Talk:GoDaddy/Archive 1

message: Go Daddy has provided domain registrations for thousands of sites, so there is nothing special about the Wikimedia Foundation. The fact that this article is part of Wikipedia is not a valid reason: see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Fredrik | talk 16:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Go Daddy and the Wikimedia Foundation

message: While I understand what is being presented, I don't think it's written in as neutral language as possible. Ardenn 00:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't work for them, but there's nothing to correct. You also have to cite sources for that addition which could be inflamatory. That section already covers the anti-spam policies well, and is cited. Ardenn 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that does happen, and I treat them the same way. If they cannot back it up with sources, it gets removed. If you think the article is a bit too positive, feel free to give it a re-write so it's more neutral. While I don't work for the company, I'll admit to being a customer of theirs. Although the Wikimedia Foundation is also a customer of theirs. Ardenn 19:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Spam Policies

message: I attempted to makes some changes, however the edits were taken out.  I am new to editing and  did not understand the whole process.  So, I would like to add the following:
1) The legal name has changed from GoDaddy Software Inc. to GoDadddy.com.
2)Ed Denison Business Leader of the Year, awarded to Bob Parsons at the Arizona Governor's 2005 Innovation Celebration 
3)Named 2004 Arizona Hot Growth Company in 2004.
4)As of March 1, 2006 according to Name Intelligence, Inc., Go Daddy is ranked #1 amongst all Net registrars in new domain registrations.
Please let me know if these changes meet approval. 
Thanks,
Lisa Ann Parsons
:Wikipedia doesn't use legal names, we use the name that the company is most often reffered to by. See also WP:AUTO. Ardenn 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pehaps we can compermise and just call it Go Daddy? Ardenn 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add some updates to this page - Godaddy 

message: The content looks like it's been copied from a GoDaddy advertisement. The entire structure of the page and the headings used - "Awards", "Major Player in IT", "Advertisements" are not neutral in nature. I'll change the language and the headings where I can. Would appreciate help. C3po
I would like to change a mistake and add a comment in the 2006 Super Bowl advertisement section.
1)  There were 14 edited versions, not 15 as stated currently. Check the link (13 versions rejected) 14 accepted.
2) I would like to add a comment about the term 'Godaddy-esque.', according to Bob Parsons, it has become a descriptive term of sorts, coined to describe the racy and edgy advertisements that have become its trademark and have been used by other companies as in the case of Carl's Jr.'s Paris Hilton car wash commercial.  "GoDaddy-Esque means it will be fun, edgy and just a touch inappropriate," Bob Parsons, founder and president of Go Daddy, said in a statement. 
Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lam395 (talk • contribs) 
:Sounds fine. Ardenn 00:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page Reads Like a Commercial 

message: No citations have been mentioned for any of the several awards listed. Can anyone add the proper citations to complete this section? I'll leave the text on the page for a while so that citations can be added. If proper citations for the awards aren't found, I'll move these to the Talk Page. When the citations have been added, they can be moved back. C3po 11:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're cited now. Most of them can be found on the bottom of Go Daddy's own website. Ardenn 04:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:CITE allows for it to be cited from their own website, and I'm sure if it wasn't true, it wouldn't be listed or they'd be sued. I had that problem with a few of the awards, where some of them simply didn't list the year Go Daddy had won, so they weren't listed. I don't know what is up with that. Ardenn 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Required for Awards 

message: So what's going on with the NPOV dispute? Ardenn 04:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: This is partially a reminder for me and partially a suggestion for someone who's not as lazy as I am.  The article may do well to mention the ten thousand dollars donated to assist the development of OpenSSH, via a donation to OpenBSD.  Janizary 03:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, be sure to cite sources.  Ardenn 03:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[OpenBSD]] 

message: Overall, the article has several structure problems. Some of them were mentioned in the peer reveiew, but there's also others:
* First off, the detail about the commercials (which are the most known thing about the company) is extremely scanty. Give more information about the commercials themselves, the reactions, the and avoid the weasel words currently there. Also, make sure the article is written in the past tense: "Monday's RAW" isn't helpful, as the reader cannot know whether whether the Monday was the day after the Super Bowl or this Monday. 
* Add company data. The infobox is incomplete, for beginners. 
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA (2nd) 

message: Why is there no article on 1&1?  After all, they are #2 for registered domains  (just surpassed by GoDaddy), and one of the biggest hosts around.  Just because they don't have semi-pornographic commercials doesn't mean they don't matter.  I would create the article, but I don't feel qualified to do so, so I'm just gonna gripe. Mazin07 (C)/(T) 19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, 1&1 is a webhost. They and their parent company use Schlund.de, or schlund.info if you do a WHOIS search. There isn't very much about them out there, so writing an article on them is next to impossible because it can't be verified. Ardenn 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: According to RegistrarStats, Network Solutions is still #2. See also List of top ranking domain registrars. Schlund is #7. Ardenn 20:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what Netcraft says, I believe, last time I checked.  It was pretty much 1&1 and GoDaddy vying for 1st.  Mazin07 (C)/(T) 01:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that means for WEBHOSTING since 1&1 is not a registar. Ardenn 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By all means, research it, write the article, verify and cite your sources. It should hold up. Ardenn 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: schlund.de is part of the 1 & 1 group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.129.42 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's 1&1? 

message: This section is grossly inaccurate and incomplete. I have removed it. Not only does it not provide examples of GoDaddy campaigns that have provided domains at less than cost, it cites ICANN as the provider of domains, which it is not. VeriSign sets the pricing on .com and .net domain names, not ICANN. Also, many companies other than GoDaddy provide domains for free with hosting packages, and this is seen as a common practice. 69.195.18.10 05:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underpricing Category 

message: I am assuming a GoDaddy employee (68.2.219.20)  in Scottsdale made the edits dated September 1. I have undone the changes. Shame. Jasonid 10:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant Attempts by GoDaddy to edit article in their favor 

message: I've removed a number of outdated and unreliable sources (such as blogs), as well as self-promotional material (from the subject themselves). Generally citations should be to verifiable published works which have some level of oversight, which should also come from sources outside the article's subject. Look for magazine or news articles which make the claims that are being presented. --LeflymanTalk 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sources and some claims 

message: I have entensive documentation regarding GoDaddy's lack of enforcement of ToS violations against Rogueradiolive. This went all the way up to President Bob's office, through the press office, etc. How do I make this verifiable? Do I need to post the supporting material to my blog? I have not done so, because it would result in further harassment from Jack Idema and his fan club. I believe the last GoDaddy employee I discussed the matter with was Ben Butler, 480-505-8816. I have had discusssions about the situation with four police departments and the FBI. GoDaddy thinks that it is the FBI's job to interpret their ToS for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harassment Policies

message: The Go Daddy Bike is on American Chopper, this Thursday night on TLC. GreenJoe 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Go Daddy Bike

message: This article says essentially nothing about Go Daddy as a company and what it offers - it is about advertisments and complaints. It should be rewritten to actually talk about the company.--38.115.166.174 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: — That was then, this is now.  To me, the article looks better but has too much on the negative side and not enough  that is positive.  I'll work on that. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Go Daddy? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  DST Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Wikipedia isn't advertising space, and the particular products aren't notable. GreenJoe 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GoDaddy Services 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Every web host does it though, so how does it make it notable to merit inclusion? GreenJoe 21:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Accusations don't belong in an enecyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a rumor mill. GreenJoe 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: an accusation reported in other news sources is news in itself. Lurker oi! 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Linux vs Windows

message: 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)
replies: text: I slapped a POV tag on it. GreenJoe 01:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Be that as it may, it's still an unbalanced article. GreenJoe 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how, I agree with Celarnor. --RucasHost (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overly critical article

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:N GreenJoe 23:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove Commercial-Related Wiki

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: I'll start a requests for comment and we'll see what the consensus is. GreenJoe 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We already have a link to the official site. GreenJoe 21:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: GoDaddy.mobi

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Having your account with Go Daddy (or anywhere) hacked is almost always due to weak passwords, saved passwords, public pc's, infected pc's, poor site security, etc., so I would say Yes, you are still ultimately responsible for your account sending spam by a hacker.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.179.69 (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Godaddy Spam policy

message: 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)
thread_title: Moved

message: 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)
replies: text: No. Many businesses and people do it. --JHP (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Defensive registrations 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Godaddy-Logo.svg

message: *Is NoDaddy.com notable enough to be included in the external links? GreenJoe 13:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)

text: So all of us including me are contributing to this grand scheme?  Well I haven't seen a cent coming in thusfar!  But in all seriousness the link that you tried to add does not meet the WP:LINKS criteria for inclusion.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Under that criteria, especially #5 of "links normally to be avoided," the link to Go Daddy itself is forbidden.Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.No Daddy is not a fringe view.  Selective enforcement of your rules isn't acceptable per your rules.  Enforce your policy:  Either allow the link to No Daddy or eliminate the link to Go Daddy. 71.106.211.188 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikipedia guidelines, I am removing No Daddy from the links as it is a POV gripe site, and to include it on Wikipedia is not acceptable, as stated in the views of most of the users above. Having the link to GoDaddy.com is an exception to the rules, as it is the subject of the article. If you wish to challenge this, please discuss it here or take it up for voting before reverting the page. But I suspect that whoever wants the link to stay there is probably one of the people behind the nodaddy website. WIKIPEEDIO 20:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NoDaddy.com

message: 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)
thread_title:  RateMyCop 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you think so, please feel free to add other information. Redrocket (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Johnnywalterboy's comment is rather like moaning that an article on the Nazis is not written from a neutral POV, because it talks about lots of very negative things that they did. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Negativity 

message: Godaddy cancelled their domain privacy option and listed their personal information, next they suspended the domain.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.194.210 (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Judicial-inc.biz

message: 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)
replies: text: Nice job. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Network Neutrality 

message: I believe this article is very accurate and correctly reflects GoDaddy's undue aggressiveness in enforcing their policies. I have not heard any complaints of any other registrar (well besides verisign hijacking .com). And while their terms might dictate that they can suspend any domain at any time for any reason (most companies put such stipulations in their terms) generally the only time registrars suspend domains is if they were purchased with a stolen credit card or are hosting a phishing site (which I think are mostly purchased with stolen cards, anyways)
FWIW given the length of the article it has *too many* citations and there can not be any dispute as to the accuracy of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.174.69 (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is accurate 

message: there is no advertising or affiliate link in nodaddy.com
and if you search godaddy in google the 3rd link will be that site
should it be mention in article ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.74.161 (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nodaddy.com ( unsatisfied customers ) 

message: RE: suggestion this is promotional ad-speak
We've had this discussion in the past but couldn't find it in the archives.  If anyone can point us in the right direction to find it, it's appreciated.
We have and continue to be up front about our identity and have updated this page with factual information backed up by citations. ParsonsRep (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the article again, it looks like this was just a misreading of the paragraphs I'd glanced at (I read "Google" as "Go Daddy" in "head of b-to-b markets for Google, offered an in-depth analysis"). The rest seems pretty neutral; I'll take the concern flags off. --McGeddon (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI Discussion - Go Daddy Article Additions 

message: I'm not convinced this section is appropriate in the context of an encyclopedia article, especially not the way it's currently presented, so I've added a Salescatalog template to it. Feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the "products and services" section, since no-one's come to its defence and there was already a discussion along these lines.
muammer--88.252.211.52 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Products and services" section 

message: Lobbying is a controversy now? Epic fail again, wikipedia. 205.238.239.135 (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" 

message: (Full disclosure: I’m a Dotster employee) The comparison below between Dotster and GoDaddy adds nothing to the article and is in fact inaccurate. The statement: “Dotster was losing domains at the rate of 1000 per day and selling assets to generate cash,” is factually incorrect. The article referenced to support that statement does not mention or imply why Dotster sold RevenueDirect to Sedo.  Instead, a better reference to the reasons for selling RevenueDirect can be found in the official press release Dotster Sells RevenueDirect to Sedo which explains how Dotster made the sale to refocus on improving and growing core services.   Additionally, the growth rate of Dotster or any other registrar compared to GoDaddy is not necessary to illustrate GoDaddy’s growth, and instead seems biased in a negative fashion against Dotster rather than maintaining a neutral tone. This comparison to Dotster is unnecessary to explain GoDaddy’s growth, and I want to suggest that the Dotster references and the associated graph be removed. --Dotsterrep (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that you routinely use the phrase "I AM AFFILIATED WITH GODADDY.COM" in your edit summaries and have made several contributions to the article, removing the COI notice doesn't seem like an obvious idea.  Favonian (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GoDaddy/Dotster Comparison Bias and Inaccuracy 

message: The "Controversies" section here was just awful. It severely violated WP:NPOV policy by giving WP:UNDUE weight to very minor instances, which were described in biased language and only supported by sources that do not meet WP:RS rules. I've tried to clean it up by removing the worst offenses and then tagging another section. Even with those edits it could still use some clean up. The section can be expanded, but it'd need reliable sources and a much more careful approach to wording. DreamGuy (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section violates policies 

message: So why is the company called "Go Daddy"?  Not the most obvious of choices for a domain registrar ... Maikel (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, the ads are discussed a lot in the article, but no one gives any kind of rationale for them; is there one?  I looked them up here instead of visiting their web site because I assumed, based on the ads, that it was a porn site (I'd been surprised to find the name come up when I looked for web hosting companies!).  KarlM (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I couldn't find much about this but looking back to 06 the company posted losses since it's formation. Does anyone have information if the company still runs in the red or has it made a turn-around? Woods01 (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So this comment is now five years old and see current news below to answer the question. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is GoDaddy profitable? 

message: The introduction summary has recently been updated to more accurately summarize the contents of the article.  On the discussion page (Intro section) we asked for feedback on the most recent changes but received none.
It doesn't seem there have been any objections to the information added to the introduction.  If no one has any feedback, contributions, or objections by 1/13 -- we will remove the tag.  Thank you. ParsonsRep (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag Removal for introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents.  

message: Wild West Domains redirects to Godaddy, but there is no mention of Wild West in the Godaddy article whatsoever.  Can anyone shed some light on this?  Thanks and cheers.    Thorncrag  08:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild West? 

message: I have removed this section for a number of reasons, but most of all because it only cites one source which is only a court filed complaint.  Failing verifiability.  It also reeks of non-NPOV and conflict of interest and refers only to a filed court complaint; see WP:NOTNEWS.  Please do not re-include this section into the article without citing additional published sources regarding this topic.    Thorncrag  00:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The material has several faults. The suit may be added when it gets sufficient coverage in 3rd-party sources.   Will Beback  talk   00:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits were re-inserted again. It looks like they're "determined." Basileias (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So, four years later, what happened to the suit? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employee class action section removed 

message: I added a section titled Down Syndrome to the Marketing section. This is because the article presents an unbalanced view of the business of GoDaddy. While the Philanthropy section mentions donations to charities for children with disabilities and the Marketing section mentions many good marketing events, the reality is that the charitable donations are, in part, made possible by the hosting of sites such as the one cited in the link (I am not a shill for this site!).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.229.242 (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down Syndrome  

message: Just a note: The company is officially "GoDaddy.com" or "Go Daddy", as opposed to "GoDaddy". While there's nothing wrong with nicknames, it's more encyclopedic to refer to the company by it's proper name in the same respect that the article on Coca-Cola, for example, uses "Coca-Cola" whenever possible as opposed to "Coca Cola" or "Coke". Warthomp (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll try to remember. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: Just because a term is sourced from an article, even as a "lede" (see GoDaddy article version), does not mean that it necessarily meets Wikipedia NPOV standards. Especially when the sources are not even peer-reviewed publications such as, in this case, CNNMoney.com and SportsBusinessDaily.com. In fact, upon reviewing these articles, "racy" is an adjective used only in one (CNN Money) and not in the  lead. In fact, it is only used at the end of the article, in reference to AdRANTS Daily, to quote:
"Adrants Daily, a popular Web log for advertising buffs, reported Monday that its servers crashed from all the visitors who clicked on a link to the banned ad.
In Adrants' opinion, the commercial that aired was "more racy" than the one banned before the game. "In all it's just a stunt marketing strategy that worked. Everyone is talking about it and will be for a long time," one entry on the blog read.CNN article" In this context, it is worth noting that "Racy" is in fact one of AdRANTS main subject categories. Thus, any insistence on using "racy" to characterize GoDaddy's advertizements seems to promote AdRANTS, rather than to meet WikiPedia NPOV. From [Wiktionary, definition of "racy"]:
"racy (comparative racier, superlative raciest)
Having a strong flavor indicating origin; of distinct characteristic taste; tasting of the soil; hence, fresh; rich.
Hence: Exciting to the mental taste by a strong or distinctive character of thought or language; peculiar and piquant; fresh and lively.
Mildly risque, exciting.
She wore a racy dress that was just barely appropriate for the occasion."
Does use of the term "racy" really seem to meet Neutral Point of View standards here?
Dcattell (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the Lede is a summary of the article, there doesn't have to be a source in the lede for the term if it is sourced throughout the article. In this case, it's both sourced in the lede and throughout the article. Secondly, where in the world are you getting that in order to be NPOV compliant that a reliable source has to be a 'peer reviewed' publication? There is no doubt whatsoever that CNN is a reliable source. Not to mention that well over half of the article concerns the 'racy' marketing strategy of the company. Also, you are not supposed to insert external links into the main body of the article as you have done here. I don't want to edit war over this, but the fact of the matter is you are incorrect here. Stating that GoDaddy.com is known for it's racy marketing is a well sourced fact. Just use Google news and search for it. I rather you just reverted yourself and put the lede to where it was, but it can't stay as you've currently left it. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, first, you and your sources have entirely convinced me that GoDaddy wishes to have racy advertizements, and that some people perceive them to be so. This does not mean that the advertizemants are objectively so, or that there are no dissenting opinions in this matter. The Orlando Sentinal article, which you cite, "GoDaddy.com chief sold on racing -- and racy ads", which goes on to describe CEO Bob Parson's interest in motor racing and in promoting his company by this means even suggests that the term "racy" may be considered to be a term which GoDaddy actively promotes in relationship with their company. The use of ambiguous, double-entendres which seem to also be a part of the promotional campaign of a company may not be the best choice of vocabulary for the article lead. What about using one of the following synonyms for "racy" (from thesaurus.com): animated, bright, buoyant, clever, distinctive, entertaining, exciting, exhilarating, fiery, forceful, forcible, gingery, heady, keen, lively, mettlesome, peppery, piquant, playful, poignant, pungent, rich, salty, saucy*, sharp, snappy, sparkling, spicy, spirited, sportive, sprightly, stimulating, strong, tangy, tart, tasty, vigorous, vivacious, witty, zesty? Second, as far as the relationship between peer-reviewed publications and neutral point of view, this goes to the quality of the [reference sources]: the better the reference source the more likely it is to go towards a neutral and objective view. However, as this is not really an academic subject, which is what I am more comfortable dealing with, I think that you are entirely correct to suggest that it is unreasonable to expect such sources in this case, especially since it seems more a matter of opinion than any thing else. Third, I wonder that, since under United States law, Godaddy is considered to be a person, if the rules for biographies of living persons might apply [WP:BLP]. In any case, you are obviously much more informed about, interested in the topic of, and willing to be attentive to, this topic, than I am. So, I will make one more attempt to edit this article to your satisfaction. Feel free after that to make any changes which you wish, and I will not interfere, since it is really outside of my interest area in terms of Wikipedia editing. But thank you for an interesting and informative discussion. It seems like there are always more things to learn, for example, I was unaware of the external links in the main body rule, so thank you for pointing it out, and I will make sure that this link is removed. Dcattell (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looks ok to me now. Thanks for the thoughtful reply and edit. Racy probably fits best, I was going to change it to "sexually suggestive", but more sources describe the ads as "racy". In any case, I don't think the GoDaddy article falls within the BLP purview, but I'm not positive on that. As for my interest in the article, the way I came across it was patrolling the recent changes page, to help fight vandalism. Then the pages wind up on your watch list. heh. Thanks again and happy editing. Dave Dial (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "racy" and WP:NPOV 

message: *Go Daddy frequently "fines" customers accused of spamming or other policy violations. When accused of a policy violation customers are given the option of paying a U.S. $199 fine and staying with Go Daddy, or paying a U.S. $75 administrative fee and initiate a transfer within 24 hours to another Web host and registrar, or having their domain names suspended and made nontransferable until they expire if they do not pay.
I dislike this in the controversy section and have placed it here on the talk page. Reading the sources supplied it sounds like customers are being fined for a breech of a TOS agreement or just plain engaging in illegal activity. While his may be a "controversy," I don't see how it's one for Go Daddy. Basileias (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fines"

message: *Robertson, Jordan. "Go Daddy sold for $2.3 billion." Associated Press at Houston Chronicle. July 1, 2011.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: As much as I know many people in this community object to SOPA, does it not seem a little political to be posting discussion of GoDaddy and SOPA here?  Considering that (a) this is an ongoing issue, and (b) Wikipedia has taken a particular stand, it would seem to be that Wiki is heading towards taking political stands in it's information, and not providing a balanced look.  For me, this is step towards Wiki being less about being right, and more about making political statements, which would limit the true appeal of the site over time.  174.94.119.137 (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a major ongoing boycott of Go Daddy services due to their stance.  We have talked about controversial decisions by companies and boycotts in other articles.  204.106.255.122 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess my concern is mostly that Wikipedia is "on the other side" of the issue here, which makes it look like the organization has a reason to keep this thing in place, more to do with political than it being factual.174.94.119.137 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedians are on the "other side" of every possible imaginable issue, thats a consequence of open editing. It this is news to you then you need to do some more research on how Wikipedia works before depending on it. --71.191.197.79 (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedians, perhaps... but this is one of those rare cases where Wikipedia as an organization is taking a stand (and threatening to go dark) which seems to put this sort of entry past being factual, and more onto furthing Wiki's political agenda.  I just don't think it is a fair representation, it doesn't just "report" or inform, but also fuels the fire. 174.94.119.137 (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go Daddy and SOPA? 

message: GoDaddy: A glimpse of the Internet under SOPA David Rusenko of Weebly.com 12/26/2011: 
*One Saturday in the summer of 2009, (...) I received a call from an unknown number on my cell phone, sometime around noon. (...) It was someone from GoDaddy's abuse department, who informed me that they were "turning off" weebly.com due to a complaint. "WHAT?" I said frantically into the phone. He explained that they had received a complaint about the content of a site, and that they were removing the DNS entries for weebly.com because of it. I asked him if they had contacted us previously -- he responded that they hadn't. The site in question featured a bad review of a local business, and that business had complained. Why on earth would a domain registrar take it upon themselves to police content? As calmly as I possibly could at that moment, I explained to him that Weebly served millions of websites -- most of them US small businesses... 
Interesting. --Atlasowa (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So what happened after that? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  weebly.com 2009 

message: Wikia CEO Craig Palmer announces leaving Go Daddy. 99.108.16.161 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikia leaving Go Daddy

message: one of the references is http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/01453717233/godaddy-boycott-fizzles-twice-as-many-domains-transfer-as-out.shtml. 
the original article said that Godaddy lost 14k accounts but gained 20k afterwards, but the second update mentioned that Namecheap got 80k transfers, so the original number was way off.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.30.89 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer Numbers for the SOPA boycott 

message: The article needs more about their services, and perhaps less about their advertising.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  more about services 

message: Is it "Go Daddy" or "GoDaddy"? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained in a note above, it is "GoDaddy.com" and/or "Go Daddy". -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: There's a few edits on the page regarding the outage yesterday (Sept 10 2012) and they both indicate that the cause was a DDoS attack potentially by a member of anon. The only citation is a Tech Crunch article. I'm working on digging up some more coverage but this is just awful. 192.249.47.202 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 DNS Outage 

message: The accusation that GoDaddy buys up domains people search for and then raises the price to sell them is a serious one, and it needs significant material to back it up. A Forbes article is cited, but that article shows obvious bias, and it offers nothing to support such a claim. In fact, it merely links to another page that is no longer active. At the very least this accusation needs to be marked with a dubious tag.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.180.197 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the page linked to by Forbes is viewable directly at http://zen.id.au/2012/why-you-should-never-use-godaddy-ever-again/. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that! I still believe it is a highly dubious claim. Some guy writes a short complaint about it on his blog (with no evidence), then it gets linked to by a Forbes opinion piece. Hardly the standard wikipedia strives to adhere to.--72.34.180.54 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Price Gouging