Top
Best
New

Posted by ssiddharth 10 hours ago

Never buy a .online domain(www.0xsid.com)
630 points | 387 commentspage 2
atleastoptimal 2 hours ago|
Domains are signaling. If you have a .online domain you are signaling you can't afford the equivalent .com domain. All the TLD annoyance is a consequence of the lack of status pressure ameliorating the experience of those domain holders (in the same way you never see public health crises in rich neighborhoods)
NewJazz 2 hours ago|
If you have a .online domain you are signaling you can't afford the equivalent .com domain.

Or don't want to pay a $2k ransom to a name squatter... For some businesses that is a rounding error (saas, other high volume high margin stuff), but for small businesses like restaurants or event planners, spending that much on a domain name would be foolish.

shit_game 10 hours ago||
> Not adding the domain to Google Search Console immediately. I don't need their analytics and wasn't really planning on having any content on the domain, so I thought, why bother? Big, big mistake.

I'm not particularly familiar with SEO or the massive black box that is Google Search - is this really as critical as the author makes it seem? I have both .lol and .party domains, both through porkbun (and the TLDs seem to be administrated by Uniregistry and Famous Four Media, respectively), and both are able to be found on Google Search. It seems like this preemtive blacklisting would be the result of some heuristics on Google's end; is .online just one of the "cursed" TLDs like .tk?

swiftcoder 10 hours ago||
> is this really as critical as the author makes it seem?

It is critical in the sense that if you want to appeal the decision in a case like this, it will go much better if you pre-verified that you own the domain.

(I don't think it has much effect on google search placement at all)

kyle-rb 7 hours ago||
Yeah I'm guessing the TLD was the main signal, based on other comments linking to a thread about "Pinggy", who was also using a .online. The fact that Namecheap is giving them out for free means they probably are more scammy on average.

I've also never added domains to Google Search Console and haven't had blacklisting issue other than with a free .ml (another "cursed" TLD) site that was by default assumed to be spam by Facebook Messenger.

It's unfortunate that this category exists, but I don't share the OP's .com purism; I've used a mix of TLDs and even the cheap ones like .fyi and .cc haven't come under extra scrutiny as far as I can tell.

peanut-walrus 6 hours ago||
It sucks so much that there is no standard way of linking additional domains to your main one and inheriting the reputation.

Want to set up a new domain for whatever purposes (conference, new product, etc)? Be prepared to spend the first half a year fighting the various blacklists before people can actually reliably connect.

Would make so much sense if you could just have a .well-known/other-domains.txt (or something something DNS) with a list of domain names that should be considered just as trustworthy as your main domain.

It's not even about .online or other weird TLDs, it's just that the domain is new and therefore "not trustworthy". Even worse if you need to use your existing branding on the new domain - instantly flagged as a phishing site everywhere.

__MatrixMan__ 9 hours ago||
We need to rethink the web so that fewer third parties are involved in things that seem on the surface to be an A-B conversation. To say nothing of the trustworthiness of those parties, having them involved at all is needlessly brittle.
shaky-carrousel 2 hours ago||
Morale of the story: never ever use a registry that bases its decisions on Google Safe Browsing. Radix in this case. A very modern looking website for a really caveman support.
pocksuppet 1 hour ago|
There's no way to know this until it happens to you or someone else.
agentifysh 3 hours ago||
Does anybody know any good alternative to Name Cheap? It seems like they keep raising prices on all the domains. Website is very sluggish, especially for finding domains quickly.
mdhen 3 hours ago||
cloudflare is the cheapest - they do it at cost.
agentifysh 3 hours ago||
Wow, thanks. You were right. I Googled and it says Cloudflare is cheaper by twenty-five to fifty percent on renewals. I'm really sick of namecheap. They seem to never stop raising prices. but I'm also I'm kinda wary and afraid of moving domains and losing it.
pocksuppet 1 hour ago||
Cloudflare is doing the enshittification strategy, enticing you now, and then extracting value later. You don't want your domains to be in Cloudflare when they lock the gates. If it's a temporary domain, go ahead I suppose.
themafia 2 hours ago||
The AWS registrar is actually not bad.
zadikian 9 hours ago||
But was this because it's .online? I got one and it was fine.

The only issue was the usual trap with all Namecheap domains: They tell you it's all set, and it works, until they randomly email you a week later asking for email verification. If you don't do that promptly, they suspend your domain until you trigger a resend. Which is easy to fix but also strange.

NewJazz 7 hours ago|
The blog post details that the TLD registry, Radix, decided that getting put on Google's safe browsing list means they put a serverhold on your domain, which prevents you from getting off the safe browsing list.

So yes, this appears to be a TLD- (or at least registry-) specific issue.

nelsonic 5 hours ago||
The first mistake anyone makes is thinking they are “buying” anything with a domain. You’re renting it. And the company you are renting from can arbitrarily push up the price above inflation. NameCheap is good for the basics. But a .site or .online domain is a no-go beyond an MVP/test.
eappleby 10 hours ago||
Unfortunate story. It wasn't clear to me that the .online TLD led to Google blacklisting the site. Why did you think that was connected?
dathinab 9 hours ago||
The problem isn't Google Safe Search backlisting the side (I mean that also is a problem, but a very different one).

The problem is the vanity domain registrar Radix using that as a reason to _put the whole domain on hold, including all subdomains, email entries etc._

This means:

- no way to fix accidental wrong "safe search" blacklisting

- if it was your main domain no mails with all the things it entails

- no way to redirect API servers, apps etc. to a different domain. In general it's not just the website which it's down it's all app, APIs, or anything you had on that domain

Google Safe search is meant to help keep chrome users safe from phishing etc. it is fundamentally not designed to be a Authority Institute which can unilaterally dictate which domains are no longer usable at all.

Like basically what Radix did was a full domain take down of the kind you normally need a judge order for... cause by a safe browsing helper service misfiring. That is is RALLY bad, and they refuse to fix their mistake, too.

You normally don't have _that_ level of fundamentally broken internal processes absurdity with the more reputable TLD operators (which doesn't mean you don't have that in edge cases, but this isn't an edge case this is there standard policy).

Avamander 7 hours ago||
At the same time given the already terrible reputation of such vanity TLDs, being this hard on abuse might be the only survivable way.

That's not me saying there shouldn't be a warning and a recourse, but the time-to-profit for domain abuse is really short so anti-abuse actions have to be quick.

NewJazz 5 hours ago||
This isn't being hard on abuse though, this is being lazy and incompetent.
Avamander 5 hours ago||
I'm fairly sure that Safe Browsing's false-positive rate is extremely low otherwise it'd be unusable in Chrome. Which also means that acting on positive results is very likely a correct approach.
NewJazz 4 hours ago||
Safe browsing is meant for websites, not domain names. You really want your registry acting on it and nuking your email services, intranet services, cert renewal automation, et cetera?
NikolaNovak 10 hours ago|||
My understanding from the article is that because the registrar for this domain is using Google safe browsing for their domain suspension, something that a) shouldn't be the case and b) isn't the case for other, perhaps more mainstream TLDs
eappleby 5 hours ago||
Right. Sounds more like a registrar problem than a TLD problem. They should change the article title to "Never buy a domain from Radix"
Aaron2222 4 hours ago||
Radix is the registry for .online, not the registrar they bought the domain from.
nguyenkien 10 hours ago||
The registrar suspense domain because it on Google blocked list. And Google refuse to review the ban because he can't prove he own that domain (because it suspended :D).
trey-jones 8 hours ago|
I'm sorry that the author got bitten by this. But .com purism is funny to me. I only buy GTLDs for personal projects, and I've never had a problem before. But then, I've never bought .online.
More comments...