Is it harder to rank for Not .com Domains?

[jjeeezy]

Yes they do rank.

BUT people are scared ****less by mystery extensions and possible viruses...

I just surveyed a couple of my less tech saavy friends and they all said they have NEVER heard of .info.

"WTF is .info?"

And that they'd rather click the 2nd result if there is one (.com).

My advice would be to buy a .info after it ranks and if your gut feeling tells you you'll make money from it, go ahead and buy the .com. You don't have ONLY one choice to go about this you know...

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Al Mukmin

Next time you get into a niche, buy both the .com and .info variation and see which one ranks faster/better with the same amount of links. Do it 5x more and there you have it.

I've done that because a couple of years I used to labor under the mistaken belief that you're trying to spread. I found that they would rank, or not rank, equally well depending on the level of competition for the keywords.

I also have observed other people's new .infos rank well, such as the "move your money" site I mentioned earlier.

Now, is a brand new .info domain going to compete well with an established .com of the same name? No, it's not. Likewise, you would have a tough time ranking against most of the .info examples I gave earlier if you bought the parked .com from the domainer who held it.

I'd also suggest you look at the 'roman coins' keyword. There is a romancoins.com domain that's live but it doesn't rank anywhere for the term. Instead, it's beaten out by many other domains, including several .info domains beyond the one that's dominating the niche. There's even a subdomain off a .info that's outranking it!

And that's only one example and there are hundreds more you can find if you look. Once you start really looking into niches and actually building and promoting 100's of sites you'll find out that some of the cherished SEO and IM assumptions are plain wrong or at least aren't as important as some people give them credit for being.

[Clyde]

There you go again. Do you know how an experiment should be done?

If you're testing the effect TLD's have on ranking, every other variables such as backlinks, on page SEO, should be kept the same (constants).

Yahoo.com ranking for the term "yahoo" is not proof that .com ranks better than .info domain names just as much as romancoins.info ranking for "roman coins" is proof that .info is better.

Unless you can fathom this, going back and forth with you is pointless.

Here's how it should be done.

- Buy both romancoins.com and romancoins.info at the same time.
- Use the same content for both domains.
- Build the same number of backlinks to both domains at the same time.
- Monitor results and improvement in ranking.

Now in this case the only variable is the TLD. This is a scientific experiment.

Write your conclusion accordingly. Is it harder to rank for Not .com Domains?

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Al Mukmin

Unless you can fathom this, going back and forth with you is pointless.

Unless you can understand that in real world SEO, not in some contrived meaningless so called 'scientific' test, that .info domains rank just fine all the time, going back and forth with you is pointless.

[Clyde]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Unless you can understand that in real world SEO, not in some contrived meaningless so called 'scientific' test, that .info domains rank just fine all the time, going back and forth with you is pointless.

Read the title of this thread.

Is it harder to rank for Not .com Domains?

Your answer to this is .info rank just fine?

Almost EVERYBODY here know that you can rank any TLD with sufficient backlinks.

The keyword here is "harder".

Would it be harder?

Can I be anymore clearer?

Now please admit your mistake so we can move along.

[kartikkhattar]

I stopped reading the posts after a while and decided to add my opinion, those who are in favor of .info or who say .info can rank well are not wrong at all, i personally haven't used a .info domain but was planning to use that's why i landed up here, but i have used a .in domain which is for India and i ranked pretty well for many keywords, so if .in can get me traffic from all around the world and rank well then i am pretty sure even .info can. All depends on keyword,competetion,content,seo

[paulgl]

Try to beat prchecker.info.
beat it for page rank checker, pr checker, google pagerank, whatever.

When you can't, you'll come back and say,

"Gee. I guess it's harder for a dot com to beat a dot info."

Make sense? of course not.

The sheer numbers of dot coms vs. dot infos is misleading into
thinking it's harder. The vast amount of dot coms that have years
of age and authority also add to the myth.

Has nothing to do with domain extension. It has to do with the site
you are trying to beat. Period.

This voodoo SEO really has people twisting around.

It also keeps domain resellers rich, newbies crying "What happened ?
I followed the magical list....and I failed!" It was supposed to be easy!!!

Paul

[kartikkhattar]

I totally agree, and moreover it also depends on what works or worked for someone. Having a keyword in the domain is good and it matters and apart from that the rest of the SEO techniques is what makes a difference, I am gonna go with a .info domain and try to make it rank well.

[fortony]

After reading this thread, I would have to say it must not make any difference at all. The most compelling argument I saw was about Google not wanting to hurt the relevancy of their results. Whatever you say about Google, they do care about search. Penalizing certain extensions would hurt their results since there is no reason a .biz or whatever cannot have the most relevant results for the search.

Besides, as the internet keeps growing, we are going to see more and more new extensions. Does not make sense to penalize them all.

[Jill Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Al Mukmin

Read the title of this thread.

Your answer to this is .info rank just fine?

Almost EVERYBODY here know that you can rank any TLD with sufficient backlinks.

The keyword here is "harder".

Would it be harder?

Can I be anymore clearer?

Now please admit your mistake so we can move along.

I suppose the only thing that would be "harder" about ranking a dot info over a dot com is the fact that I have to type out 4 letters at the end instead of 3. This may take up several milliseconds of my life.

Both will take the same amount of time to submit articles for, submit videos for, build backlinks for, etc.

So, no, it is not any harder to rank for not .com domains. All require the same amount of work.

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Unless you can understand that in real world SEO, not in some contrived meaningless so called 'scientific' test, that .info domains rank just fine all the time, going back and forth with you is pointless.

Unfortunately, real world SEO gets tossed out in favor of parlor tricks and
voodoo SEO. And people wonder why they fail.

Your voodoo doll video is priceless.

Paul

[kysee]

For I think you can be able to rank your site having that type of extension but better to use .com

[hetalamish]

I don't think so there is any direct connection between rankings and domains like .com, .net etc. However it is good if you get .com and .net first bu if not than taking other domain names will not harmful in terms of rankings.

[Ridgway]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Second time around in this Groundhog Day thread. Google on the bold terms...

This does beg the question, have you ever searched for info on Noam Chomsky? How about regular expressions, roman coins or craft ideas? Maybe you've never needed to do some research to find out if New York was a sanctuary city or to find out something about New York transit. Oh, and have you thought about moving your money to a local bank before you go shopping on Black Friday?

Are we going to go for 3 times in this one?

I wrote .info GETS A BAD RAP, I did not post that they don't rank. Easy with the flaming blowtorch.