Besides: TLDs function as a lexical tagging mechanism. When you see a string of letters like "foo.com", you recognize the word as a domain name because it's tagged with ".com". If we have thousands of TLDs, it's harder to recognize domain names as domain names.
I don't think any of these concerns will stop our descent to the world of unstructured AOL-keywords-as-DNS, though, and that's a shame.
If I start typing in my address bar "g" then google.com is the first completion suggestion. If I want to get more specific, I can type "n" and news.google.com becomes the first suggestion. Or "m" and I go to mail.google.com. If we had to write "com." before any of these came up, it would mean a serious loss of productivity for everyone. The current system provides one or two layers of specificity before the TLD, then as many more as you would like (like /item?id=9357898 on the end of this URL, something nobody will every type) - it's ideal for everyday use even if it doesn't fit into some clean sorting method you're imagining or something.
For what it's worth, today is 2015/04/11 :)
That the hostname part's components, as presented to users, goes from bottom-to-top in DNS when the rest goes from top-to-bottom is an accident of history, but one it's too late to change (in DNS). Not everything made that mistake however - Usenet didn't.
As for what you're typing in your 'awesome bar', when you start typing, your autocorrect is ranking your visited history: there's no reason it has to start at the beginning, especially when the beginning isn't the root, but there's also no reason that doesn't make sense.
In fact, drifting back to topic: GOOGLE. is in fact a TLD now. If DNS were the 'right' way round, you'd be going to //google.news - wouldn't that make more semantic sense?
Of course, in practice, we're stuck with DNS the way it is because .com is now firmly in the public consciousness. But it could easily have been different, and if I were designing something new, I'd pick the Usenet way round.
Since the AwesomeBar became a thing and I learnt the #, *, ^, + search modifiers [1] I've seldom typed an address.
- - -
[1] http://alicious.com/fast-bookmark-and-history-search-in-fire...
That's a very US-centric view. In most countries the local ccTLD will dominate, so there is _some_ hierarchy.
On that note, I'm fully with the GP. This sort of thing should be enforced. It would help with everything from spam, to fake sites, to weird domain name pollution as discussed here.
They're making a quick buck on the side. I say: all the power to them. The only ones bleeding are squatters.
Embrace the new TLDs! Go wild! Devaluate contemporary domain names! This is how we really hurt the parasites.
If I want to go to Canon's website, I will search for "Canon" or try canon.com.
I'm not going to think "Of course, canon.camera! Or maybe canon.printer or canon.toner!"
What if you wanted a new app, like cup? Now you will be able to differentiate between the different cup's easier?
All those hip new services under .rs or .io? That's not because those TLDs are somehow appropriate, that's because they have some even remotely pronounable names available. If you operated the root zone as an open registry, it would all be squatted. All of it.
Most of it would still be for sale however, but with prices no boostrapped start up could ever afford. That's what happens when you make a virtual resource more scarce.
Namespacing the root zone into TLDs makes sense. But it would be better if it was done tastefully. All these new silly TLDs just make everyone lose trust in ICANN.
This is a serious question, because I know a lot of people are against the expansion of TLDs (now I wouldn't have put .sucks on the top of my list for expansion, but...) and I haven't seen a real argument against it.