We’re going to have confusion, but that may be OK.
ICANN’s new gTLD committee has decided that it will not place singular and plural versions of new top level domain strings into contention sets, shutting down what was effectively an “appeal” by the Governmental Advisory Committee.
Here are my thoughts.
Yes, plurals and singulars will confuse internet users and domain registrants alike.
There’s going to be some confusion. Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke.
I’ve written a post about a confused accountant registering domains that summarizes what I think will happen.
The casual web surfer will also be confused. Was that MyCPA.accountant or MyCPA.accountants?
Heck, even I’d be confused trying to remember which one of the above was the right address.
But the casual web surfer will also be confused between MyCPA.accountant and MyCPA.com and MyCPAaccountant.com.
There’s going to be confusion even with .com, especially at first.
Anyone who owns a .com in which there’s a popular site at the matching .info or .biz can tell you this. Anyone who owns a second level .com that matches a first level string can also confirm this.
So if you want to eliminate all confusion, then you should eliminate the entire new TLD program.
Whether you think this is a problem depends on if you think new TLDs will be successful or not.
If you think new TLDs will be successful, then you probably think there will be multiple rounds and there will be tens of thousands (if not millions) of top level domains at some point in the future.
If there are tens of thousands, then top level domains will start acting like second level domains. There will be lots of strings that are similar to other strings.
If you don’t think new TLDs will be successful, and there will only be one round’s worth of strings, then you are rightfully concerned that this will be a unique source of confusion. But if new TLDs aren’t successful, then does it matter anyway?
Google thinks they’re confusing.
Although many portfolio new TLD applicants argued that singulars and plurals are no big deal, the one with the deepest pockets disagreed.
Google filed objections against 9 applications that are plurals of strings it applied for, including .kid vs. .kids and .game vs. .games.
Of course, if you have as much money as Google, you should go ahead and try to get rid of competing strings this way.
What do the string confusion panels do now?
I really don’t understand how any of the string confusions objections filed on the basis of singular/plural can win now. If a panel does rule in Google’s favor, arguing that .kid and .kids should not coexist, then what happens?
If I’m one of these objectors, I’d carefully consider if I can withdraw my objection and get some of my money back.
John Berryhill says
“Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke.”
It must be convenient to have the certitude of one’s own opinion in order to pre-emptively determine that anyone with a different point of view than yours is wrong, without hearing them out.
How many times a day, do you suppose, are any of the following confused:
house.com / houses.com
dog.com / dogs.com
car.com / cars.com
lawyer.com / lawyers.com
Each of those pairs of sites is, right now, run by different sets of people. Where were you when we needed a rule against it? I don’t believe I have ever seen you write a single word about this awful problem in years.
First, let’s narrow down the issue you want to address. We are talking about the English language, and we are talking about plurals which are not Germanic plurals such as “child / children”, correct? If not, then correct me that you do not mean such pairs as “ox / oxen”, which take the German plural form, and you intend to refer to the ones which take an “s”. Whether or not you would extend this “obvious” rule to possesives, “your / yours”, “me / mine” is another story.
There is a larger picture to consider in relation to “confusion” though.
Let’s say, 10 years from now or so, consumers are used to the idea that “any noun can be a TLD”.
IMHO, it would make a lot more sense to have “only singular nouns” or “only plural nouns”.
But there wasn’t a rule saying “only singular nouns” or “only plural nouns”. In the absence of that rule, then if you put them into contention sets, the result is, for any one of thousands of nouns, you are going to have to remember which ones are plural and which ones are singular on the basis of “who won an auction in 2013”.
So, without blowing any smoke, can you tell me what is the apparently self evident principle by which it is not confusing to have:
lawyers.com / lawyer.com
but it would be confusing to have
patent.lawyer / patent.lawyers
What non-smoke-blowing principle makes one situation okay, and the other not?
Andrew Allemann says
@ John Berryhill –
You left off the sentence directly before “anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke”, which reads “There’s going to be some confusion.” Surely you wouldn’t argue there will be no confusion between these two?
You seem to have interpreted that my opinion is that singulars and plurals of the same string should not be allowed on the grounds that they will cause confusion.
That’s not what I believe. I just believe that they, like many other things on the web, will cause “some confusion”. History and data tells us that there is confusion between TLDs, and certainly that will continue with new TLDs.
Yes, there is “some confusion” between Car.com and Cars.com, Lawyer.com and Lawyers.com, etc. Is it massive? I doubt it.
Do I think that Car.com and Cars.com should not co-exist? Of course not.
Heck, there’s even some confusion between Domain Name Wire and Domain Name News, which baffles me to this day.
I’ve even heard of some confusion between John Berryhill and Zac Muscovitch. The other day someone asked who that “poopy-head UDRP lawyer” is, and I mistakenly said it was Zac.
John Berryhill says
And I forgot to add “Anyone who says different is a poopy-head”. So, have at it.
Domo Sapiens says
La .com’sa Nostra loves this confusion 🙂
Dot com rush in the making.
John Berryhill says
@Andrew – I had a collision between my pet peeve at pre-emptive well poisoning (the “anyone who disagrees” thing), and the conversational “you” in the rest of my comment.
I agree that Zak is not a poopy head.
Where we are headed is that “whether a noun will be plural, singular or both” will be answered by (a) whether there was an objection, as not all pairs are involved in disputes, (b) what the panelist in any given case thought and (c) who won an auction. I’m sure that any number of poopy heads could have dealt with the question at the outset, but here we are.
M. Menius says
It is somewhat confusing to the consumer. And it poses a greater risk to those who invest in building a business. Singular and plurals are only one letter off. This will result in some cross traffic and the “lesser” of the two domains enjoying the greater investment & marketing of the closely spelled competitor. It’s similar to the principle underlying trademark protection in which you cannot create confusion in the marketplace by using the name of a business that already exists, i.e. can’t have an Outback Steakhouse vs. Outbacks Steakhouse. Almost identical dilemma with singular vs. plural. Not saying it can’t be done, just that it causes excessive and unnecessary marketplace problems. Disallowing it greatly outweighs the alternative.
raghuath says
Could you please advice me on this.
Recently I have registered a domain name for my shopping cart, but that is already exists with plural phrase. Example : I registered ‘wellnessapple.com’ , but later I found “wellnessapples.com” is already existing. Will this effect my shopping cart in any way.