Jump to content

Talk:GoDaddy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,820 edits
m Signing comment by 173.165.30.89 - "→Transfer Numbers for the SOPA boycott: new section"
 
(117 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Controversial}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Not a forum}}
{{Article history
|action1=PR
|action1=PR
|action1date=19:48, 21 May 2006
|action1date=19:48, 21 May 2006
Line 15: Line 17:
|currentstatus=FGAN
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Websites|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Companies|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Companies|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Arizona|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|auto=Inherit|importance=|AZ=Yes|AZ-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=Mid|computing-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Animation|importance=low|tv=yes|European-animation=yes|European-animation-importance=Mid}}
}}
}}
{{Controversial}}
{{notaforum}}

== What about Go Daddy? ==
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.--[[Special:Contributions/38.115.166.174|38.115.166.174]] ([[User talk:38.115.166.174|talk]]) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

== DST Issues ==

<blockquote>
"It now appears that the culprit was a DDOS attack."
</blockquote>
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''. [[User:WiccaWeb|WiccaWeb]] 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WiccaWeb? This entry is proof the Wiccans need more schooling. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.162.111.211|70.162.111.211]] ([[User talk:70.162.111.211|talk]]) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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* [[User:Kopf1988|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. --[[User:Steam Giant|Steam Giant]] 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::I agree. Wikipedia isn't advertising space, and the particular products aren't notable. [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]] 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

==Linux vs Windows==
Who cares, and what is the hoopla all about? Your edits fail to show why this merits inclusion. [[User:GreenJoe|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. [[User:Lurker|<span style="background-color:lightblue;color:black">Lurker</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Lurker|<font color="red">''oi!''</font>]]</sup> 15:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
::Every web host does it though, so how does it make it notable to merit inclusion? [[User:GreenJoe|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. [[User:Lurker|<span style="background-color:lightblue;color:black">Lurker</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Lurker|<font color="red">''oi!''</font>]]</sup> 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Accusations don't belong in an enecyclopedia. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia isn't a rumor mill]]. [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]] 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::an accusation reported in other news sources is news in itself. [[User:Lurker|<span style="background-color:lightblue;color:black">Lurker</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Lurker|<font color="red">''oi!''</font>]]</sup> 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. [[User:GreenJoe|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.<br />The [http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877_11-6063349.html 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 [http://technocrat.net/d/2006/4/10/2276 Technocrat.net] announcing Perens site is illuminating, although the comments are generally not sourceable. The [http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/04/04/open_source_parking_spoofing_headers_to_benefit_apache.html 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." --<font size="-2"><strong>[[User:Leflyman|Leflyman]]<sup>[[User talk:Leflyman|Talk]]</sup></strong></font> 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. [[User:GreenJoe|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 [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] to a particular POV.--<font size="-2"><strong>[[User:Leflyman|Leflyman]]<sup>[[User talk:Leflyman|Talk]]</sup></strong></font> 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

== 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 :-)

==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. -[[User:Gohst|Gohst]] 00:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:I slapped a POV tag on it. [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]] 01:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[WP:NOT|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 ... [[User:Celarnor|Celarnor]] ([[User talk:Celarnor|talk]]) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
::Be that as it may, it's still an unbalanced article. [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]] 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't see how, I agree with Celarnor. --[[User:RucasHost|RucasHost]] ([[User talk:RucasHost|talk]]) 10:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

==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.
--[[User:Zragon|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. -[[User:Gohst|Gohst]] 09:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Zragon, I've remove the deletion comment from the article. We have a [[WP:AfD|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 [[WP:Notability|notability]] as a yardstick for whether or not to include something. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|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 [[WP:Notability|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 [[WP:Notability|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. [[User:Zragon|Zragon]] 23:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[WP:N]] [[User:GreenJoe|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]]. [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]] 23:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

==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 [https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/news/release_view.asp?news_item_id=96&app_hdr here]. You can also view the WHOIS for the domain [http://www.whois.sc/godaddy.mobi 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.--[[User:AlfredWalsh|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. [[User:GreenJoe|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.--[[User:AlfredWalsh|AlfredWalsh]] 21:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I'll start a [[WP:RFC|requests for comment]] and we'll see what the consensus is. [[User:GreenJoe|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.--[[User:AlfredWalsh|AlfredWalsh]] 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::We already have a link to the official site. [[User:GreenJoe|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.--[[User:AlfredWalsh|AlfredWalsh]] 21:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Should GoDaddy.mobi be included with the links? [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]] 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''No,there are too many links to Go Daddy as is''' and remove [http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/superbowl05/landing.asp?isc=sbsite105 Go Daddy Advertisements and the Super Bowl XXXIX & XL advertisement] and [http://www.bobparsons.com/index.html Blog by CEO & Founder of GoDaddy.com Bob Parsons] as well. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not an link farm]]. [[Wikipedia:External_links]], "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." I'm sure the top page suffices.[[User_talk:Dlohcierekim| '''Cheers,<font color="#009500"> :) Dlohcierekim''' </font>]] 21:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:'''Response''' For the record, [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]] is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADlohcierekim&diff=155284950&oldid=155279851#GreenJoe friend] of [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]]. I think it is more prudent to have opinions from editors with no connection to either myself or [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]]. Thank you.--[[User:AlfredWalsh|AlfredWalsh]] 21:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
::For the record, I doubt I ever heard or saw [[User:GreenJoe|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 [[User:AlfredWalsh|AlfredWalsh]] to use this discussion page to muster arguments for including the link in question. [[User_talk:Dlohcierekim| '''Cheers,<font color="#009500"> :) Dlohcierekim''' </font>]] 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
::This is a [[WP:RFC|requests for comment]]. Random users are supposed to come here and offer their opinions, Alfred. That's the point. [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]] 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Let's tell the whole story and let others judge for themselves: I add link. [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]] deletes it. I re-add it. He deletes it again. This happens 3 times. [[User:GreenJoe|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlfredWalsh&action=history edit history] in my talk page), [[User:Dlohcierekim|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 [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]] could have known about any of this within only '''2 minutes''' (and be so adamant about it) is if [[User:GreenJoe|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.--[[User:AlfredWalsh|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. [[User:GreenJoe|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.--[[User:AlfredWalsh|AlfredWalsh]] 01:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
* '''Note:''' This is not appearing in the {{tl|RFCecon list}} list. We need more participation.--[[User:AlfredWalsh|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).--[[User:AlfredWalsh|AlfredWalsh]] 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

==Request for Comment: GoDaddy.mobi==

Should '''GoDaddy.mobi''', GoDaddy's official mobile website, be included as an external link?--[[User:AlfredWalsh|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. [[User:VisitorTalk|VisitorTalk]] 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

* No. '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGo_Daddy&diff=155288415&oldid=155286119 As I said before.] there are too many links to Go Daddy as is''' and remove [http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/superbowl05/landing.asp?isc=sbsite105 Go Daddy Advertisements and the Super Bowl XXXIX & XL advertisement] and [http://www.bobparsons.com/index.html Blog by CEO & Founder of GoDaddy.com Bob Parsons] as well. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not an link farm]]. [[Wikipedia:External_links]], "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." I'm sure the top page suffices.[[User_talk:Dlohcierekim| '''Cheers,<font color="#009500"> :) Dlohcierekim''' </font>]] 15:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

*No. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia isn't a links directory]]. See also [[WP:EL]]. --[[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]] 15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

*'''Yes.''' Godaddy.mobi is the ''[https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/news/release_view.asp?news_item_id=96&app_hdr official]'' mobile version of GoDaddy's site, which is relevant and useful for the growing number ([http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6309593.stm 1] / [http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2007/05/14/mobile-web-is-19-of-pc-web/ 2]) of mobile web (and iPhone) users. Wikipedia, and the internet in general, is not accessed exclusively by PC's. There are [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/08/mobile_connections_soar/ 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.--[[User:AlfredWalsh|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. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''No''' It would be harmless to add it, but it is not useful either. Stick to useful. --[[User:Blue Tie|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. [[User:Boccobrock|Boccobrock]] 20:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

*No. I browse Wikipedia articles on my phone, I don't click on external links, regardless of whether they are .mobi or not. Many people I know go by this rule as well, even those with iPhones, or other web-friendly phones. I agree with all of the other no's, and with the link guidelines, I just thought that, although this is an old topic, could maybe use a comment from a mobile wiki user. [[User:Nigtv|Nigtv]] ([[User talk:Nigtv|talk]]) 08:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

==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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/12.86.234.154|12.86.234.154]] ([[User talk:12.86.234.154|talk]]) 04:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

: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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/208.90.179.69|208.90.179.69]] ([[User talk:208.90.179.69|talk]]) 05:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Moved==

Hi, i've moved the page to its proper name. i'll try n sort out the double redirects soonish. ta! [[user:ephix|ephix]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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? --[[Special:Contributions/66.102.80.212|66.102.80.212]] ([[User talk:66.102.80.212|talk]]) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

:No. Many businesses and people do it. --[[User:JHP|JHP]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:RucasHost|RucasHost]] ([[User talk:RucasHost|talk]]) 04:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

==Fair use rationale for Image:Godaddy-Logo.svg==
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]]
'''[[:Image:Godaddy-Logo.svg]]''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in '''this''' Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|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 [[WP:FU|fair use]].

Please go to [[:Image:Godaddy-Logo.svg|the image description page]] and edit it to include a [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline |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 [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->

[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] ([[User talk:BetacommandBot|talk]]) 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

==NoDaddy.com==

*Is NoDaddy.com notable enough to be included in the external links? [[User:GreenJoe|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. ~~ [[User:Meeples|Meeples]] <small>(<font color="green">[[User talk:Meeples|talk]]</font>)(<font color="brown">[[Special:Emailuser/Meeples|email]]</font>)</small> 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. ~~ [[User:Meeples|Meeples]] <small>(<font color="green">[[User talk:Meeples|talk]]</font>)(<font color="brown">[[Special:Emailuser/Meeples|email]]</font>)</small> 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. --[[User:DavidD4scnrt|DavidD4scnrt]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.alexa.com/ Alexa]. [[User:Cambrasa|<b><font color="#990066">'''Cambrasa'''</font></b>]] 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, there is no acceptance of critizism of the main topic tolerated here, which is too bad. The sheer number of complaints to the Arizona Attorney General's office, the Better Business Bureau, and other similar organizations, including but not limited to NoDaddy, speak to the poor (some would actually say fraudulent) business practices of Go Daddy - yet to repeatedly remove any link to sites that offer an alternative view of the target at hand is proof of censorship. Sites like NoDaddy are not out to bash GoDaddy nor its founder, Mr. Parsons, out of spite; it exists because there is a real problem with this company.


== Go Daddy general council runs for AZ governorship ==
I see why Wikipedia favors GoDaddy: WP uses GD as its registrar - and is probably taking kickbacks to suppress any posting which tells the truth - that GD's policies are set to defraud the public. Why else would GD have a subsidiary called <I>Standard Tactics</I>? [[Special:Contributions/71.106.211.188|71.106.211.188]] ([[User talk:71.106.211.188|talk]]) 20:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
: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.[[User:Persian Poet Gal|<font face="comic sans ms" color="purple"><i><b>¤~Persian Poet Gal</b></i></font>]] <font color="purple">[[User talk:Persian Poet Gal|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]</font> 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


This is not too important for the article here right now (unless Christine Jones becomes the Republican Party nominee and governor-elect of Arizona).
::Under that criteria, especially #5 of "links normally to be avoided," the link to Go Daddy itself is forbidden.<blockquote>Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.</blockquote>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. [[Special:Contributions/71.106.211.188|71.106.211.188]] ([[User talk:71.106.211.188|talk]]) 19:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:::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. <font face="Times New Roman" size="4" color="black">[[User:Wikipeedio|W]]</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="black">[[User:Wikipeedio|IKIPEE]]</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="black">[[User_talk:Wikipeedio|DIO]]</font> 20:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Headine-1: '''Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona Won't Seek Re-election'''
== RateMyCop ==
* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/us/jan-brewer-arizona-governor-wont-seek-re-election.html?_r=0
QUOTE: “Christine Jones, a political novice ... is general counsel of the Internet service company Go Daddy. ” — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 22:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Headine-2: '''Christine Jones — Governor [AZ]'''
The use of the word "cowered" is very subjective. Please objectify or remove.
* https://web.archive.org/web/20160303221000/http://www.christinejones.com/meet_the_gubernatorial_candidate
QUOTE: “ Jones is now running for governor of Arizona in a crowded Republican primary.” [Go Daddy will have increased visibility.] — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 22:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


== Breaking news—IPO planned for March 2014 ==
"GoDaddy also cowered to a demand that the Irish website RateYourSolicitor.com be censored."


Headine-1: '''GoDaddy Gearing Up For IPO: WSJ'''
[[Special:Contributions/69.2.234.66|69.2.234.66]] ([[User talk:69.2.234.66|talk]]) 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
* http://archive.today/2014.03.14-232356/http://business.topnewstoday.org/business/article/10314317/
QUOTE: “GoDaddy to interview underwriters in coming weeks, sources add.” [This article leads to four leading sources.] — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 23:15, 14 March 2014 (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. [[User:John2kx|John2kx]] ([[User talk:John2kx|talk]]) 17:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's March 29th and I see no IPO news, yet. — But its only been ''two'' weeks. Give it a few weeks. — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 17:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Headline-2: '''GoDaddy Files for IPO'''
== Serious Negativity ==
* http://online.wsj.com/articles/godaddy-files-for-ipo-1402347343?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
This article currently violates wikipedia terms.
QUOTE: "Internet Company GoDaddy Plans to Raise Up to $100 Million in IPO" -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 01:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.
All article are supposed to be nuetral.
This article has no real information about the service,
other than that which displays negativity.
[[User:Johnnywalterboy|Johnnywalterboy]] ([[User talk:Johnnywalterboy|talk]]) 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:If you think so, please feel free to add other information. [[User:Redrocket|Redrocket]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ham Pastrami|Ham Pastrami]] ([[User talk:Ham Pastrami|talk]]) 08:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Tomalak geretkal|Tomalak Geret&#39;kal]] ([[User talk:Tomalak geretkal|talk]]) 15:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Headline-3: '''GoDaddy Files for IPO of Internet Domain Name Marketplace'''
The article is far from being completely negative anyhow. Some people may actually even like the company more based on what is written here. A PR person from Go Daddy would of course like to make lots of changes I am sure to make it a more "positive" article in their favor. I go to Wikipedia so I can get information that is not a the companies own webpage.
* https://web.archive.org/web/20140611235107/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-09/godaddy-internet-domain-provider-files-for-100-million-ipo
[[User:Organicbruce|Organicbruce]] ([[User talk:Organicbruce|talk]]) 11:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE: “It’s Go Time” for GoDaddy Inc.’s initial public offering. QUOTE: "The tag line from the company’s advertisements also reflects the beginning of its official process to tap the public markets. GoDaddy, based in Scottsdale, Arizona, filed with a $100 million placeholder, without specifying the number or price range of shares it will sell, according to today’s prospectus. Those details will be provided closer to the IPO. The company has raised its profile in recent years with advertising campaigns featuring celebrities like race-car driver Danica Patrick and Israeli model Bar Refaeli. Almost 13 percent of the $1.1 billion GoDaddy posted in revenue at the end of 2013 was spent on advertising and marketing. The company’s loss narrowed last year to about $200 million, from $279 million in 2012, according to the filing." -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 01:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.


Headline-4: '''GoDaddy IPO investors won't get these assets'''
==Judicial-inc.biz==
* http://www.cnbc.com/id/101748009
QUOTE: "The owners of Internet company GoDaddy Inc. plan to sell some of their shares to the public in an initial public offering. But they're quietly holding on to something that could prove very valuable: the vast majority of the company's tax assets.


In a prospectus filed Monday night, GoDaddy said its existing owners will keep approximately 85 percent of "certain tax savings" that become available as the company converts from a partnership to a corporation through the IPO." -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing. Note the use of the company name, "GoDaddy Inc." not "Go Daddy".
Godaddy cancelled their domain privacy option and listed their personal information, next they suspended the domain. [http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.12.194.210|65.12.194.210]] ([[User talk:65.12.194.210|talk]]) 00:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Network Neutrality ==
== GoDaddy? ==


Should this article be moved to [[GoDaddy]] (as one word)? --[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy;">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#cc6600;">Talk</span>]])</sub> 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
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. --[[User:NeilN|'''<font color="#003F87">Neil<font color="#CD0000">N</font></font>''']] <sup><font face="Calibri">''[[User talk:NeilN|<font color="#003F87">talk</font>]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/NeilN|<font color="#CD0000">contribs</font>]]''</font></sup> 14:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
:Go Daddy is the correct company name. GoDaddy is a branding exercise. --[[User:NeilN|'''<span style="color:navy;">Neil<span style="color:red;">N</span></span>''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|<sup style="color:blue;">talk to me</sup>]]'' 19:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I've seen current news items refer to the company as GoDaddy Inc. but I'll go to their website and see. One WP editor suggested that they refer to themselves using "GoDaddy.com" and "Go Daddy" company. [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 10:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
:Not that this answers the question, but at the bottom of GoDaddy.com you will find, "Copyright © 1999 - 2014 GoDaddy Operating Company, LLC. All Rights Reserved." -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 10:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Since "GoDaddy" directs over to here, I don't see any need to change; however, I also don't see "Go Daddy" used anywhere in the press [http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/09/godaddy-inc-web-hosting-company-files-for-ipo-of-up-to-us100-million/?__lsa=33f2-0a43] -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 10:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


: I don't see "Go Daddy" mentioned anywhere, in official documentation, press, or otherwise. Even Googling for "Go Daddy" (including the quotes, for an exact search) only brings up results with "GoDaddy" without the space. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Gary|<span style="color:#02b;"><b>Gary</b></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 0.9em;">([[User talk:Gary|<span style="color:#039;">talk</span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Gary/Scripts|<span style="color:#039;">scripts</span>]])</span></span> 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reinstated the section, having edited it to take account of the criticism above and the POV criticism raised previously. [[User:Zazpot|Sam Pablo Kuper]] ([[User talk:Zazpot|talk]]) 15:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
:Nice job. --[[User:NeilN|'''<font color="#003F87">Neil<font color="#CD0000">N</font></font>''']] <sup><font face="Calibri">''[[User talk:NeilN|<font color="#003F87">talk</font>]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/NeilN|<font color="#CD0000">contribs</font>]]''</font></sup> 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


== This article is accurate ==
== Use of GoDaddy logo ==


I have contacted Godaddy requesting permission to use their logo in the Wikipedia article. I will update with their response. [[User:Spacegeek31|Spacegeek31]] ([[User talk:Spacegeek31|talk]]) 14:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
:[[User:Spacegeek31|Spacegeek31]], we don't need permission to upload it as a non-free fair use image and use it in this article only. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Bank_of_Scotland_Logo.svg this] for an example. --[[User:NeilN|'''<span style="color:navy;">Neil<span style="color:red;">N</span></span>''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|<sup style="color:blue;">talk to me</sup>]]'' 14:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
:: then why was the original one that was uploaded removed? [[User:Spacegeek31|Spacegeek31]] ([[User talk:Spacegeek31|talk]]) 16:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
:::[[User:Spacegeek31|Spacegeek31]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Go_Daddy&diff=554140062&oldid=553471892 here?] Because it was uploaded to Commons, not Wikipedia. Commons does not accept fair use images, Wikipedia does. Basically the only choice is to upload to Wikipedia as there's no way Go Daddy will release their logo under a free license. --[[User:NeilN|'''<span style="color:navy;">Neil<span style="color:red;">N</span></span>''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|<sup style="color:blue;">talk to me</sup>]]'' 17:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Uploaded Godaddy logo, could someone check the meta data to see it if its correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Godaddy_Logo.jpg [[User:Spacegeek31|Spacegeek31]] ([[User talk:Spacegeek31|talk]]) 13:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Spacegeek31}} Yes, looks good. Well done! --[[User:NeilN|'''<span style="color:navy;">Neil<span style="color:red;">N</span></span>''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|<sup style="color:blue;">talk to me</sup>]]'' 14:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


== GoDaddy vs. Go Daddy ==
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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.238.174.69|64.238.174.69]] ([[User talk:64.238.174.69|talk]]) 06:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, and I'm pretty confused on this page. This has been discussed before: I can't find a single instance on http://godaddy.com/ where it says "Go Daddy" instead of "GoDaddy," yet the Wikipedia article here says "Go Daddy" almost every time. I can't find a find all/replace all button, either, so I can't fix the problem and have it be worth my time. Could someone help me figure out what to do in this situation, or remedy it themselves? [[User:matmatpenguin|matmatpenguin]] ([[User talk:matmatpenguin|talk]]) 14:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
== nodaddy.com ( unsatisfied customers ) ==


: Agreed. I've changed it. Moving the article itself is another matter because the other name has edits already. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Gary|<span style="color:#02b;"><b>Gary</b></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 0.9em;">([[User talk:Gary|<span style="color:#039;">talk</span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Gary/Scripts|<span style="color:#039;">scripts</span>]])</span></span> 16:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
there is no advertising or affiliate link in nodaddy.com
::Comment: I notice that the company logo as, it appears in the Infobox in the article, includes the space (although the logo on the company's web site does not). If the company sometimes includes the space (which would seem to be the ordinary way to write this in ordinary English), should we really omit it? Was the omission of the space a recent change by the company? Should the logo in the Infobox be replaced? —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 18:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
and if you search godaddy in google the 3rd link will be that site


::: Take a look at [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=go%20daddy%2C%20godaddy this trends chart]. It shows that: 1. "GoDaddy" has (almost) always been more common, and 2. They really started separating around 2007. Right about when this article was first moved from [[GoDaddy]] to [[Go Daddy]].
should it be mention in article ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.254.74.161|80.254.74.161]] ([[User talk:80.254.74.161|talk]]) 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


::: Also, I found this tidbit. GoDaddy refers to themselves as "Go Daddy" from their inception, until May 17, 2005, per the copyright footer [http://web.archive.org/web/20050517000057/http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/default.asp here]. But then the following day on May 18, 2005, they changed it to remove the space, [http://web.archive.org/web/20050518025629/http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/default.asp here]. Probably indicating the date when they initiated the change for good. It has since been officially referred to without the space. Probably a legal issue? Perhaps it's more easy to trademark a non-word than two common words?
== COI Discussion - Go Daddy Article Additions ==


::: And yes the logo should be replaced. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Gary|<span style="color:#02b;"><b>Gary</b></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 0.9em;">([[User talk:Gary|<span style="color:#039;">talk</span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Gary/Scripts|<span style="color:#039;">scripts</span>]])</span></span> 18:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
RE: suggestion this is promotional ad-speak
::::I don't actually see a difference in the spacing in the footers at those links from May 17 and May 18, 2005. (I do see that the location of the copyright statement was moved to the bottom, but its contents look the same.) Both say "Copyright © 1999 - 2005 Go Daddy Software, Inc", and at the top of the page, both show the logo with a space and include the string "The Go Daddy Girl" and "approved or condoned by Go Daddy", and within the page they both say "Radio Go Daddy" and "GoDaddy salutes our soldiers". But I'm not objecting to moving the page. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 19:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


::::: Yes I mistakenly referred to the copyright string. It looks like they just separated the footer into two lines though, with no text changes. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Gary|<span style="color:#02b;"><b>Gary</b></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 0.9em;">([[User talk:Gary|<span style="color:#039;">talk</span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Gary/Scripts|<span style="color:#039;">scripts</span>]])</span></span> 19:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
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.


::::: I think I found it. Take a look here. [http://web.archive.org/web/20060209030136/http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/default.asp February 9, 2006]. It contains "Copyright © 1999 - 2006 Go Daddy Software, Inc. All rights reserved.". [http://web.archive.org/web/20060218165922/http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/default.asp February 18, 2006]. It contains "Copyright © 1999 - 2006 GoDaddy.com, Inc. All rights reserved.". So they changed the branding in February 2006. Sounds about right. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Gary|<span style="color:#02b;"><b>Gary</b></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 0.9em;">([[User talk:Gary|<span style="color:#039;">talk</span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Gary/Scripts|<span style="color:#039;">scripts</span>]])</span></span> 19:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
We have and continue to be up front about our identity and have updated this page with factual information backed up by citations. [[User:ParsonsRep|ParsonsRep]] ([[User talk:ParsonsRep|talk]]) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
: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. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks for your diligence. Now let's both pledge to find something that has a higher priority that we can do with our time for the next few hours. :-) —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 19:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


::::::: Just doing this so that it doesn't have to be done in the future when this issue inevitably gets brought up again. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Gary|<span style="color:#02b;"><b>Gary</b></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 0.9em;">([[User talk:Gary|<span style="color:#039;">talk</span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Gary/Scripts|<span style="color:#039;">scripts</span>]])</span></span> 20:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
== Go Daddy Intro ==


== Go Daddy will elevate Danica Patrick? ==
Re: Article intro section may not adequately summarize its contents.


The headline does not entirely capture what is envisioned.
We'd like to modify/expand the intro to have the flag removed from the article.
Headline: '''Danica Patrick losing GoDaddy as primary car sponsor'''
Below is a more detailed summary as to what Go Daddy does, with citations.
* https://web.archive.org/web/20150502003615/http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/04/29/danica-patrick-losing-godaddy-as-primary-car-sponsor/?intcmp=features
QUOTE: "Phil Bienert, the chief marketing officer at GoDaddy, told the AP it was strictly a business decision as data showed the company "we are past brand marketing in the U.S." He added that GoDaddy is working on a personal services contract with Patrick, who is considered one of the most of recognizable drivers in the world. "'''Danica transcends racing and is a real source of inspiration'''," he said. "We are working now to see what our relationship looks like going forward." Bienert also said Patrick's "record-setting season makes it tough to leave this motorsports sponsorship, without a doubt." Patrick has two top-10 finishes this season and ranks 16th in points. She has had GoDaddy as an associate sponsor since 2007. The company has been her main backer since the 2010 IndyCar season when she was with Andretti Autosport." -- [[User:Narnia.Gate7|Narnia.Gate7]] ([[User talk:Narnia.Gate7|talk]]) 13:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
Suggested Intro:
Go Daddy provides Internet-related products, including [[domain names]], which are commonly known as Web site addresses. Go Daddy is the world's largest [[domain registrar]], meaning it provides more Web site address registrations than any other company.<ref>[www.RegistrarStats.com RegistrarStats]</ref>


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Go Daddy also serves as a [[Web hosting]] company. Go Daddy offers a complete product line with more than 40 Web related products including services such as email addresses and online photo sharing, along with e-Commerce software, domain privacy to protect your online identity, as well as security and business related software.<ref>[http://www.top10webhosting.com/host/godaddy.com.php Top10WebHosting]</ref><ref>[http://www.hostreview.com/webhostaward/200812top10budgethosting.html Host Review]</ref>


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[GoDaddy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=698913211 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Go Daddy has a variety of help and support options available, and is accessible 24/7/365 by phone or email. It offers an online support forum and FAQs section containing information for beginners and advanced users alike.<ref>[http://web-hosting-review.toptenreviews.com/godaddy-review.html TopTenReviews - Editor Review]</ref>
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120122074126/http://money.cnn.com:80/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2012/snapshots/93.html to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2012/snapshots/93.html/
[[User:ParsonsRep|ParsonsRep]] ([[User talk:ParsonsRep|talk]]) 22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
:"World's largest registrar" is sourced and should be in the lead, but the rest of your suggestion reads like a simple advertisement for your services, listing features which are not mentioned in the body of the article. You are in no way attempting to summarise the article's contents here.
:(For the record, [[User:ParsonsRep]] has declared an "affiliation" with GoDaddy.) --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 10:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}
Thank you for the feedback. Will go back to the drawing board on the article intro. [[User:ParsonsRep|ParsonsRep]] ([[User talk:ParsonsRep|talk]]) 01:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 00:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
We have added a few sentences to more accurately describe the content in the body of the page. Wanted to get a review of the newly added content & see if we can remove the tag about the Intro not adequately summarizing the content of the page. [[User:ParsonsRep|ParsonsRep]] ([[User talk:ParsonsRep|talk]]) 21:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


== "Products and services" section ==
== External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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. [[User:Zazpot|zazpot]] ([[User talk:Zazpot|talk]]) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
: I've deleted the "products and services" section, since no-one's come to its defence and there was already a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Go_Daddy#GoDaddy_Services discussion along these lines].


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[GoDaddy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=707422681 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
muammer--[[Special:Contributions/88.252.211.52|88.252.211.52]] ([[User talk:88.252.211.52|talk]]) 18:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100824043811/http://www.nationalpost.com:80/sports/story.html?id=1647415 to http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=1647415


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
== "Controversy" ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Lobbying is a controversy now? Epic fail again, wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/205.238.239.135|205.238.239.135]] ([[User talk:205.238.239.135|talk]]) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 20:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
== GoDaddy/Dotster Comparison Bias and Inaccuracy ==


== External links modified ==
(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 [http://www.dotster.com/about/releases/02_24_2009 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. --[[User:Dotsterrep|Dotsterrep]] ([[User talk:Dotsterrep|talk]]) 22:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Dotsterrep


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I agree with Dotsterrep. This isn't the first time Go Daddy has been biased against Dotster, either. I have heard from upset customers who leave Dotster who have been *told* that Go Daddy will somehow be cheaper and better [[User:DotsterCSR|DotsterCSR]] ([[User talk:DotsterCSR|talk]]) 02:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[GoDaddy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=708007238 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I'd like to request the conflict of interest flag now be removed. The offending paragraph seems to have been taken down. I also want to note 'Go Daddy' did not post or modify any of the information posted about Dotster on this page. Now that the material is gone, the flag should also be removed. [[User:ParsonsRep|ParsonsRep]] ([[User talk:ParsonsRep|talk]]) 15:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130514091011/http://www.bobparson.com/SeeSB2008ad.html to http://www.bobparson.com/SeeSB2008ad.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
: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. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
I am affiliated with Go Daddy. My edits were designed to help bring the page into compliance with Wiki's neutral voice policy. If you look at the revision history, you'll note that many citations were added and other non-verifiable material removed. My goal here is simply to make the article better - encyclopedic in nature, with proper, sourced material, etc.
The COI issue has been discussed in the past with the tag removed as I provide factual statements with citations. The first discussion can be found in the archives here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24 (Bob Parsons section 25 in the contents area). The issue was again discussed with the tag removed in March 2009 & is on this discussion page.
The Go Daddy page was flagged this time for material related to Dotster that has been removed. ParsonsRep didn't add or remove any of these materials. As the material is now gone, the COI tag should be removed. [[User:ParsonsRep|ParsonsRep]] ([[User talk:ParsonsRep|talk]]) 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 01:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
== Controversies section violates policies ==


== External links modified ==
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. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 22:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I've just signed up after adding a NPOV tag to the Elephant controversy to expand on this. The only citation relating to this is linked to PETA, one of the sides in the dispute. The wording of the article also appears biased towards PETA's POV and should perhaps be amended by someone more experienced than I at article cleanup.
([[User talk:alex.jeffrey|talk]]) 11:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


I have just modified 2 external links on [[GoDaddy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=759843884 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
== Name ==
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://indycarworldchampionships.com/Sweepstakes/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061111090358/http://www.thehostingnews.com/article2217.html to http://www.thehostingnews.com/article2217.html
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://activepolitic.com:82/News/2011-12-26a/Namecheap_Accuses_Godaddy_Of_Blocking_Domain_Transfers.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
So why is the company called "Go Daddy"? Not the most obvious of choices for a domain registrar ... [[User:Maikel|Maikel]] ([[User talk:Maikel|talk]]) 10:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
: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!). [[User:KarlM|KarlM]] ([[User talk:KarlM|talk]]) 09:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 12:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Who's point of view should it be written from? The CEO's point of view? Many people would like to have this kind of information about a company before they do business with them. If it seems biased the the reader then they can take that under consideration. Actually, The Bob Parsons said in the video he made, "Of everything that I do this is the most rewarding." Parsons stood by that sentiment, later.


== External links modified ==
So I will ad that now if I can as it is the CEO's point of view and perhaps more balanced[[User:Organicbruce|Organicbruce]] ([[User talk:Organicbruce|talk]]) 12:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Is GoDaddy profitable? ==


I have just modified 12 external links on [[GoDaddy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=778697609 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
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? [[User:Woods01|Woods01]] ([[User talk:Woods01|talk]]) 01:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090802085605/http://www.bobparsons.me/9/how-godaddy-got-name-logo-mean.html to http://www.bobparsons.me/9/how-godaddy-got-name-logo-mean.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008085502/http://www.cointernet.co/media/press-releases/co-internet-reveals-winners-first-annual-bulby-awards to http://www.cointernet.co/media/press-releases/co-internet-reveals-winners-first-annual-bulby-awards
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813185933/http://www.whenworkworks.org/about/index.html to http://www.whenworkworks.org/about/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113084338/http://whenworkworks.org/awards/2011winners.html to http://whenworkworks.org/awards/2011winners.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022202207/http://www.whenworkworks.org/about/index.html to http://www.whenworkworks.org/about/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070328163757/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODYyMGY4OTJkODhiYjczMmUwMzMwNThhZTY2ZjE2Yjk%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODYyMGY4OTJkODhiYjczMmUwMzMwNThhZTY2ZjE2Yjk%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824102540/http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20090209%2FFREE%2F302099981%2F1109%2FFREE%2F to http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20090209%2FFREE%2F302099981%2F1109%2FFREE%2F
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112083831/http://www.hendrickmotorsports.com/news_detail.asp?id=2212&bhcp=1%2F to http://www.hendrickmotorsports.com/news_detail.asp?id=2212&bhcp=1%2F
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605180125/http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=330134 to http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=330134
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228105355/http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/sopa-hearing-will-never-end.php to http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/sopa-hearing-will-never-end.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912044922/http://valleywag.com/367201/go-daddy-is-fightin-mad to http://valleywag.com/367201/go-daddy-is-fightin-mad
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430172413/http://www.bobparsons.me/WhyIPOPulled.html to http://www.bobparsons.me/WhyIPOPulled.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== Tag Removal for introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents. ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
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. [[User:ParsonsRep|ParsonsRep]] ([[User talk:ParsonsRep|talk]]) 22:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 18:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
== Wild West? ==


== External links modified ==
[[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. [[User:Thorncrag|<span style="position:relative;overflow:hidden;"><span style="position:absolute;bottom:1px;width:100%;height:8px;background:#eee"> </span><span style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> Thorncrag </span></span>]] 08:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Wild West Domains is a subsidiary of Go Daddy. This is basically their reseller domain and hosting site. Somebody signs up with Wild West for $100, and they create and manage all sales made through your site. Then, of course, a cut of the end profits goes to Go Daddy, and another cut goes to the reseller (if I understand correctly). There really should be a section on Wild West Domains if it points to the Go Daddy article, but I don't find it very notable myself. [[User:Geeked|Geeked]] ([[User talk:Geeked|talk]]) 18:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


I have just modified 2 external links on [[GoDaddy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=799685354 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
The whole section looks like an advertisment, will flag. [[User:Catdsnny|Catdsnny]] ([[User talk:Catdsnny|talk]]) 03:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20110917072727/http://indycarworldchampionships.com/Sweepstakes/
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/autoracing/story/0FD49FDC3266787D86257606000978CE?OpenDocument
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://heluxtech.blogspot.com/2011/12/godaddy-admits-domain-transfers-on-rise.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406040828/http://www.showbizspy.com/article/229616/go-daddy-ceo-embroiled-in-controversy-bob-parsons-defends-elephant-murder.html to http://www.showbizspy.com/article/229616/go-daddy-ceo-embroiled-in-controversy-bob-parsons-defends-elephant-murder.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== Employee class action section removed ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
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 [[WP:Verifiability|verifiability]]. It also reeks of non-[[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] and [[WP:COI|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. [[User:Thorncrag|<span style="position:relative;overflow:hidden;"><span style="position:absolute;bottom:1px;width:100%;height:8px;background:#eee">&nbsp;</span><span style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb">&nbsp;Thorncrag </span></span>]] 00:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
:I agree. The material has several faults. The suit may be added when it gets sufficient coverage in 3rd-party sources. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 00:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
::The edits were re-inserted again. It looks like they're "determined." [[User:Basileias|Basileias]] ([[User talk:Basileias|talk]]) 00:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 06:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
== Down Syndrome ==


== External links modified ==
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!). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.141.229.242|86.141.229.242]] ([[User talk:86.141.229.242|talk]]) 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Nomenclature ==


I have just modified one external link on [[GoDaddy]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/819897309|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
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". [[User:Warthomp|Warthomp]] ([[User talk:Warthomp|talk]]) 05:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402110332/http://www.suntimes.com/sports/quickhits/1504650,CST-SPT-1hit01.article to http://www.suntimes.com/sports/quickhits/1504650,CST-SPT-1hit01.article


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== "racy" and WP:NPOV ==
Just because a term is sourced from an article, even as a "lede" (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Go_Daddy&oldid=421688970 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:


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
"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.


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
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.[http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/07/news/midcaps/superbowl_godaddy/index.htm 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 [[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racy Wiktionary, definition of "racy"]]:


==GoDaddy hosting the neo-Nazi Rightpedia website==
"racy (comparative racier, superlative raciest)


I am thinking about adding a section on GoDaddy and Neo-nazi content. The website Rightpedia owned by Eleonóra Dubiczki, which is a neo-Nazi online encyclopedia with extremely racist articles is being hosted by GoDaddy from 2015 and still hosted by them as of 2018.
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.


Rightpedia appears to be a split-off group from the infamous [[Metapedia]], which is covered on Wikipedia. In regard to other neo-Nazi racist websites, GoDaddy was hosting [[The Daily Stormer]], but banned them in 2017. References for this [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/15/neo-nazi-site-daily-stormer-deleted-google-godaddy/], [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/daily-stormer-godaddy-bans-charlotteville-victim-heather-heyer-victim-fat-slut-defame-uva-neo-nazi-a7891856.html], [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/godaddy-daily-stormer-white-supremacists.html], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/14/godaddy-bans-neo-nazi-site-daily-stormer-for-disparaging-woman-killed-at-charlottesville-rally/]. This has been well documented in news sources. Is it possible to add a section on this? I decided to comment here instead of jumping onto the article and adding it. Let me know. [[User:Leftwing Guy|Leftwing Guy]] ([[User talk:Leftwing Guy|talk]]) 17:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
She wore a racy dress that was just barely appropriate for the occasion."


== Why no mention of 2011 acquisition? ==
Does use of the term "racy" really seem to meet Neutral Point of View standards here?


Why does this article have no mention of GoDaddy's buy out by private equity firms in 2011?
[[User:Dcattell|Dcattell]] ([[User talk:Dcattell|talk]]) 19:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This deal was worth over $2 billion.
https://mashable.com/2011/07/02/godaddy-sold/#07xsGOUuPqqJ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lenpey|Lenpey]] ([[User talk:Lenpey#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lenpey|contribs]]) 19:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== GoDaddy WordPress breach, 1.2M plaintext passwords ==
:First, the [[WP:LEDE|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 [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] compliant that a [[WP:RS|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Go_Daddy&diff=prev&oldid=421695384 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 [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-02-12/sports/os-smith-nascar-daytona-500-bob-parsons-020100212_1_super-bowl-ads-racy-ads-nascar-sprint-cup-series fact]. Just use Google news and [http://www.google.com/search?q=godaddy+racy+ads&hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&biw=1366&bih=498&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=-8iUTYCxK4eI0QGr8qDoCw&ved=0CBQQpwUoCg 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. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
::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 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS 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 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources 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. [[User:Dcattell|Dcattell]] ([[User talk:Dcattell|talk]]) 21:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:::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 [[WP:BLP|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 [[Special:RecentChanges|recent changes]] page, to help fight vandalism. Then the pages wind up on your watch list. heh. Thanks again and happy editing. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 22:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


SEC blog post: "GoDaddy Announces Security Incident Affecting Managed WordPress Service"
=="Fines"==
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1609711/000160971121000122/gddyblogpostnov222021.htm
*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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.slyck.com/story1053.html |title=Slyck News - GoDaddy Releases myBitTorrent.com Domain |publisher=Slyck.com |date=2006-01-12 |accessdate=2009-04-20}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/17/1319233 |title=Slashdot &#124; GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage |publisher=Yro.slashdot.org |date= |accessdate=2009-04-20}}</ref>


Wordfence: "It appears that GoDaddy was storing sFTP credentials either as plaintext, or in a format that could be reversed into plaintext. They did this rather than using a salted hash, or a public key, both of which are considered industry best practices for sFTP. This allowed an attacker direct access to password credentials without the need to crack them."
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. [[User:Basileias|Basileias]] ([[User talk:Basileias|talk]]) 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
"During the period from September 6, 2021, to November 17, 2021, the sFTP and database usernames and passwords of active customers were accessible to the attacker. "
https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2021/11/godaddy-breach-plaintext-passwords/
[[User:Onion76|Onion76]] ([[User talk:Onion76|talk]]) 11:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


== Creation of sub articles ==
==Sources==
*Robertson, Jordan. "[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7636672.html Go Daddy sold for $2.3 billion]." ''[[Associated Press]]'' at ''[[Houston Chronicle]]''. July 1, 2011.
[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 17:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


I have created [[List of mergers and acquisitions by GoDaddy]] and [[List of controversies involving GoDaddy]] to help reduce the information on the main article. For the controversies please do not remove them completely just help narrow and summarize them, if a reader needs to find more information they will go to [[List of controversies involving GoDaddy]] - [[User:DownTownRich|DownTownRich]] ([[User talk:DownTownRich|talk]]) 03:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
== Go Daddy and SOPA? ==


(CC: [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]]) I'm strongly against linking out '''all''' of the controversies. Particularly with the extensive "Marketing" section, it diminishes GoDaddy's terrible reputation and makes the article read like an advertisement. I've added back in a select number to keep it short and relevant. (really, what's up with that section? it's missing a large number of GoDaddy controversies and has a fair number of incidents that shouldn't really be considered controversies.
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. [[Special:Contributions/174.94.119.137|174.94.119.137]] ([[User talk:174.94.119.137|talk]]) 17:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC) a reader from canada
: 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. [[Special:Contributions/204.106.255.122|204.106.255.122]] ([[User talk:204.106.255.122|talk]]) 23:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/206.87.153.10|206.87.153.10]] ([[User talk:206.87.153.10|talk]]) 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
:: 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.[[Special:Contributions/174.94.119.137|174.94.119.137]] ([[User talk:174.94.119.137|talk]]) 21:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)a reader from canada
:::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. --[[Special:Contributions/71.191.197.79|71.191.197.79]] ([[User talk:71.191.197.79|talk]]) 00:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: 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. [[Special:Contributions/174.94.119.137|174.94.119.137]] ([[User talk:174.94.119.137|talk]]) 07:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Same Canadian guy.


:The point was not to remove them completely but to reduce the article memory size. But like you mentioned we can still have them summarized in the article page then for users who want to learn more in detail about those controversies can go to [[List of controversies involving GoDaddy]]. [[User:DownTownRich|DownTownRich]] ([[User talk:DownTownRich|talk]]) 10:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I've included a paragraph about GoDaddy's row with NameCheap, which is an anti-SOPA domain name registrar, and probably notable enough now for a Wikipedia article in its own right. [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


== this article is really biased ==
== weebly.com 2009 ==


The article mentions that it has controversies in a quite short lead paragraph, and its controversies are way longer than the rest of the page. It seems to have been edited by a competitor.
[http://david.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/godaddy-a-glimpse-of-the-internet-under-sopa.html GoDaddy: A glimpse of the Internet under SOPA] David Rusenko of Weebly.com 12/26/2011:
[[User:Bluesunnyfox|blueskies]] ([[User talk:Bluesunnyfox|talk]]) 17:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
*''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...''
:{{reply to|Bluesunnyfox}} the article has now been flagged as being too biased and reading too much like an advertisement for GoDaddy. Surely that signals that a good medium has been found. [[User:Nauseous Man|Nauseous Man]] ([[User talk:Nauseous Man|talk]]) 18:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
::Ehh, it's not much of an advertisement as it is a campaign against the company. Can't the article be edited to sound genuinely neutral? [[User:Bluesunnyfox|blueskies]] ([[User talk:Bluesunnyfox|talk]]) 16:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


== Equity vs Assets ==
Interesting. --[[User:Atlasowa|Atlasowa]] ([[User talk:Atlasowa|talk]]) 16:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


I don't know what is the correct one, but it's impossible for equity to be more than company assets. If I had to guess, then the equity figure should be in millions instead of billions. [[User:Mistanthalas|Amberstar]] ([[User talk:Mistanthalas|talk]]) 05:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
==Wikia leaving Go Daddy==
[http://community.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Craiglpalmer/Wikia_to_move_our_500%2B_domains_from_GoDaddy_over_their_support_of_SOPA_legislation#comm-344554 Wikia CEO Craig Palmer announces leaving Go Daddy.] [[Special:Contributions/99.108.16.161|99.108.16.161]] ([[User talk:99.108.16.161|talk]]) 09:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


:I clicked through to the linked source, the company's 2021 10k, and you are correct. Updated. [[User:OccamZippo17|OccamZippo17]] ([[User talk:OccamZippo17|talk]]) 21:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
== Transfer Numbers for the SOPA boycott ==


== Remove Hosting and Website Builder from products offered ==
one of the references is http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/01453717233/godaddy-boycott-fizzles-twice-as-many-domains-transfer-as-out.shtml.


I am a customer of Godaddy Inc and they discontinued hosting services more than a decade ago. They are now purely a domain name registrar [[Special:Contributions/2603:8000:5903:A7D5:61C9:9644:335A:2BD4|2603:8000:5903:A7D5:61C9:9644:335A:2BD4]] ([[User talk:2603:8000:5903:A7D5:61C9:9644:335A:2BD4|talk]]) 07:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.165.30.89|173.165.30.89]] ([[User talk:173.165.30.89|talk]]) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 07:50, 31 July 2024

Former good article nomineeGoDaddy was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 21, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Go Daddy general council runs for AZ governorship

[edit]

This is not too important for the article here right now (unless Christine Jones becomes the Republican Party nominee and governor-elect of Arizona).

Headine-1: Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona Won't Seek Re-election

QUOTE: “Christine Jones, a political novice ... is general counsel of the Internet service company Go Daddy. ” — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headine-2: Christine Jones — Governor [AZ]

QUOTE: “ Jones is now running for governor of Arizona in a crowded Republican primary.” [Go Daddy will have increased visibility.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news—IPO planned for March 2014

[edit]

Headine-1: GoDaddy Gearing Up For IPO: WSJ

QUOTE: “GoDaddy to interview underwriters in coming weeks, sources add.” [This article leads to four leading sources.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's March 29th and I see no IPO news, yet. — But its only been two weeks. Give it a few weeks. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headline-2: GoDaddy Files for IPO

QUOTE: "Internet Company GoDaddy Plans to Raise Up to $100 Million in IPO" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.[reply]

Headline-3: GoDaddy Files for IPO of Internet Domain Name Marketplace

QUOTE: “It’s Go Time” for GoDaddy Inc.’s initial public offering. QUOTE: "The tag line from the company’s advertisements also reflects the beginning of its official process to tap the public markets. GoDaddy, based in Scottsdale, Arizona, filed with a $100 million placeholder, without specifying the number or price range of shares it will sell, according to today’s prospectus. Those details will be provided closer to the IPO. The company has raised its profile in recent years with advertising campaigns featuring celebrities like race-car driver Danica Patrick and Israeli model Bar Refaeli. Almost 13 percent of the $1.1 billion GoDaddy posted in revenue at the end of 2013 was spent on advertising and marketing. The company’s loss narrowed last year to about $200 million, from $279 million in 2012, according to the filing." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.[reply]

Headline-4: GoDaddy IPO investors won't get these assets

QUOTE: "The owners of Internet company GoDaddy Inc. plan to sell some of their shares to the public in an initial public offering. But they're quietly holding on to something that could prove very valuable: the vast majority of the company's tax assets.

In a prospectus filed Monday night, GoDaddy said its existing owners will keep approximately 85 percent of "certain tax savings" that become available as the company converts from a partnership to a corporation through the IPO." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing. Note the use of the company name, "GoDaddy Inc." not "Go Daddy".[reply]

GoDaddy?

[edit]

Should this article be moved to GoDaddy (as one word)? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go Daddy is the correct company name. GoDaddy is a branding exercise. --NeilN talk to me 19:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen current news items refer to the company as GoDaddy Inc. but I'll go to their website and see. One WP editor suggested that they refer to themselves using "GoDaddy.com" and "Go Daddy" company. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this answers the question, but at the bottom of GoDaddy.com you will find, "Copyright © 1999 - 2014 GoDaddy Operating Company, LLC. All Rights Reserved." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since "GoDaddy" directs over to here, I don't see any need to change; however, I also don't see "Go Daddy" used anywhere in the press [1] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "Go Daddy" mentioned anywhere, in official documentation, press, or otherwise. Even Googling for "Go Daddy" (including the quotes, for an exact search) only brings up results with "GoDaddy" without the space. Gary (talk · scripts) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have contacted Godaddy requesting permission to use their logo in the Wikipedia article. I will update with their response. Spacegeek31 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spacegeek31, we don't need permission to upload it as a non-free fair use image and use it in this article only. See this for an example. --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
then why was the original one that was uploaded removed? Spacegeek31 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spacegeek31, here? Because it was uploaded to Commons, not Wikipedia. Commons does not accept fair use images, Wikipedia does. Basically the only choice is to upload to Wikipedia as there's no way Go Daddy will release their logo under a free license. --NeilN talk to me 17:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded Godaddy logo, could someone check the meta data to see it if its correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Godaddy_Logo.jpg Spacegeek31 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spacegeek31: Yes, looks good. Well done! --NeilN talk to me 14:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoDaddy vs. Go Daddy

[edit]

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, and I'm pretty confused on this page. This has been discussed before: I can't find a single instance on http://godaddy.com/ where it says "Go Daddy" instead of "GoDaddy," yet the Wikipedia article here says "Go Daddy" almost every time. I can't find a find all/replace all button, either, so I can't fix the problem and have it be worth my time. Could someone help me figure out what to do in this situation, or remedy it themselves? matmatpenguin (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've changed it. Moving the article itself is another matter because the other name has edits already. Gary (talk · scripts) 16:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice that the company logo as, it appears in the Infobox in the article, includes the space (although the logo on the company's web site does not). If the company sometimes includes the space (which would seem to be the ordinary way to write this in ordinary English), should we really omit it? Was the omission of the space a recent change by the company? Should the logo in the Infobox be replaced? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this trends chart. It shows that: 1. "GoDaddy" has (almost) always been more common, and 2. They really started separating around 2007. Right about when this article was first moved from GoDaddy to Go Daddy.
Also, I found this tidbit. GoDaddy refers to themselves as "Go Daddy" from their inception, until May 17, 2005, per the copyright footer here. But then the following day on May 18, 2005, they changed it to remove the space, here. Probably indicating the date when they initiated the change for good. It has since been officially referred to without the space. Probably a legal issue? Perhaps it's more easy to trademark a non-word than two common words?
And yes the logo should be replaced. Gary (talk · scripts) 18:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see a difference in the spacing in the footers at those links from May 17 and May 18, 2005. (I do see that the location of the copyright statement was moved to the bottom, but its contents look the same.) Both say "Copyright © 1999 - 2005 Go Daddy Software, Inc", and at the top of the page, both show the logo with a space and include the string "The Go Daddy Girl" and "approved or condoned by Go Daddy", and within the page they both say "Radio Go Daddy" and "GoDaddy salutes our soldiers". But I'm not objecting to moving the page. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I mistakenly referred to the copyright string. It looks like they just separated the footer into two lines though, with no text changes. Gary (talk · scripts) 19:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found it. Take a look here. February 9, 2006. It contains "Copyright © 1999 - 2006 Go Daddy Software, Inc. All rights reserved.". February 18, 2006. It contains "Copyright © 1999 - 2006 GoDaddy.com, Inc. All rights reserved.". So they changed the branding in February 2006. Sounds about right. Gary (talk · scripts) 19:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your diligence. Now let's both pledge to find something that has a higher priority that we can do with our time for the next few hours. :-) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just doing this so that it doesn't have to be done in the future when this issue inevitably gets brought up again. Gary (talk · scripts) 20:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go Daddy will elevate Danica Patrick?

[edit]

The headline does not entirely capture what is envisioned. 

Headline: Danica Patrick losing GoDaddy as primary car sponsor

QUOTE: "Phil Bienert, the chief marketing officer at GoDaddy, told the AP it was strictly a business decision as data showed the company "we are past brand marketing in the U.S." He added that GoDaddy is working on a personal services contract with Patrick, who is considered one of the most of recognizable drivers in the world. "Danica transcends racing and is a real source of inspiration," he said. "We are working now to see what our relationship looks like going forward." Bienert also said Patrick's "record-setting season makes it tough to leave this motorsports sponsorship, without a doubt." Patrick has two top-10 finishes this season and ranks 16th in points. She has had GoDaddy as an associate sponsor since 2007. The company has been her main backer since the 2010 IndyCar season when she was with Andretti Autosport." -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GoDaddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GoDaddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GoDaddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GoDaddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on GoDaddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GoDaddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GoDaddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoDaddy hosting the neo-Nazi Rightpedia website

[edit]

I am thinking about adding a section on GoDaddy and Neo-nazi content. The website Rightpedia owned by Eleonóra Dubiczki, which is a neo-Nazi online encyclopedia with extremely racist articles is being hosted by GoDaddy from 2015 and still hosted by them as of 2018.

Rightpedia appears to be a split-off group from the infamous Metapedia, which is covered on Wikipedia. In regard to other neo-Nazi racist websites, GoDaddy was hosting The Daily Stormer, but banned them in 2017. References for this [2], [3], [4], [5]. This has been well documented in news sources. Is it possible to add a section on this? I decided to comment here instead of jumping onto the article and adding it. Let me know. Leftwing Guy (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of 2011 acquisition?

[edit]

Why does this article have no mention of GoDaddy's buy out by private equity firms in 2011? This deal was worth over $2 billion. https://mashable.com/2011/07/02/godaddy-sold/#07xsGOUuPqqJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenpey (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoDaddy WordPress breach, 1.2M plaintext passwords

[edit]

SEC blog post: "GoDaddy Announces Security Incident Affecting Managed WordPress Service" https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1609711/000160971121000122/gddyblogpostnov222021.htm

Wordfence: "It appears that GoDaddy was storing sFTP credentials either as plaintext, or in a format that could be reversed into plaintext. They did this rather than using a salted hash, or a public key, both of which are considered industry best practices for sFTP. This allowed an attacker direct access to password credentials without the need to crack them." "During the period from September 6, 2021, to November 17, 2021, the sFTP and database usernames and passwords of active customers were accessible to the attacker. " https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2021/11/godaddy-breach-plaintext-passwords/ Onion76 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of sub articles

[edit]

I have created List of mergers and acquisitions by GoDaddy and List of controversies involving GoDaddy to help reduce the information on the main article. For the controversies please do not remove them completely just help narrow and summarize them, if a reader needs to find more information they will go to List of controversies involving GoDaddy - DownTownRich (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(CC: MrOllie) I'm strongly against linking out all of the controversies. Particularly with the extensive "Marketing" section, it diminishes GoDaddy's terrible reputation and makes the article read like an advertisement. I've added back in a select number to keep it short and relevant. (really, what's up with that section? it's missing a large number of GoDaddy controversies and has a fair number of incidents that shouldn't really be considered controversies. 206.87.153.10 (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point was not to remove them completely but to reduce the article memory size. But like you mentioned we can still have them summarized in the article page then for users who want to learn more in detail about those controversies can go to List of controversies involving GoDaddy. DownTownRich (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this article is really biased

[edit]

The article mentions that it has controversies in a quite short lead paragraph, and its controversies are way longer than the rest of the page. It seems to have been edited by a competitor. blueskies (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesunnyfox: the article has now been flagged as being too biased and reading too much like an advertisement for GoDaddy. Surely that signals that a good medium has been found. Nauseous Man (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, it's not much of an advertisement as it is a campaign against the company. Can't the article be edited to sound genuinely neutral? blueskies (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equity vs Assets

[edit]

I don't know what is the correct one, but it's impossible for equity to be more than company assets. If I had to guess, then the equity figure should be in millions instead of billions. Amberstar (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked through to the linked source, the company's 2021 10k, and you are correct. Updated. OccamZippo17 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Hosting and Website Builder from products offered

[edit]

I am a customer of Godaddy Inc and they discontinued hosting services more than a decade ago. They are now purely a domain name registrar 2603:8000:5903:A7D5:61C9:9644:335A:2BD4 (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:GoDaddy&oldid=1237743129"