Talk:GoDaddy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

External links modified[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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GoDaddy&oldid=1204809680"