I admit that I still subconsciously treat com/net/org as somehow more legitimate, though there's no logical reason. I do like that there are more options now, but some of the gTLDs are quite ridiculous.

And I really don't like that companies like Google/MS can buy their own TLD now. I don't think allowing a trademarked term to be used should have been allowed.

> but some of the gTLDs are quite ridiculous.

Case in point: .sucks, .wtf, .zip, .ninja

The fact .zip was created by Google of all companies is hilarious to me.

.sucks was a pure genius money making scheme where every major company has to squat (company).sucks - we own ours and used to use it to test our frame rules.

The "conspiracy theory" I buy into the most is that all these new TLDs are primarily motivated by the revenue of forcing every corp to register their equivalent domain.

Love that your company leaned into it for that purpose.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. I accidentally ended up in a senior role at one of the new gTLD domain registries for a couple of years. “Name protection” - and partnering with the companies who offer corporate domain services to large corporations - was a core part of the commercial strategy.

Yes, the quotes around conspiracy theory were very intentional. :)

Get 300 friends to each give you $1,000, and you too, can be the administrator of your very own TLD. What're you going to choose? something lucrative, like .dev, or something fun, like .fun? The world is your .oyster!

.300 would seem more appropriate

Bit niche though. Might be quite a Spartan TLD.

Of course there’s a legitimate reason: when you want to buy a domain for your product using one of the old TLDs, it’s likely to be taken already, which means you’ll have to pay a significant sum for it, which means your project is serious.

I don't see myself as that averse. To me, if they found a clever domain hack, or if the name is such that the TLD is part of it (like https://teenage.engineering) - sure, go for it. Happy to see it actually! Gives it character and shows that a modicum of thought was put into the choice. For the website of my gamedev team (called secret industries) I was happy to see .industries being a TLD. Quite long, but easy to remember if you remember the name.

For personal use, as long as the TLD has a decent enough reputation to use with email (https://www.spamhaus.org/reputation-statistics/), I'd be fine with almost whatever, too. I personally use a ccTLD, but things like Jeff Gerstmann's site (https://jeff.zone) are fun. There are tons of other examples, this one just came to mind first.

What does feel dodgy and fake to me is when I see a known name with the new gTLDs. Sometimes SaaS have their landing/marketing site on a different TLD than the app itself. If you find both via web search, that looks weird to me.

The city TLDs and highly specialized or non-English ones (like .kaufen, .whoswho, .abogado) and the tons and tons of paid subdomains are so rare that they always seem out of place.

For me the oddest thing are the prices they go for.

This is the worst part. You’d think with a dramatic increase in supply that we’d see prices fall to almost nothing. Domains are priced as if anyone buying them is planning to start a billion dollar business, and the URL is instrumental in its success.

This discourages me from wanting to buy domains for a hobby project, or even for my own email. This whole industry seems like a big scam. Domain squatters don’t help the situation.

Registrars getting to decide that words suddenly are “premium” is so fucking bullshit.

Not at all. It's irrational to judge how legitimate something is by its ability to get a slice of a finite namespace. That heuristic may have been slightly useful 30 years ago, but since then internet usage has exploded and the desirable .coms have generally all been nabbed already.

Doesn't that lead to the opposite conclusion? I'm much more likely to believe nike.com is genuine compared to nike.sportsgear

I would trust ".com" or ".sportsgear" equally, which is to say, I put zero trust into the domain name because it's not a useful heuristic. For 30+ year old businesses that had a better opportunity to secure their .com, maybe the heuristic could be helpful, but it could be actively harmful for anything newer which had its .com squatted. Will you give your credit card info to any .com on the basis of .com being trustworthy? Or would you rather consider using the abundant information available on the internet to more reliably identify the trustworthiness of a site?

> Will you give your credit card info to any .com on the basis of .com being trustworthy

Of course not, and that's why I didn't say that. I said I'm more _likely_ to trust nike.com, and would give more scrutiny to nike.randomtld.

As with anything, people tend to get excited about something new (new-er, anyway) and go a bit overboard. At some point we'll find the ones that actually stick around. I quite like .app and .dev now that the future of .io is dubious, but I do not like the price. A YouTuber, CodingGarden, nabbed null.computer which I personally think is excellent.

I associate .ai with garbage. I recognize something like .space as newer but wouldn't discount it, there's no reason the good .com names should win by default forever just because they were earlier.

The only tld i have an aversion is .su

I publish lots of newsletters containing links to startups, and these TLDs do tend to lead to occasional deliverability issues, with a higher risk of spam classification. So the anti-spam lists and algorithms share your perception of such TLDs being potentially dodgy.

Objectively they aren’t though.

I recently noticed the mom and dad TLDs. One has a lot of potential for phishing so all the big sites seem to have MarkMonitor registering their names there. You can visit ebay.mom though, and amazon.mom redirects to an inactive URL for the family program.

Curiously, dead.mom was redirecting to www.nro.gov, an org with a rather interesting secret history.

I have no problem with them. Though whenever I see one, all I think is that someone overpaid for a domain name because .com was taken.

By the way, about 95% of .com domains are squatters, which pisses me off to no end.

I kind of like omg.lol, and I'm intrigued by .ooo but haven't seen it in use yet.

I'd probably avoid something like games.fun or music.biz, those just sound unpersuasive.

> omg.lol

I wouldn't say that counts. It looks like it's just a fancy redirect service with a "community".

Per your question, though, I've learned not to be averse to it.

I don't strictly avoid them, but they do have a scammy undertone to me and I associate them with sketchiness. I wouldn't use them for my own things.

https://trashbat.co.ck is what you’re looking for…

It's well weapon.

The website might be perfectly legit, but the address looks like a vanity or a joke URL and that's a turnoff.

I don't - .com is boring.

gTLDs have no registration/renewal price cap. This probably doesn't mean much to you now, and statistically, it probably never will, but if it ever does... Yikes!

.zip only exists for phishing and malware.

My self hosted mail server is averse to anything with a low bar to entry. When a registrar rents thousands of domains to a group for nearly free they get added to a file that will just REJECT them with a URL or snarky message. There are a handful of TLD's that my DNS will NXDOMAIN as well. I have done this for decades and have zero regrets while acknowledging it is hard for people to get a decent short name on .com net org. IRL and internet scammers are why we can't have nice things.

most of my exposure to them is from cleaning up spammers, so yes.

I used to feel that way but I’m completely over it, especially going through the experience of registering a few domains for side projects recently. There are just too many already squatted.

The only other market based solution I can think of is just charging like $10,000/yr minimum per domain name and forcing the plebs to use randomly generated strings like Tor onion sites