I when I read his post, I initially mistook the Aug 1 posting date for April 1st. Steve Rubel suggests that we need a .blogs domain. First of all, TLDs are generally singular (.com vs. .coms or .orgs or .nets and so on). But more importantly it's just a dumb idea.

Sorry, Steve, but I can think of no better way to say this. A year or two from now, blogs will exist in a form that's different than today. I fail to see why people continue to insist on separating weblogs from "the rest" of the web.

We don't do it for message boards. Or rumor sites. Or porn sites. Or spyware sites. Or sites powered by Microsoft servers.

Posted by jzawodn at August 02, 2004 01:37 PM

Reader Comments
# TDavid said:

Yup, bad idea, unless one is a domain registrar. Just gives them more inventory to peddle on the vast majority of folks who really don't care about anything but .com, .net and .org and country specific TLDs.

on August 2, 2004 02:00 PM
# tfr said:

Jim Winstead should start selling 3rd level domains in blo.gs for a reasonable price. ;)

on August 2, 2004 02:10 PM
# jim winstead said:

that's me, the solution for all that ails the internet.

on August 2, 2004 02:48 PM
# Keith said:

I agree totally. To me the term "blog" doesn't supersede the term "Web site" and probably never will. Sure you've got blogs that ARE Web sites, but you've also got many Web sites that HAVE blogs.

I think it should stay that way...

on August 2, 2004 02:52 PM
# Scott Johnson said:

Keith's comments above express my thoughts exactly.

on August 2, 2004 03:07 PM
# Aristotle said:

What purpose would it serve anyway?

It wouldn't enable a global listing of blogs; and experience shows that TLDs do not ease namespace clashes in the SLDs either. (Coca Cola is not going to be amused if you register cocacola.org, even if their site is .com; and many people tend to register the same SLD under multiple TLDs.)

There is absolutely no benefit in terms of categorization. There is, in fact, absolutely no benefit at all. It does not serve any discernible purpose.

on August 2, 2004 03:24 PM
# david said:

These "blog" seperation things usually come from the "blogs clutter the internet" stands..nobody will buy it even if blogs are starting to look like commercial sites. Heck, if they're starting to look like commercial sites, all the better for them right? Easy leap into the press world.

Sorry if I offended anybody, but really. A dedicated TLD? Thats just asking for it. It might look cool, but blogs are going in a different direction.

on August 2, 2004 03:57 PM
# Manish Jethani said:

I couldn't agree more. While the thought of a .blog TLD (I wanted mannu.blog) did occur to me, I don't see why people want to separate blogs from the rest of the Web.

on August 2, 2004 04:12 PM
# Larry said:

I don't have a problem with .blog (or maybe .rant would be better). It looks pretty silly having a .com/.net/.org site when it's not a company/network/organization.

on August 2, 2004 06:45 PM
# wil said:

What I don't understand is why the word "blog" at all? It's just a website. A personal webiste. They have been around for years, for as long as the web has been here.

Someone please please explain to me why we now have to call personal websites "blog"s? What's the difference to the personal site, with my thoughts, I was posting back in 1995? I smell another dot.com

on August 3, 2004 01:18 AM
# Digory said:

auoducwb beuhn.

on August 29, 2004 08:38 AM
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. My current, past, or previous employers are not responsible for what I write here, the comments left by others, or the photos I may share. If you have questions, please contact me. Also, I am not a journalist or reporter. Don't "pitch" me.


Privacy: I do not share or publish the email addresses or IP addresses of anyone posting a comment here without consent. However, I do reserve the right to remove comments that are spammy, off-topic, or otherwise unsuitable based on my comment policy. In a few cases, I may leave spammy comments but remove any URLs they contain.