Re:Domainr
by tlrobinson on Sunday October 19, 2008 @10:40PM
(#337511)
The del.icio.us style domain names are neat for a personal site or something, but they're not very memorable (in terms of spelling and remembering where the dots are), and thus not good for a commercial site. Even Delicious ended up coughing up the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for delicious.com.
Edit: also, this tool isn't very accurate, it reports lots of domains as available when they really aren't.
Re:Domainr
by kanny96 on Monday October 20, 2008 @08:29AM
(#337809)
I also used to think along this lines. But then i tried to remember when was it last that i had physically entered a domain name in the browser - rarely i do that! Mostly i get it from bookmarks or through web surfing links. So i feel the names are less important than the content at that name.
But personally i like "neat and clean" (i.e. dotless) names vs those force-segmented ones. Also dotless names have the advantage of browsers filling in for the www and .com !
Re:Domainr
by ydnar on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:33AM
(#337632)
Thanks for the kind words on the UI. We spent a lot of time on that. I guess you could say we were inspired by Google Maps—they got the UI right first, then fixed the incomplete data, bad directions and brought it up to feature parity with Yahoo and MapQuest.
Re:Domainr
by schapman on Sunday October 19, 2008 @10:54PM
(#337526)
This is a killer interface. If it gets the behind the scenes stuff problems, others have already mentioned here, taken care of, it will get used a lot.
Re:Domainr
by jm4 on Monday October 20, 2008 @03:54PM
(#338252)
How about a more descriptive headline? You would probably get a lot more clicks if you gave people at least a hint about what is behind this link. If submitters can't take an extra few seconds to write a few descriptive words why should anyone take the time to look at what they've posted? I was tempted to flag this before I saw how many comments are here.
Re:Domainr
by jm4 on Monday October 20, 2008 @07:14PM
(#338429)
Fine. You could say it obviously has something to do with domain names. But, what exactly? Why should I bother using Domainr instead of searching using my preferred registrar? Surely, there must be something compelling enough to warrant such a site in the first place. It's pretty thin if it has to be sold with only a lame, cliche name. Is it too much to ask for at least a descriptive sentence fragment?
Re:Domainr
by nuggien on Sunday October 19, 2008 @10:36PM
(#337505)
There's really no benefit in having the message "This domain might be available". It is either available or it isn't (at the time you displayed the message anyways).
Re:Domainr
by jwilliams on Sunday October 19, 2008 @10:10PM
(#337488)
Yeah - I'm not sure, but that seems to be when the registrar only allows third level domains (e.g. Australia only allows .com.au/.net.au/etc - you can't register blah.au)...
Re:Domainr
by nuggien on Sunday October 19, 2008 @10:35PM
(#337503)
Don't really see the "rip", but as far as simple web designs go, everyone copies everyone else. How many variations of a banner/sidenav/main/footer layouts can you really do?
Edit: also, this tool isn't very accurate, it reports lots of domains as available when they really aren't.
I have used instantdomainsearch.com in the past with some success for tld's, roughly similar idea but has been around for a long time.
Just to test it out, I entered in my name (zain). It suggested http://za.in/ and said it was available. I was ecstatic!
But, sadly, no, it was wrong. "whois za.in" says NOT FOUND, but I can't find a single .in registrar who says it is available. Bummer.
But personally i like "neat and clean" (i.e. dotless) names vs those force-segmented ones. Also dotless names have the advantage of browsers filling in for the www and .com !
I'm rooting for you guys.
"Find ydnar anywhere!" ??