is John Gotts. He and my father are business investors.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0maybe have public domains ones that cannot be owned and are for the public good. Put wikis in there along with stuff likes news.com example.org
- SoundJudgment, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2All these new ad-hoc Domain suffixes springing up these days, is too much. This has to stop. If I want to go to Wiki.com... then let it be that name. If it is taken... make a DIFFERENT name. Those .IS and .US and .WS is all very confusing and easily forgotten in the shuffle. The Web committee should put their foot down and decide once and for all, who has what National and Global suffixes and leave it at that.
- pinkninja, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4$2.86 for a domain name?? Damn!
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is