Dot COM is king, every other extension sucks.

[daj]

" Dot COM is king, every other extension sucks, Your name isn't worth anything, if only it was dot com"

I'm so tired of hearing this same line being said over & over again on this forum by myself and the mass majority here. Even for great one word names that people have registered on other extensions, the same thing is continuoulsy said in the domain appraisal thread.

I will no longer refer to dot com as being a good extension, and only support the weaker extensions for use for now on. That's one of my goal for 2009, to bring out the public awareness of the awesome other extensions that are available.

I'm disappoinited in ICANN for designating dot com as the only extension for widespread use, and all of the people involved with making that one extension the leader when it comes to domains. I dare any registrar to not even include dot com on their list of tld's to choose from, and to only support the exotic extensions. Seriously.. start supporting the other extensions! Put the rare beauties at the top of your list, and put dot com on the bottom. These 60+ other extensions are just as good, and the only way they will become players in the domain world, is to start using them, developing hot sites on them, and opening people's minds to realize dot com isn't the only extension...

For now on the dot com extension is dead to me. :bah:

 

[-REECE-]

For the record, I have nothing against parking, I just see no future in it. Like many, I've long suspected for years that the days of parking are limited. I may have been wrong by a few years, however more than ever, I think it's coming.

I'm hoping to have my domains developed to varying degrees depending on the quality of the domain (it really is a long term, multi-year plan). My better domains I plan on turning into daily updated blogs and/or interactive websites (revenue sharing with content writers), lesser domains will get less frequently updated unique content + adsense. I'm not a big fan of canned content and would rather focus on delivering 5-10 page mini-sites that can be considered "authority sites" on small niches and rank well in the SERPs.

 

[metrisoft]

Your example is a interesting one as it sounds like you felt it wasn't good enough to be using the .net. Why was that?

I think all US businesses prefer .com. In my case, the owner of the .com would not respond but I liked the name "metrisoft" so I went ahead and registered the .net. In fact, there are a number of businesses that use .net as their primary extension. Finally, after offering a couple thousand dollars for metrisoft.com, the owner responded and by then I actually had the money to purchase it. But, the .net always served me well....

 

[snoop]

My better domains I plan on turning into daily updated blogs and/or interactive websites (revenue sharing with content writers), lesser domains will get less frequently updated unique content + adsense. I'm not a big fan of canned content and would rather focus on delivering 5-10 page mini-sites that can be considered "authority sites" on small niches and rank well in the SERPs.

This is the type of thing I was talking about in terms of junky content plus adsense, it isn't really development in my view. It is a circular business model that is completely reliant on Google, for both the traffic and the revenue.

 

[daj]

Thanks for all the posts, even the one's that don't agree with my point of view. Development is definitely key to establishing profit these days unless you have a large money pool to invest in premium domains to park or flip, thus developing premium names would most likely be more rewarding in the long run.

 

[mwzd]

Not everyone can even afford full scale development.

But that doesn't mean you dont do it.

http://www.wannadevelop.com/observations/observation1.html

 

[-REECE-]

Let's take Phytochemicals.info (not mine but in the same niche as most of my domains) : http://siteanalytics.compete.com/phytochemicals.info/?metric=uv as an example.

Not a very hard site to build -- all the information is already on Wikipedia. Rather than scrape it, reword the information and add value (a concept most domainers + webmasters unfortunately have difficulty understanding and think means scrape or add more junky content). Add in some recent scientific publications on the phytochemicals in questions (eg. for health related topics PubMed is good).

Makes one heck of a lot more than it would make parked, I'll tell you that much and really isn't something that'd take more than a few days to put together.

This is the type of thing I was talking about in terms of junky content plus adsense, it isn't really development in my view. It is a circular business model that is completely reliant on Google, for both the traffic and the revenue.

 

[snoop]

Let's take Phytochemicals.info (not mine but in the same niche as most of my domains) : http://siteanalytics.compete.com/phytochemicals.info/?metric=uv as an example.

Not a very hard site to build -- all the information is already on Wikipedia. Rather than scrape it, reword the information and add value (a concept most domainers + webmasters unfortunately have difficulty understanding). Add in some recent scientific publications on the phytochemicals in questions (eg. for health related topics PubMed is good).

Makes one heck of a lot more than it would make parked, I'll tell you that much and really isn't something that'd take more than a few days to put together.

I'm not sure I see how this adds value, anyone typing "phytochemicals" into Google will see the wikipedia listing first. If Phytochemicals.info is just a reworded version it will offer nothing. It is just an attempt to fool Google, nothing really wrong with that but don't think this is a "stable" "long term" business model.

 

[metrisoft]

Thanks for all the posts, even the one's that don't agree with my point of view. dvelopment is definitely key to establishing profit these days unless you have a large money pool to invest in premium domains to flip.

Development is good but don't expect to "get rich quick" from it. Even with great content, quality backlinks, good keywords, etc it takes time to rank well in the search engines (if you ever rank at all) for any traffic keywords, let alone get clicks. And, is there anyone who has "great content" these days anyway?

I think people are looking to development as the "savior" of domaining but this just isn't so. The root problem of the domaining industry is similar to the housing industry; over-leveraging. There was too much "easy money." There are too many domainers trying to "get rich quick". There are too many extensions (and ICANN is just making this worse). There is too much speculation. There is too much dishonesty; just look at the number of shill bids that occur every day. We actually need this downturn to de-leverage, get rid of the "fly-by-night" domainers, and become an industry driven by fundamentals instead of speculation.

Be careful, you may just "develop" yourself into bankruptcy.

 

[-REECE-]

All you really have to do Snoop is add a few scientific publications to that site once a week when new studies come out and you'd have a very authoritative site that's updated and encourages visitors to come back when they want the latest information on (in this case) phytochemicals.

It's good enough to be listed as an External link on Wikipedia Snoop -- not sure what you mean about fooling Google (have they fooled Wikipedia too?). Wikipedia has been doing a pretty good job of removing links which aren't a good resource from their database and this one has been in there upwards of a year (on the phytochemical wikipedia page) since I first discovered the site.

10,000+ uniques from the USA alone consistently each month. How is that not stable Snoop?

I'm not sure I see how this adds value, anyone typing "phytochemicals" into Google will see the wikipedia listing first. If Phytochemicals.info is just a reworded version it will offer nothing. It is just an attempt to fool Google, nothing really wrong with that but don't think this is a "stable" "long term" business model.

 

[corgi]

Throw everything out the window...

whatever works for you - that helps your bottom line, that's your answer.

 

[wakish]

This is the type of thing I was talking about in terms of junky content plus adsense, it isn't really development in my view. It is a circular business model that is completely reliant on Google, for both the traffic and the revenue.

What would you suggest? Are you having a different approach?

 

[-REECE-]

I think anyone who's spent anywhere near as much time on search engines as I have (hardcore nerd :] ) will find that just about all known content is already online -- you might not be able to find it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Other than new discoveries and the latest news/sports scores, there's not really much other reason to justify having hundreds/thousands of sites on the same topic. That doesn't mean they aren't useful and aren't fully capable of making loads of money for their owners however.

Take a minute to read about the Deep Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_web if you haven't done so already -- there's so much content on the web already that people aren't aware of and likely never will be.

You don't need to create tons of new content to be useful to people -- you just need to present existing content in a way that makes it useful for people. That could be as simple as making it easy to access, navigate, and trimmed of verbose garbage like etymologies that nobody other than a college student writing a paper is interested in.

What would you suggest? Are you having a different approach?

 

[equity78]

I think whenever someone posts or starts a thread a qualifier is needed. What are you trying to do ? Make a living from domains only ? or is it a hobby that you work at 10 hours a week to pull in some extra money ? Do you want to do this from domaining or developing ?

I would say Domaining is being a model and developing is being an actress, sure some can do both but for the most part a model is making money on just their looks, where an actress uses her looks sometime, but for those not beautiful they use other talents to earn their living.

Reece you have made several excellent points, too many to quote excellent insight.
I do agree with Metrisoft development is not the key for everyone. And don't lie to yourself you will never develop 1000 names on your own and even if you could you would be diluting your effort, why put as much time into your 100th best idea when it could be put into your top 20. Again IMO

 

[animeenergy]

If you have sex dot com and sex dot net, which one do you think will sell more sex with less marketing $$$?

Put the money where your mouth is.


I have never seen a TV commercial that uses any extension besides dot com.

 

[-REECE-]

I guess you don't watch very much TV or have a good memory.

I've seen .com, .net, .tv, and .ca myself. Sex.com sold for something like $12 million I believe and Sex.net $454,000, so which is really better at the end of the day? I don't know -- how well could you market a domain with an extra $11.5 million?

If you have sex dot com and sex dot net, which one do you think will sell more sex with less marketing $$$?

Put the money where your mouth is.


I have never seen a TV commercial that uses any extension besides dot com.

 

[jeffoverman]

another silly thread lol

 

[claire333]

It's not that other extensions are worthless, but it's still evident that .com is the most valuable. Since it's the oldest and original, it's more ingrained in the minds of users, so whenever we think of a site, we are most likely think of something.com
Even when you type in a keyword in your firefox bar, it defaults to that word .com
Good domains with other extensions still could be worth something, especially popular single word domains.

 

[TMN]

Development is King, every other use of a domain sucks :sold:

:lol:

 

[corgi]

:lol:

That pretty much sums up what's left of 'domaining'


Unless it's a direct navigation dot com, don't expect alot, if any, offers to roll in.

To get Any value now, and for the foreseeable future, you have to develop - and operate it like a real business...supply a good and/or a service that people need and/or want.

 

[cogger]

For now on the dot com extension is dead to me. :bah:

Good luck with your .ws, .be, .info, .etc.....

Google detects server IP's with your domain TLD. Example: If you develop a .ru name and try to host it on the USA this will penalize your ranks in the serps

Use com or org, secure a net of the same for networking. Use other TLD's in the country of same.

 

[mwzd]

Unless it's a direct navigation dot com, don't expect alot, if any, offers to roll in.

Guess i should start refusing offers on my .ins and tell them they're making a mistake not taking the .com

If i were to develop a site, .com is the logical extension, given keyword availability, else a cctld will do just fine.

I'd rather develop backpacker.ws than ohsogreatbackpacker.com

 

[snoop]

I think people are looking to development as the "savior" of domaining but this just isn't so. The root problem of the domaining industry is similar to the housing industry; over-leveraging. There was too much "easy money." There are too many domainers trying to "get rich quick". There are too many extensions (and ICANN is just making this worse). There is too much speculation. There is too much dishonesty; just look at the number of shill bids that occur every day. We actually need this downturn to de-leverage, get rid of the "fly-by-night" domainers, and become an industry driven by fundamentals instead of speculation.

Be careful, you may just "develop" yourself into bankruptcy.

I don't think "leverage" is the right word to use, it means debt, and the amount of debt used to purchase domains is limited to people using credit cards and some finacing at the upper end.

It's good enough to be listed as an External link on Wikipedia Snoop -- not sure what you mean about fooling Google (have they fooled Wikipedia too?). Wikipedia has been doing a pretty good job of removing links which aren't a good resource from their database and this one has been in there upwards of a year (on the phytochemical wikipedia page) since I first discovered the site.

Well you said you were just going to rewrite wikipedia articles with some extra links, so long term why would wikipedia keep links like that listed?

10,000+ uniques from the USA alone consistently each month. How is that not stable Snoop?

Not sure how that relates to the long term stability of the idea.

What would you suggest? Are you having a different approach?

Basically I would suggest that people realize that when they just rely on Google for traffic and Google for revenue they don't really having anything that is likely to be stable long term. Do it if you like but realize it is likely to be short term and will be blown away with the first strong wind, I don't really consider it to be development because nothing solid is really being built.

 

[equity78]

Again people mix everything together, the op says .com is king is bull. Bull to who, end users who will not pay a domainer a big number on a domain ? Maybe, to DOMAINERS people who make their money selling domains and parking .com IS THE CLEAR KING, other extensions have little in the way of direct navigation and that is what a DOMAINER cares about, if you are parking Forex.tl it is getting no type in traffic so the Keyword is great but there is no traffic and that is what a domainer needs. FOREX.tl is great for a developer, but that is not domaining. So we talked about end users and domainers, now to the op your statement to the world wide public, I have been out where people said check out my site and only said the name no extension, what do you think everyone assumed, actually was out and someone said check out my real estate site and the person just said the name, no extension, someone said "DOT WHAT ?" The person said what do you mean ? .com obviously. So the public in the US assumes .com and I would say in International Business .com is assumed.

I think you also have to look at the word DOMAINER, and look at the levels like Major League Baseball and minor league baseball. Major League domainers own domains that actually get traffic, and make money while doing nothing, they obviously champion parking, a minor league domainer who came in to the industry in 2006/2007/2008 who owns random LLLL.com or L-L-L.com both which can be good investments if you get the perfect buyer or have liquidity but get little PPC income. Look at the marketplace how many of those domains do you think get direct navigation? Out of 78 million .com regged how many make $1 a day parked. or even .20 a day ? I know I can say that saying Rick Schwartz and I are both domainers is like saying Rolls Royce and Yugo are both automobile manufacturers.

So again people who have great portfolios see parking as a great tool and even if PPC down they are still making money every hour for doing nothing. Those who have names they like but do not get traffic see parking as going away. PPC makes sense, it makes sense for advertisers to bid for placement and pay for at least some kind of performance. Are 10,000 domainers all going to be calling companies individually trying to sell advertising direct ? NO creative people who do will go out and do that and it will be a small minority. Snoop does make a good point you cannot stop parking to get away from GOOGLE and then just use adsense. Those who can directly sell advertising will be way ahead of the game. Affiliate marketing will be another way to increase the revenue of a website. Again IMO

 

[-REECE-]

If your site is even "okay", you should have plenty of repeat visitors and that's where the difference between parking and development begins to show. I don't mean to be rude, however anyone who thinks most generics are better parked than developed has clearly been brainwashed by a few "top domainers" who clearly stumbled upon domaining by chance or haven't updated their knowledge in 10 years and have no marketing common sense.

Cnet (now owned by CBS) -- now that's a domain company we can all be proud of. They recognized the value of direct navigation traffic and instead of being lazy like pretty much all the so called "top domainers", they turned their portfolio into something worth $1.8 billion to CBS. For those who have trouble with math, that's a larger number than Kevin Ham's, Frank Schilling's, Rick Schwartz's, and likely every other domainer featured over the years on DN Journal Cover Stories portfolios combined.

According to Wikipedia, "Domaining is the business of buying, selling, developing and monetizingInternet domain names not for primary use as a website, but with the goal of profit generation with the intent of resale, like real estate. The noun form is domainer. A domainer is a person who engages in domaining."

I don't know where the idea that domaining doesn't mean developing came from -- I only know that most domainers don't know how and don't want to learn and are for some reason "above" using a CMS like Wordpress for their websites despite it being used by many successful websites.

 

[equity78]

Reece I just think its something more than being a domainer, being a developer I have always stated IMO not as a fact but my definition. Frank Schilling is a domainer to me, I am someone who buys some domains for some ideas but do not consider myself a "Domainer."

I think of a website as a business but that is just my opinion about development.

I will go back to my Model/Actress analogy. Some models are also actresses but that involves more work. a Model can make money just for hitting the genetic jackpot. Model (parked Generic.com) making money just for being beautiful. Actress a lot more work involved you do not have to be beautiful to suceed being an actress lots of different choices (development, lots of development choices, Adsense,Affiliate, Advertising, Product, Information, etc........)