Is there anything wrong on buying .info domains?

[ninomc]

Hello,
Do you find a big disadvantage from the SEO point of view (and Google I guess) when you run blogs using .info domains?

Any Suggestions?

[Alexa Smith]

From the SEO perspective, no: domain extensions don't affect SEO in any way.

For flipping, now, that's another matter.

And there's the question of whether you might at some point lose traffic to the owner of .com, too.

But SEO - absolutely not.

[webapex]

Some say the extension has no effect on search ranking, on the other hand a higher percentage have been deindexed due to them being used in a lot of fly by night, underhanded operations. One would guess the bad rep could have an effect.

The bigger effect of this bad reputation is probably on the resale value of a site into which you may invest 100s of hour of labor.

[DireStraits]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

From the SEO perspective, no: domain extensions don't affect SEO in any way.

For flipping, now, that's another matter.

And there's the question of whether you might at some point lose traffic to the owner of .com, too.

But SEO - absolutely not.

Ack, do you know how many times I preview a post that's taken me ages to write, only to discover you've beaten me to it?

Curse these arthritis-riddled fingers (I need some excuse).

OP: ^^ What she said.

[mandark]

Other posters are correct that .info sites will absolutely not affect your SEO ranking.

However, a .info site often carries a negative connotation of being low-quality. This is obviously not always the case, but if I search for something on Google and have a choice between a .com and a .info, I will almost always choose the .com. Many other searchers have similar opinions. Just something to think about

[edge83]

Nothing to worry about- there actually is a (small) difference from google's perspective because of the fact that it is one extra character- I don't remember the exact details on that but i'm sure you can find that info if you are curious, but it shouldn't deter you. If the .info is for the keyword you want and you build things the correct way you will be fine.

[Antonios]

One of the problems with an extension other than .com is that people include the .com even if the site is .info or another extension.

I had an .info site and since what I was offering people did really wanted it and I had included a phone number in the ad, many people called me informing me that they could not access the site.

Up on verification, many were using .com instead of .info

This makes it double negative if that domain is available with .com and you don't acquire it. If your .info domain becomes profitable, the .com could be bought by a competitor.

Another extension to secure is .org if the domain or one similar is available.

.info could be friendly for users looking for educational info.rmation.

Sincerely,

Antonios

[bay37]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

From the SEO perspective, no: domain extensions don't affect SEO in any way.

That's a pretty bold statement. From my experience domain extensions do affect SEO - regional domain extensions and such.

As for .infos...

I'm not disagreeing or anything, and I'm sure this has been discussed before, but could you guys point me to some solid testing data that proves/disproves the whole .info thing?

Thanks!

[Rikki_Fawkes]

Originally Posted by DireStraits

Ack, do you know how many times I preview a post that's taken me ages to write, only to discover you've beaten me to it?

Curse these arthritis-riddled fingers (I need some excuse).

OP: ^^ What she said.

I feel your pain. Nearly every time I try to be the first to respond, I collect my thoughts in three great paragraphs and find someone else has beaten me to it in five.

[Rikki_Fawkes]

Originally Posted by bay37

That's a pretty bold statement. From my experience domain extensions do affect SEO - regional domain extensions and such.

As for .infos...

I'm not disagreeing or anything, and I'm sure this has been discussed before, but could you guys point me to some solid testing data that proves/disproves the whole .info thing?

Thanks!

I don't find it to be as attractive for readers as .com or .org domains - that much I've experienced myself.

[DireStraits]

Originally Posted by Antonios

One of the problems with an extension other than .com is that people include the .com even if the site is .info or another extension.

I had an .info site and since what I was offering people did really wanted it and I had included a phone number in the ad, many people called me informing me that they could not access the site.

Up on verification, many were using .com instead of .info

This makes it double negative if that domain is available with .com and you don't acquire it. If your .info domain becomes profitable, the .com could be bought by a competitor.

Another extension to secure is .org if the domain or one similar is available.

.info could be friendly for users looking for educational info.rmation.

Sincerely,

Antonios

Yes; loss of traffic to another TLD (usually the .com) can clearly be a problem if you're advertising your site through a medium which requires that the visitor enters your URL into their address bar manually. But I think it's less of a problem if the origin of most/all of your traffic is search-engines, or from anywhere else where the visitor is simply "clicking through", and doesn't even have to pay attention to your URL at all.

[ninomc]

Thank you for all the great advice..Also where can I find more information about this topic?

[bay37]

Originally Posted by Rikki_Fawkes

I don't find it to be as attractive for readers as .com or .org domains - that much I've experienced myself.

Agree with you 100%.

Originally Posted by DireStraits

Yes; loss of traffic to another TLD (usually the .com) can clearly be a problem if you're advertising your site through a medium which requires that the visitor enters your URL into their address bar manually.

...or building a brand.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by bay37

That's a pretty bold statement.

It doesn't feel like a bold statement to me.

I'll tell you why: Google's Matt Cutts says this openly and repeatedly. He says it on his blog and on Google's blog. He says it in writing and on video. And he invites people to quote him on it. And I do.

[Rikki_Fawkes]

Originally Posted by bay37

Agree with you 100%.



...or building a brand.

I've actually had more success using .info's for domain redirects in article sites and using the .com's for branding.

[Rikki_Fawkes]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

It doesn't feel like a bold statement to me.

I'll tell you why: Google's Matt Cutts says this openly and repeatedly. He says it on his blog and on Google's blog. He says it in writing and on video. And he invites people to quote him on it. And I do.

Well, that's something I didn't know - but it's good to know, going forward. Thanks for sharing that. I don't think I'll be buying any new domains soon, but if I do, at least I can chalk that off as one that won't hurt my SEO.

[bay37]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

It doesn't feel like a bold statement to me.

I'll tell you why: Google's Matt Cutts says this openly and repeatedly. He says it on his blog and on Google's blog. He says it in writing and on video. And he invites people to quote him on it. And I do.

Fair enough.

[Alexa Smith]

I use loads of .info domain-names. I think they look better, for "informative" sites.

I don't want anyone else to own the .com, though, so I often buy those too and just redirect them to the .info I'm using, and then do the SEO for the .info.

Confusion typically arises because people see that fewer .info domain-names (for example) rank at the top of Google than .com domains, and they mistakenly imagine that this is evidence that .info domains don't rank so well.

What it's actually evidence of is that many marketers wrongly believe that .info domains don't rank so well, so they often don't use them when they want to rank well. Therefore there are fewer of them ranking well.

[bay37]

Originally Posted by Rikki_Fawkes

I've actually had more success using .info's for domain redirects in article sites and using the .com's for branding.

That's what I said - using a .info domain for branding could be problematic.

[myob]

I use .info domains almost exclusively for many of my little niches. The .info domains certainly do have a place in marketing, with its disadvantages noted. In developing niche markets, for example as in product review sites/blogs, it brings a huge advantage in finding tightly targeted labels unavailable in .com TLDs.

[dexterfulton]

The only problem with .info is the perceived value the visitor associates with the extension. With proper link building .info can out rank a .com domain, however everything being equal, and both domains in the top 2 spots, the .com would definitely get more clicks.

[jwardz]

Originally Posted by Rikki_Fawkes

I've actually had more success using .info's for domain redirects in article sites and using the .com's for branding.

That is really good to know. I have heard both sides. This is why. It looks like it depends on the application. Thanks.

[DireStraits]

Originally Posted by bay37

That's what I said - using a .info domain for branding could be problematic.

Absolutely.

When I was a web-host, I perhaps rather stupidly established my site on a .net domain that I really liked, for which the .com domain was already registered.

Although most of my visitors were referred from online sources (and thus came simply by clicking a link/banner/whatever), I later noticed, as I became more established, that customers recommending me in forums and on their own sites were occasionally using the wrong URL. I shuddered at the thought that if they could get it wrong so easily online (after having visited my site numerous times already), it must also be a problem for those recommending me to others offline (or indeed for those to whom I was being recommended).

Luckily for me, I re-checked the .com one day, and it'd been bought up by some site offering it for sale, with a pre-agreed price of only about $300. So I snapped it up, and all was well.

So yes, for branding purposes, or for any site where I planned for my traffic to originate from anywhere but search-engines (and if I expected my visitors to be anything but "one-timers" just passing through), I'd think twice about using a more "obscure" TLD such as a .info.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by dexterfulton

The only problem with .info is the perceived value the visitor associates with the extension.

If you're marketing to internet marketers, perhaps, yes.

I'm not in that niche, and my customers don't know the difference, or they think .info looks better for an information site.

Originally Posted by DireStraits

for branding purposes, or for any site where I planned for my traffic to originate from anywhere but search-engines (and if I expected my visitors to be anything but "one-timers" just passing through), I'd think twice about using a more "obscure" TLD such as a .info.

Yes, this is true. Well, that's the "traffic" issue, really, isn't it?

I get round that by buying the .com too, but often I prefer to use the .info because it looks better to customers.

This tired old idea that "people think a .com looks better" is just a marketers' perspective, not a customers' perspective.

[bay37]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

If you're marketing to internet marketers, perhaps, yes.

I'm not in that niche, and my customers don't know the difference, or they think .info looks better for an information site.

I have actually carried out a large survey for this, and a very substantial number of people chose:

1. Given a choice they always go for .co.uk/com/net/org (most of the participants came from the UK).

2. They associate .info with low value (poor content) websites.

3. Some associate .info websites with "spam".

This was a rather large survey, over 1400 responses, eight months ago... Participants were mostly University students/lecturers.

[myob]

Apparently none of my customers from any of my .info sites heard anything about any silly "survey". ROFLMAO!

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by bay37

Participants were mostly University students/lecturers.

Then take notice of it, if you're marketing primarily to university students and lecturers in the UK.

[bay37]

Originally Posted by myob

Apparently none of my customers from any of my .info sites heard anything about those surveys.

No offense meant to anyone - no need to get defensive so quickly.

This was done as part of a large group project at Uni... I like data.

Pointless discussion. I'm off to bed.

[myob]

Originally Posted by bay37

No offense meant to anyone - no need to get defensive so quickly.

This was done as part of a large group project at Uni... I like data.

Pointless discussion. I'm off to bed.

Do you like data so much to change it? How can you sleep at night? You went and changed my direct quote, and now it's missing some key data. This is what I wrote:

Originally Posted by myob

Apparently none of my customers from any of my .info sites heard anything about any silly "survey". ROFLMAO!

I love data! But, I also understand how to use it. You cited only ONE limited survey of 1400 responses.
So, comeon, you gotta laugh at how silly this looks!

[oneplusone]

Originally Posted by myob

Do you like data so much to change it? How can you sleep at night? You went and changed my direct quote, and now it's missing some key data. This is what I wrote:


I love data! But, I also understand how to use it. You cited only ONE limited survey of 1400 responses.
So, comeon, you gotta laugh at how silly this looks!

While I don't agree with him as far as the .info debate goes, you edited your post after he replied.

So he didn't change anything, he was replying to the post you had originally made.

Either you forgot you edited your post, or are deliberately trying to make him look bad.

Regardless of which one it is, I think you should retract what you are claiming.

[JMichaelZ]

I have never found any issue with ranking any of the extensions I have used. I have not used any dot biz or dot us, but as far as the other 4, I have never run into an issue using any of them.

Except maybe the odd site or two that won't let you enter in a domain name with 4 characters in the extension, but that is about it.

[myob]

bay37,

I apologize for upsetting you, and I noticed you deleted your angry post. Yes, I was just jacking you around, but it was only meant in fun. Although your premise may indeed be valid for some instances, the dogmatic conclusion using such loosely supporting data just seems silly to have been taken so seriously. The marketing data for using .info or other domains can also be supported for targeting specific niche markets. The conclusion: test it yourself. Your mileage may vary.

[dhigler]

Please listen to Alexa Smith, post #2.

Brendon

[smartdoctor]

Originally Posted by Antonios

Up on verification, many were using .com instead of .info
Antonios

most people do not know there is a difference so stick to .com it is easier that way

[bay37]

Originally Posted by myob

bay37,

I apologize for upsetting you, and I noticed you deleted your angry post. Yes, I was just jacking you around, but it was only meant in fun.

No worries! I can normally see it coming. Was just a little tired last night.

I have a memo on my desktop bg that goes "never get involved in ANY argument on WaFo", but here I am again... Should have known better.

P.S. I didn't delete anything, one of the mods nuked it. Good stuff.

[DireStraits]

Originally Posted by bay37

No worries! I can normally see it coming. Was just a little tired last night.

I have a memo on my desktop bg that goes "never get involved in ANY argument on WaFo", but here I am again... Should have known better.

P.S. I didn't delete anything, one of the mods nuked it. Good stuff.

I have a different (but similar) memo that says "WARNING: dealing with people nearly always results in arguments!".

And that's one of the reasons I've never been too active on any forums over a sustained period of time, and possibly why I'm bordering on being an anti-social, mountain-dwelling recluse.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by DireStraits

... and possibly why I'm bordering on being an anti-social, mountain-dwelling recluse.

We have mountains in Yorkshire? I must try to get out more ...

[Jackson Soo]

Originally Posted by ninomc

Hello,
Do you find a big disadvantage from the SEO point of view (and Google I guess) when you run blogs using .info domains?

Any Suggestions?

I've personally found them more difficult to rank compared to the 3 favourites and would never buy them. There are of course people from opposite camps.

Guess it's an acquired taste and you have to try for yourself.

[paulie888]

Originally Posted by ninomc

Hello,
Do you find a big disadvantage from the SEO point of view (and Google I guess) when you run blogs using .info domains?

Any Suggestions?

This has been asked literally a thousand times here, and the short answer is NO! The TLD does not make any difference whatsoever from an SEO standpoint, and will not negatively impact your rankings. Period.

Paul

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by bay37

I'm not disagreeing or anything, and I'm sure this has been discussed before, but could you guys point me to some solid testing data that proves/disproves the whole .info thing?

Have you tried using the search function of this forum? This is a "Groundhog Day" topic.

YouTube - Groundhog Day - The Alarm Clock

[DireStraits]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

We have mountains in Yorkshire? I must try to get out more ...

Aye lass; possibly so, depending on your idea of what constitutes a mountain. And almost certainly, if you're prepared to make a mountain out of a molehill.

[bay37]

Originally Posted by DireStraits

...if you're prepared to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Words to live by. Wait, what?

Damn it, it's raining again.

[loristm]

I personally don't like .info domains. It may not affect the SEO but visitors like .com and .org URLs

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by loristm

It may not affect the SEO but visitors like .com and .org URLs

Have you actually asked them, or is that really what you prefer, yourself, and assume that others will, too?

I have asked mine, and the majority of those expressing a preference at all actually prefer .info names for "information sites". Yours, of course, may be different.

[paulie888]

Originally Posted by loristm

I personally don't like .info domains. It may not affect the SEO but visitors like .com and .org URLs

Do you know this for a fact, or are you just "assuming" this? Have you actually polled your visitors to see what TLD they prefer?

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, it'd be best to ask before assuming anything.

[bay37]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

I have asked mine, and the majority of those expressing a preference at all actually prefer .info names for "information sites".

Do you mind sharing some more details about your target audience?

[Richard Van]

Originally Posted by loristm

I personally don't like .info domains. It may not affect the SEO but visitors like .com and .org URLs

I personally don't give a monkeys what it is so long as it works for me.

Like Alexa I get the impression you personally don't like .info and that you haven't researched it and therefore don't actually know for sure what domain ending people (f)actually prefer,
...if indeed they care one way or another. Having said that I do agree also, that if the site is an information site, why on earth wouldn't they prefer a .info necessarily?
Your statement appears to cover the entire internet. Which it shouldn't.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by bay37

Do you mind sharing some more details about your target audience?

With apologies, very few successful niche marketers here, in non-IM-advice niches, are willing to disclose their niches, for obvious reasons.

I'm involved in 8 different niches, excluding "IM advice". In other words, (with one minor exception for which I have no proper site and am not even building a list) I'm not selling products aimed at internet marketers, the one group some of whom I imagine may prefer to see .com domains to .info ones, though I have no direct evidence of that.

[Martin Luxton]

So you find out that travel .com is taken but travel .info is available

You do some research and find out that the .com is not on the first 20 pages of Google for major related keywords, and has only 50 backlinks.

Would you buy the .info?


Martin


BTW, travel.com.au - Cheap Flights, Hotels, Holiday Packages, Cruises, Tours - one destination. endless possibilities. ranks higher than TRAVEL.com*® - Worldwide Travel Reservations for the keyword "travel". This means that you should never buy a .com because the .com.au, is obviously better.

[paulie888]

Originally Posted by Martin Luxton

So you find out that travel .com is taken but travel .info is available

You do some research and find out that the .com is not on the first 20 pages of Google for major related keywords, and has only 50 backlinks.

Would you buy the .info?


Martin


BTW, travel.com.au - Cheap Flights, Hotels, Holiday Packages, Cruises, Tours - one destination. endless possibilities. ranks higher than TRAVEL.com*® - Worldwide Travel Reservations for the keyword "travel". This means that you should never buy a .com because the .com.au, is obviously better.

In this case, you'd have to look at the competition on page 1 of Google and not the .com, since it isn't even in the top 20 pages.

With an especially broad term like 'travel', I'd imagine that there is very strong competition for that keyword, especially in the US version of Google. What you'd have to do then is look at how many backlinks the top 10 sites are getting, in addition to the types of backlinks they're using.