What about info domains

[xameleonfm]

Is it true that they rank bad in google just because of their cost?

[bgmacaw]

No. You'll find several infos that are authority sites, such as this one that's both a .info and has a hyphen too! Regular-Expressions.info

As usual, it's a matter of having good incoming links, preferably from ones from sites that have authority and trust. It also helps to have decent, useful, content that encourages other people to link to your site, which is why I'm linking to the site above since I find it helpful on a 'regular' basis.

Most people who do .info sites do them as quick, cheapo, sites and don't do proper link building and use crappy, thin, content. They'll blame it on Google 'hating' .infos but the truth is that a new .com given that treatment wouldn't fair any better.

[TruWebPro]

Yes. While it is not impossible to have a .info well-ranked with Google, it is more difficult to get it there because they are at a disadvantage to start with. Witness this history:

In March 2008 Google chief spam cop Matt Cutts made the following prediction on his personal blog:

A top-level domain (TLD registry) will offer domains for under $4. The result will be another TLD blighted by spammy domain registrations.

Since this prediction was made, .info domains have often been available for a mere $0.99.

In May 2008, many holders of previously well-ranked .info domains found their pages suddenly purged from Google's search results. Since that time, .info domains with similar quality content as other TLD's statistically do not rank as well in search results.

That Google has a bias against .info domains would now seem obvious, although just how severe that bias is remains in debate. Regardless, if your first concern is to optimize your site for SEO, avoiding the penalty inherent to a .info domain would seem advisable.

Best success,
Neil

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by TruWebPro

In May 2008, many holders of previously well-ranked .info domains found their pages suddenly purged from Google's search results.

A short accidental glitch caused by a bug in an indexing algorithm. The domains were properly indexed once the buggy algorithm was removed from production a few hours later. This was much like Google declaring every website harmful a few months ago.

Originally Posted by TruWebPro

Since that time, .info domains with similar quality content as other TLD's statistically do not rank as well in search results.

Nonsense.

[TruWebPro]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

A short accidental glitch caused by a bug in an indexing algorithm. The domains were properly indexed once the buggy algorithm was removed from production a few hours later. This was much like Google declaring every website harmful a few months ago.

That is was one explanation given at the time, yes, but I have talked to a number of .info holders who were affected and said their rankings never returned to what they had been.

Nonsense.

Really? Any EVIDENCE?

Here are a few more quotes from reputable sources:

"Not all TLDs are equal. There are TLDs that are +1 domains (TLDs) better than others. For instance, the most popular TLD – .com – is much better than .ws, .biz, or .info domains..."

"Web sites with certain top level domains (TLD) are statistically more likely to contain higher quality, trustworthy contents. For this reason, search engines might prefer web sites with restricted TLD (.edu, .gov., .mil) over younger TLD (e.g., .biz, .info, .jobs)."

I could go on, but I'm not interested in getting into a flame war with you. If you have evidence to support your assertion, please return with it; I am more than interested. I was trying to answer xameleonfm's question with the benefit of all the information I have been able to gather on the subject thus far; being as I control a few hundred domains myself it concerns me too. I'd love to know if .info domains are valued just as highly by Google, that would actually be very useful to me. But I would need facts to discredit what everyone else I have found has to say on the subject.

Best success,
Neil

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by TruWebPro

Really? Any EVIDENCE?

In the post above, I presented a website that ranks very well against some very powerful .com sites in the same niche. And it's even a .info with a hyphen in the name, a double whammy supposed SEO "no-no".

I have over 100 .info domains and they rank as well as similar .coms for their target keywords. In a number of cases I have both the .com and the .info on closely related keywords and there's no performance difference.

Note that I'm not going after long established websites but for relatively low competition long tail terms. The real factor is domain age and link profile age, not the TLD. Since .com/.net/.org have been around longer existing domains tend to dominate due to their age, not their TLD. When you're talking about brand new domain names, they start out equally SEO-wise.

I have never seen a evidence of any 'penalty' being applied to a .info, .biz or any other 'younger' TLD by Google or Yahoo on the basis of the TLD alone. Early on Bing did apply such a penalty to both newer TLD's and subdomains but they appear to have removed this for the most part now since it hurt the quality of their searches.

.com domains do have a considerable advantage from a branding standpoint, resell value, type-in traffic and so forth. However, this doesn't have anything to do with SEO.

Originally Posted by TruWebPro

But I would need facts to discredit what everyone else I have found has to say on the subject.

What I'm saying is do your own accurate testing with domains you've purchased and your own research into existing domains, don't believe what other people are telling you. There's a lot of "Cargo Cult" SEO out there that mistakes coincidence with causality.

[321sitemonitor.com]

The reason that info domains do not get good ranking in Google is not because they are cheap. There are many threads in this forum where people ask whether they buy .com or other domains. The answer is simple - .com

The priority is given to .com domains because of the thumb rule. Most of people around the world are still known to only .com domains. They might know about other domains but for instance they know a website name then they firstly go ahead trying it with .com domain.

The thing is very natural and there is no cost relevant fact related to it

[sachibhat]

.com is good for type in traffic, but if you are targeting organic traffic, then .info or .com are at the same level.

[xameleonfm]

Wow guys, thank you so much for your thoughts. Actually the main reason i ask this question is that i wanna try xfactor adsense method. And i don't wanna spend much on about ~10 domain names. It's just interesting for me if i could be on the first page of google for low competition words. I have 3 domains now, and think about try subdomains or buy *.info.

[howinfo]

We run info domain and now it is our main website and it is doing better than any other sites we have. Originally we where after info extension from the star as it was most suitable for our project and we have not noticed any negative drawbacks from having info extension.

[Solidsnake]

This is a very good conversation though there are some disagreements but I found it very helpful.

I just want to add. Most people, especially people who are running hundreds of blogs and/or niche sites uses info because they are cheap. The problem is, when someone has hundreds of domains/websites, he has limited time for SEO... that's I think the reason why most of these info domains does not rank well in search engines - lack of SEO activity by the loaded owners...

[Chris Kent]

.info domains for the xfactor adsense method do work. I know of several people doing it this way.