Talk:.biz

.biz before ICANN

Wasn't thier a history of .Biz existing before ICANN? shouldn't that be on this page? ((unsigned comment by 87.74.45.180))

I have added a section about this in the article. S Sepp 22:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct sites

Both Turkish sites under the "Use" section are defunct. turkleriz.biz and fenerliyiz.biz. Maybe find replacements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:782:400:BFD0:8DD:692D:B15B:86A3 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

extreme prejudice, why ?

I have toiled on a .biz for months, its homepage is not in the first 1k listings for a direct search. Every other .com or .org domain that I have experimented with has shot up to the top with little or no content. I wore my fingers raw trying to get this .biz to stick, but it seems now to be only punishment.

Why reward rich asses who sit on .com domains and dont make a site from them? Why do real developers who try to make a .biz get the beat down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.5.197 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting fact about Turkey

As the word biz means "we, us" in Turkish Language it's mostly preferred by organizations and groups of people, and Turkish websites with the .biz domain is mostly read as e.g. "www.xiz.biz" ="we are x"

Factual inaccuracies require correction

The previous .biz article contained some apparent personal biases that were factually incorrect, namely that .biz enjoyed "little use by major reputable companies", and was known for "spam, scams and pornography". These were objectively false statements and were deleted from the page content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingwarren (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needed corrections

Correction needed: In the vertical right margin summary of the .biz domain extension, the last link to the registry's website is no longer valid. The correct url is: http://www.neustarregistry.biz.

Update: The above correction has been completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingwarren (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, the .biz article contained an erroneous link to the .bz registry in the "See Also" section. The .bz extension is a ccTLD for the country of Belize, and bears no association whatsoever to the .biz registry. Consequently, this link was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingwarren (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable websites?

So far, every time I've run into this top-level domain, it has been exclusively used for spamming or inclusion of unwanted advertising into other, non-biz domain names. Additionally, it's pretty silly, I would have a very hard time taking a business seriously, if they told me that their URL was "mycompany.biz" .. which probably explains all the "cityname-mycompany.com" type registrations.

Can anyone provide me with a compelling example of why I shouldn't just block this top-level domain entirely at my nameserver?!? Zaphraud (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Your comments here suggest a personal bias and complete lack of education on the .biz extension. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fact-based information resource. Please remember that. There are currently 110,000,000 Google indexed pages from .biz websites around the world. The .biz extension surpassed two million registrations in June 2008, and there exist many viable, content-rich .biz (Business) websites on the net. I was speaking just today with the Executive Director of the Georgia Women's Business Council whose official web address is: GWBC.biz. You might also see: Billboard.biz, RedDoor.biz, GamesIndustry.biz, South Mississippi.biz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingwarren (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is right. The great majority of .biz and .info sites are either spam or (just as bad) SEO garbage. Microsoft actually blocked these entire TLDs at one point because they were being abused so heavily to send spam links on MSN Messenger. 86.166.74.199 (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]