Talk:Go Daddy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Start-importance on the importance scale.
Go Daddy was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 21, 2006
Peer review Go Daddy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] DST Issues

"It now appears that the culprit was a DDOS attack."

Can this be confirmed? Sounds kind of like an excuse. GoDaddy says it effected hosted sites and email, but there where also wide-spread DNS issues as well. I don't know if it's wise to take their word for it, certainly there should be other references besides their own PR communiques. WiccaWeb 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WiccaWeb? This entry is proof the Wiccans need more schooling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.111.211 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GoDaddy Services

Should there maybe be a section about the different services offered? There's a lot of them... might be worthy to note *shrug* Kopf1988 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the case with articles relating to other registrars (see the Network Solutions page, for example). Also, we want to avoid making an article sound too much like an advertisement. --Steam Giant 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia isn't advertising space, and the particular products aren't notable. GreenJoe 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux vs Windows

Who cares, and what is the hoopla all about? Your edits fail to show why this merits inclusion. GreenJoe 15:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This was talked about in tech-oriented websites, it affected the marketshare of 2 major web servers, and I fail to see why this is more obscure than any other of the stories in this section. Lurker oi! 15:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Every web host does it though, so how does it make it notable to merit inclusion? GreenJoe 21:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Two reasons- First of all, this caused a noticeable shift in market share, a fact commented on in the media. Secondly, there are the accusations of Microsoft bribing Go Daddy to make this shift. whether or not they are true, accusations like this- coming from a well-known commentator like Bruce Perens- are surely notable. Lurker oi! 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Accusations don't belong in an enecyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a rumor mill. GreenJoe 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
an accusation reported in other news sources is news in itself. Lurker oi! 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If you put it in here, then you have to put it in the articles about 1&1, Register.com and Network Solutions because they have all done it. I read the sources, and this doesn't really stand out. GreenJoe 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen Microsoft put forth a press release that the entire "hostname portfolio" of any of the above registrars/Web hosts have "migrated onto a Microsoft solution". One can only wonder how there would be any cost benefit for "Go Daddy to transition all its parked domains from Linux to Microsoft", since Linux is free and Windows Server 2003 is, well, not -- unless some financial incentives are offered.
The Tech Republic article does a good job explaining the controversy; although the allegation by open source advocate Bruce Perens that "Microsoft has been paying hosting providers to migrate their domain parking services to Microsoft Web server platforms, presumably to inflate Web hosting statistics" has apparently disappeared from his web site. The discussion at Technocrat.net announcing Perens site is illuminating, although the comments are generally not sourceable. The article from Netcraft about Perens "faking" the type of server he runs could be sourced, however. Of additional note, Netcraft points out, "Apache is used by domain registrars Register.com, 1&1 Internet, Dotster and DirectNIC, while Demand Media/eNom uses Windows Server 2003." --LeflymanTalk 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
For me, this is more a Microsoft controversy than a Go Daddy one, and even then, it is really irrelevant. I agree with you Leflyman. We don't talk about eNom using Windows Server 2003, or the others using Apache. GreenJoe 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
While I do think the claim that Microsoft financially enticed GoDaddy to switch from Linux to Windows Server, as part of a campaign to increase market share, would be notable -- apart from the quote from Perens I can't find any other substantiation of that claim. If someone could provide a source other than mere insinuation, then it might be included. Otherwise it adds undue weight to a particular POV.--LeflymanTalk 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OutWar was a victim of GoDaddy too

http://fabar.outwar.com/news.php

"05/05/03 - Outwar.com domain was dropped by our domain name registrar Godaddy.com, we are in process of transferring the domain name to Network Solutions. This process may take up to 7 days to complete. During this time you may not be able to access the website through Outwar.com, we have set up 3 alternate Domains that you can use to access the site"

This was back when Outwar was popular. I thought I would mention this :-)

[edit] Overly critical article

I just read the GoDaddy article for the first time and thought it was overly critical. There is little to say what it does, or what services you receive, how much it costs, etc. etc. but there is a large amount of content which focuses on their advertising controversies and some websites which were taken down (controversially). I think this article should be tagged as a fixer-upper (I forget the name of the proper tag) but with my own lack of information on the topic, I'm leaving it alone. -Gohst 00:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I slapped a POV tag on it. GreenJoe 01:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an advertising space. They are more notable for the controversies surrounding them than they are for their services, which aren't particularly notable in and of themselves. That tag should be removed ... Celarnor (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Be that as it may, it's still an unbalanced article. GreenJoe 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how, I agree with Celarnor. --RucasHost (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Commercial-Related Wiki

I can only see double standards in some editors. While we forbade promoting of commercial sites and company in Wikipedia.Org, sites such as Godaddy.com can be allowed to exist here. If you need to find out more information about Godaddy.com, visit Godaddy.com. If you need to complain or write about this site, I do not think Wikipedia.Org is meant to be a platform for such purpose. Suggest putting up a blog and advertise on the search engine.

On one hand, the system blocks entry from new company hoping to "advertise" their links here. On another, such commercial sites are allowed to exist in the Wikipedia. It would be interesting to see which editor disagrees with me, and please provide your explanation as to what makes Godaddy.com suitable as a listing here whereas we rejected most of the others. The decision will open a flood gate for other commercial sites to enter Wikipedia with little value add.

If there are no better reason to keep commercial sites, I will proceed to remove them. Thanks. --Zragon

You're allowed to have articles on commercial sites if they are notable. My own website is not notable. Amazon.com is. GoDaddy has (according to the article) been around for ten years and is the leading domain name registrar with a revenue of $100,000,000. Its a notable site. -Gohst 09:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Zragon, I've remove the deletion comment from the article. We have a process for debating deletions, if you wish to propose a page for deletion you should follow it. However nominating this article will be fruitless. As Gohst points out - it's a leading US company in this field and easily meets our normal standards for inclusion. While Wikipedia isn't here to provide a listing for any and all companies, commercial sites are not verboten. We generally use notability as a yardstick for whether or not to include something. -- SiobhanHansa 12:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Could we assume that the quantifiable benchmark for a commercial company to get a place in Wikipedia is based on revenue of $100 million, and age of 10 years? The term "notable" is subjective, there are many companies out there with revenue of over $100million. Hansa, please state the para in notability page where this site applies, apart from the revenue and years in business, both of which are not stated criterion there. If that is the community consensus so be it, but appreciate if such benchmarks are indicated somewhere in the policy page including notability page. It does not matter for charity, NFP sites. But for all fairness and consistency to other commercial company, put it up where everyone can see. If I missed out such stated benchmark somewhere, please point the direction. If its based on personal judgement, state so as well for further discussion. Thanks. Zragon 23:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:N GreenJoe 23:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I should note that this is the talk page for Go Daddy and you're pretty off topic here. This discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:Notability. GreenJoe 23:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GoDaddy.mobi

This is the official domain from GoDaddy to access its services via a cellphone. You can read their June 2007 press release about it here. You can also view the WHOIS for the domain here to confirm it's theirs (it was a trademark registration). If "Go Daddy Advertisements and the Super Bowl XXXIX & XL advertisement", "Go Daddy slams US on domain privacy", and "Blog by CEO & Founder of GoDaddy.com Bob Parsons" are relevant, then surely GoDaddy.mobi is at least as relevant as it gives access to Godaddy services to 2 billion mobile internet users. In fact, according to WP:EL, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." GoDaddy.mobi is their official cellphone site. Considering there are 4 times as many cellphone users as PC users, this link cannot be ignored.--AlfredWalsh 20:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Most people aren't going to be reading Wikipedia from their mobiles, and thus the link doesn't prove any benefit. GreenJoe 20:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
"Most people aren't going to be reading Wikipedia from their mobiles" And just how do you know that? Also, with 2 billion cellphone users, I can assure you more people access Wikipedia from their cellphones than would find Bob Parson's blog of any "benefit". Why do you insist on removing the link to GoDaddy.mobi? It's a highly relevant service for this day and age. Just because you don't access Wikipedia (or GoDaddy.mobi) via your cellphone doesn't mean millions of others don't.--AlfredWalsh 21:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll start a requests for comment and we'll see what the consensus is. GreenJoe 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. For the record, you cited WP:EL as a reason for removing the official link, but when I re-added it citing and quoting the same WP:EL, you did not mention WP:EL again. WP:EL clearly states, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." That's pretty cut and dry.--AlfredWalsh 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
We already have a link to the official site. GreenJoe 21:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
We have a link to the official PC site but not the official Mobile site. I guess that's what this argument is about at the end of the day: the relevance of mobile pages in today's world. I repeat the statistic that there are 4 times as many cellphone users as PC users, so it is highly relevant IMHO.--AlfredWalsh 21:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(==Request for comment==) (aborted/incorrect format)

Should GoDaddy.mobi be included with the links? GreenJoe 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Response For the record, Dlohcierekim is a friend of GreenJoe. I think it is more prudent to have opinions from editors with no connection to either myself or GreenJoe. Thank you.--AlfredWalsh 21:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I doubt I ever heard or saw GreenJoe before. A review of our respective talk pages and contribs will show that. But lest this degrade into a nowhere conversation, I would ask AlfredWalsh to use this discussion page to muster arguments for including the link in question. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a requests for comment. Random users are supposed to come here and offer their opinions, Alfred. That's the point. GreenJoe 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's tell the whole story and let others judge for themselves: I add link. GreenJoe deletes it. I re-add it. He deletes it again. This happens 3 times. GreenJoe adds a 3RR warning to my talk page. I add it to his. He removes his. I remove mine. Literally 2 minutes later (see edit history in my talk page), Dlohcierekim, who was not at all involved in any of this, "suddenly" involves himself and undoes my talk page edit to put the 3RR back with a request for me not to remove it (he does this twice), but ignores GreenJoe's alteration of his talk page. The only way Dlohcierekim could have known about any of this within only 2 minutes (and be so adamant about it) is if GreenJoe advised him of it. They can claim what they like, but when a so-called "random" person jumps into a dispute so soon and takes sides, they lose their credibility IMHO. I am simply asking for people not involved in this now-3-way dispute to chime in, which is a fair request. Now let's leave it at that, we're all entitled to our opinions, and this one is simply mine. I will respect the consensus either way.--AlfredWalsh 00:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You can look at our talk page histories and see we've never talked before. Lots of people know about the RFC, because IT'S LISTED!!! It's meant for people to know about. He was paying attention. GreenJoe 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the 3RR not the RFC. Regardless, let's let other people state their opinions now on whether the Godaddy.mobi link should be added or deleted.--AlfredWalsh 01:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This is not appearing in the {{RFCecon list}} list. We need more participation.--AlfredWalsh 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've repaired it and started a new RfC below (the format had changed, that's why it wasn't showing up on the RFCecon list).--AlfredWalsh 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: GoDaddy.mobi

Should GoDaddy.mobi, GoDaddy's official mobile website, be included as an external link?--AlfredWalsh 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • No. It doesn't help people understand the subject of the article (the company and its controversies) any better. If it is an important part of GoDaddy's business that they have a mobile site, then this should be mentioned in the body text of the article and cited as a reference. I suspect that the mobile page is not significant enough to merit such a mention. VisitorTalk 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Godaddy.mobi is the official mobile version of GoDaddy's site, which is relevant and useful for the growing number (1 / 2) of mobile web (and iPhone) users. Wikipedia, and the internet in general, is not accessed exclusively by PC's. There are 2.5 billion mobile phone users in the world, which is 4x more than the number of PC users. WP:EL clear states, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any". Godaddy.mobi is an official link and is separate from Godaddy.com and therefore warrants its inclusion in the article.--AlfredWalsh 06:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No at least for now. The guidelines state that the article should link to the official site but not all official sites. And the point is to let readers find out more information about the company, not particularly to point them to the services. Since Wikipedia isn't really very readable by mobile devices I don't think it makes sense for us to dilute our external links section with links to different formats of websites. -- SiobhanHansa 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No It would be harmless to add it, but it is not useful either. Stick to useful. --Blue Tie 01:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No I agree that there are enough godaddy links already, and although there is an increasingly large number of mobile web users, the links at the bottom should be useful to everyone, and godaddy.mobi is not useful to everyone. Also think about it this way, should we add a mobile web link to every article that links to another site that has a mobile version? I think not. Boccobrock 20:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Godaddy Spam policy

The Universal Terms of Service policy states; 6. NO SPAM; LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.

You agree Go Daddy may immediately terminate any account which it believes, in its sole discretion, is transmitting or is otherwise connected with any spam or other unsolicited bulk email. In addition, if actual damages cannot be reasonably calculated then You agree to pay Go Daddy liquidated damages of $1 for each piece of spam or unsolicited bulk email transmitted from or otherwise connected with Your account, otherwise You agree to pay Go Daddy 's actual damages.

Couldn't this potentially apply to someone whose account was hacked?

This could also allow anyone to easily 'hack' or otherwise harass a website owner by simply including the website name within a spam-blast email message. GoDaddy will then terminate or demand an immediate response from the website owner although the owner had nothing to do with the spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.234.154 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Joe job is the concept you're looking for? Nothing new, in any case. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

Hi, i've moved the page to its proper name. i'll try n sort out the double redirects soonish. ta! ephix —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defensive registrations

Go Daddy keeps registering and re-registering names such as "stop daddy" and "go daddy sucks" in seemingly all available gTLD's - evidently something that it can do cheaply because of its status as a domain name registrar. Try looking up godaddysucks.com on a site like DNScoop and you'll be surprised at how many names they've pointed to the same IP. None of these registrations have any legit purpose other than as an attempt to keep them out of the hands of relevant consumer-complaint sites. Shouldn't this scheme at least warrant a mention on this page? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Many businesses and people do it. --JHP (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the OP that this would be worth mentioning in the article, although of course we need a reliable source to write something about this practice first so it's not original research. --RucasHost (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Godaddy-Logo.svg

Image:Godaddy-Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NoDaddy.com

  • Is NoDaddy.com notable enough to be included in the external links? GreenJoe 13:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to suggest it is not. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and a brief visit to the site makes me think it is a non-notable site that lacks the credibility required for its inclusion. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 23:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As a follow-up: a blog here is not sufficient to say a specific website is "notable." Find news sources that are not blogs or editorials, and that will go a long way to making this a valid addition. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Meeples. The nodaddy.com site does not look a site I would have confidence using as a resource. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nodaddy is a gripe site, and in my opinion gripe sites should not be linked to by Wikipedia unless they have received extensive coverage. Web traffic of nodaddy is very low according to Alexa. Cambrasa 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RateMyCop

The use of the word "cowered" is very subjective. Please objectify or remove.

"GoDaddy also cowered to a demand that the Irish website RateYourSolicitor.com be censored."

69.2.234.66 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaced "cowered" with "quickly complied with" to be more objective. Maybe complied isn't the word i'm looking for, but at least it's an improvement. John2kx (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Negativity

This article currently violates wikipedia terms. All article are supposed to be nuetral. This article has no real information about the service, other than that which displays negativity. Johnnywalterboy (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think so, please feel free to add other information. Redrocket (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Correction: articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, which does not necessarily mean that the article itself will cast a neutral light on the subject. If, for example, the amount of coverage is 70% negative, then the article should have exactly that level of negativity. If you feel that this does not accurately represent mainstream coverage, then you should by all means find sources that offer more positive coverage. If they don't exist, that's not the article's fault. The article should not be tagged for neutrality issues if all you have is a vague complaint about there being negative content in it. Provide specific examples where you believe that a differing viewpoint has been omitted. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Network Neutrality

I have removed the section on Network Neutrality as WP:SYN. The references given did not say Go Daddy was opposed to network neutrality, only that they donated to a politician who may be opposed to network neutrality. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 14:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the section, having edited it to take account of the criticism above and the POV criticism raised previously. Sam Pablo Kuper (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)