are .info backlinks weaker than .com?

[Brendan Mace]

I have experienced firsthand that .info domains have a harder time ranking as a money site. But do these .info domains also pass on less authority?

[rob1123]

The logic would be that if its harder to rank, it would pass less authority.

However googles 'official stance' is that domain extensions aren't considered for ranking.

[UMS]

Originally Posted by co2

I have experienced firsthand that .info domains have a harder time ranking as a money site.

Based on what evidence and criteria?

But do these .info domains also pass on less authority?

No.

[John Alves]

Originally Posted by co2

I have experienced firsthand that .info domains have a harder time ranking as a money site. But do these .info domains also pass on less authority?

The PageRank of the site matters when it comes to backlink power. The domain extension doesn't make a difference. In general, it is a good idea to get .com if you want to get a site ranked because it will be respected more by people that visit it. However, for backlinks, the .info doesn't make a difference.

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by UMS

Based on what evidence and criteria?



No.

I have 50 websites. Some of them are .info and some are not. I have consistently had more difficulty ranking .info domains than .com, .org and .net. Especially in the last year or so.

I have also seen Matt Laclear assert that he has more difficulty ranking .info domains. And he works on THOUSANDS of different domains.

Nobody except google can prove whether .info domains are devalued. But there is statistical evidence that supports the assumption that they are.

Of course, some people still strongly believe that domain extension has no bearing. And that's perfectly fine, I cannot prove you wrong. In my experience, domain extension does make a difference.

[UMS]

Originally Posted by co2

I have 50 websites. Some of them are .info and some are not. I have consistently had more difficulty ranking .info domains than .com, .org and .net. Especially in the last year or so.

I have also seen Matt Laclear assert that he has more difficulty ranking .info domains. And he works on THOUSANDS of different domains.

Nobody except google can prove whether .info domains are devalued. But there is statistical evidence that supports the assumption that they are.

Of course, some people still strongly believe that domain extension has no bearing. And that's perfectly fine, I cannot prove you wrong. In my experience, domain extension does make a difference.

I guess everyone has a difference experience. I personally haven't had any problems ranking .info sites, but then again, I don't have too many of them.

[JSProjects]

No.

It's all about the pagerank. Don't worry about the extension.

[paulgl]

I'll betcha that more people come here and complain that
they can't get their dot coms to rank, as opposed to
those talking about dot infos. So, what does that say
about dot coms? That they are hard to rank?

Ranking a site is based on many factors, some may be
even be hidden to the naked eye. One of those
is not extension, except in the case of some country
codes.

I never buy the argument about .infos selling for less
or other such hogwash as we are talking SEO, not
some perceived value of a site. Besides, what would
be the price of prchecker.info if that site ever sold?
A whole lotta more bucks than the dot com, that's
for dang sure.

If you seriously don't want a dot info, don't get it!
There is a never-ending supply of dot coms that one
can up with. Even nonsense ones like zillow.com that
has become the #1 real estate site. I can think of
a dozen cool names as dot coms for any niche in a matter
of seconds. Tell me you have not heard of zoosk.com.

Boggles my mind why people worry about a friggin domain
and/or extension in the first place if one is solely talking
about SEO. And zillow and zoosk are only 2 examples of
cool, easy to remember dot coms. If I didn't know, I
would never in a million years guess the niche. But then,
the same could be said for yahoo, google, bing, ebay,
twitter, digg, etc.

So if a dot info gives you the cooties, so be it. Makes no
difference in SEO how you feel.

Paul

[iAmNameLess]

No domain extension has any more value in terms of ranking than the other. UNLESS!!!!! It is a country specific domain. A .au domain is not going to rank as well as a .com on google.com, but they are likely to do better in australia.

Google doesn't discriminate against .info domains... only people do.

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by paulgl

I'll betcha that more people come here and complain that
they can't get their dot coms to rank, as opposed to
those talking about dot infos. So, what does that say
about dot coms? That they are hard to rank?

Ranking a site is based on many factors, some may be
even be hidden to the naked eye. One of those
is not extension, except in the case of some country
codes.

I never buy the argument about .infos selling for less
or other such hogwash as we are talking SEO, not
some perceived value of a site. Besides, what would
be the price of prchecker.info if that site ever sold?
A whole lotta more bucks than the dot com, that's
for dang sure.

If you seriously don't want a dot info, don't get it!
There is a never-ending supply of dot coms that one
can up with. Even nonsense ones like zillow.com that
has become the #1 real estate site. I can think of
a dozen cool names as dot coms for any niche in a matter
of seconds. Tell me you have not heard of zoosk.com.

Boggles my mind why people worry about a friggin domain
and/or extension in the first place if one is solely talking
about SEO. And zillow and zoosk are only 2 examples of
cool, easy to remember dot coms. If I didn't know, I
would never in a million years guess the niche. But then,
the same could be said for yahoo, google, bing, ebay,
twitter, digg, etc.

So if a dot info gives you the cooties, so be it. Makes no
difference in SEO how you feel.

Paul

My goodness. The argument that since webmasters find .com domains hard to rank, they must be just as difficult as .info is just silly.

My opinion is that .info's are harder to rank than a .com extension. I never said that .com's aren't hard to rank. If someone is incompetent at seo, it really does not matter what extension they use. They are going to fail.

And the prchecker.info example.... Again, I never said that .info domains can't rank or gain authority. My argument is that it takes them longer to rank and gain google trust.

BTW. I have successful .info sites. But it took me A LOT longer to rank them. That being said, I only have 50 websites. So the 10 or so .info domains that I own could be part of a statistical anomaly.

Final point - I'm not afraid to buy a .info domain. I am interested in a pr3 .info domain for seo purposes, but the amount I'm willing to spend is dependent on whether .info domains pass on the same amount of authority as a .com domain. It's not about cooties. I could care less about the extension. I'm more concerned with how google feels.

[googlepage1]

Extension doesn't matter at all until and unless the content available in the domain supports the extension.
e.g an .EDU link would be not much valuable when the content of the domain is about apparel or any other irrelevant stuff.

[rob1123]

The only real reason that I could think of that a .info domain name would rank as easily is that some people may be less willing to link to a dot info site, but it's a pretty weak argument.

I was watching a webinar a while back that said that .Info domains are harder to rank because before the .com rush all the spammers had .info domains as they were cheap. I don't believe it for a second though.

Rob

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

No domain extension has any more value in terms of ranking than the other. UNLESS!!!!! It is a country specific domain. A .au domain is not going to rank as well as a .com on google.com, but they are likely to do better in australia.

Google doesn't discriminate against .info domains... only people do.

Thank you. An opinion that isn't aggressive in nature.

I have no idea why a simple question can cause people to act like I'm offending them is some way. I only opened this thread because I wanted to hear opinions on whether .info domains are as effective in seo as .com domains. TBH, my initial thoughts were that all extensions pass on equal authority. I never once said that domain extensions pass on different levels of authority. I just wanted to hear other people's experience with high pr .info backlinks.

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by rob1123

I was watching a webinar a while back that said that .Info domains are harder to rank because before the .com rush all the spammers had .info domains as they were cheap. I don't believe it for a second though.

Rob

.info domains are more likely to have low quality content. So it wouldn't be entirely illogical for google to devalue them. Of course, there would be a ton of collateral damage, and good sites would unfairly be devalued. But google is fine with collateral damage, as long as they make a change that overall improves the quality of their search engine results.

The panda update for example affected about 15% of websites. Some of the websites were unfairly affected, but that does not mean that devaluing the general tendencies of low quality content is a bad decision.

[moneyranger]

Originally Posted by co2

I have experienced firsthand that .info domains have a harder time ranking as a money site. But do these .info domains also pass on less authority?

I have faced it before. My team made websites for our clients once I choosed .info domain instead of .com and seriously getting it on top of google was very hard nut to crack....I personally believe that its quiet difficult for info domain to show better SEO that .com,.org,.net,.edu,.gov even the country extension is better if you are making website for specific country like .us,.in,.co.in........etc

[IMSince2003]

I've also created thousands of websites and I've not had any issues with .info domains. They work as well as any other extension.

[ittocans]

I think not at all time true. It depends on the page rank.

[Greeks]

Both are same, but page rank is important in backlinking, try to post on high PR blogs or forums.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by co2

.info domains are more likely to have low quality content. So it wouldn't be entirely illogical for google to devalue them.

That is ridiculous. I can find a lot more .com's with low quality content than .info's.

I'm not going to argue one way or the other, but to base it on your belief that .info's have a higher probability of having low quality is silly.

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

That is ridiculous. I can find a lot more .com's with low quality content than .info's.

I'm not going to argue one way or the other, but to base it on your belief that .info's have a higher probability of having low quality is silly.

Your counter argument is ridiculous. Of course you can find more lower quality .com domains. There's about 10X more .com's in existence <--- You could also find more higher quality .com's.

If a company or business individual with major financial backing starts a website, they are considerably more likely to pick a .com extension. Especially if all extensions are available, even if only because of the unfair stigma placed on other extensions. If an SEO wants a website for backlinking purposes, they do not care about the extension. Because according to this thread, the domain extension does not impact authority.

I AM NOT making the blanket statement that .com's are always higher quality. I'm only suggesting that .com's are more likely to have high quality content. Because the reputable sources are more likely to choose .com as an extension.

Google doesn't care about individuals, so they would not be afraid to add the general tendencies of a domain extension into their algo.

I'm not suggesting that google does devalue .info domains. I'm only claiming that it wouldn't be an entirely illogical thing for them to do.

[mattlaclear]

It is my experience that folks grabbing .infos for their money sites usually go low budget on their content and site design as well. But even with the amount of campaigns we have ran and are running the jury is still out regarding what domain extensions are easier to rank for.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by co2

I'm only suggesting that .com's are more likely to have high quality content. Because the reputable sources are more likely to choose .com as an extension.

So based on that wouldn't a spammer or someone creating garbage on the internet also be more likely to take a .com to seem more legitimate?

Originally Posted by co2

Google doesn't care about individuals, so they would not be afraid to add the general tendencies of a domain extension into their algo.

All I am asking is show some proof of this "general tendency". You are just stating that .info's are more likely to have poor content with nothing to back that up.

[bhuff85]

I would say that I have a fair amount of .info websites, just as I do .com, .net and .org. From the processes I follow, I find that it is more about the keywords I choose and authority of other top 10 competing websites that determines whether or not how easy it will be to rank for a particular keyword.

Also, I know a lot of websites that I use in private blog networks are .info's, yet have a high PR value. Those seem to give off just as much juice as a .com, .net or .org with a high PR value as well.

In the end, the last thing I would worry about is your domain extension. There are A LOT more things you need to consider if you want to get on the first page for your targeted keywords, let alone have a chance to crack the top 3.

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

So based on that wouldn't a spammer or someone creating garbage on the internet also be more likely to take a .com to seem more legitimate?

Spammer's do use .com domains when they are available. But .info's are cheaper and available more often.

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

All I am asking is show some proof of this "general tendency". You are just stating that .info's are more likely to have poor content with nothing to back that up.

I don't know how many times I have to say it.... I AM NOT SAYING THAT .INFO DOMAINS ARE DEVALUED BY GOOGLE!!!!! <--- In the last few posts I have made a point of saying that several times. I am only saying that they "could" be devalued. And there would be a logical reason to devalue them.

I firmly stand behind my assertion that .info domains are more likely to have low quality content. I would have thought that would be a commonly accepted assumption. I don't have time to analyze the millions of domains on the internet. But in general, .info domains have a higher percentage of scratched together content. Usually webmasters want a .com extension but will settle for a .info. Authorities such as Youtube, Ebay, amazon, google, seomoz, warrior forum, backlinks forum, yahoo, bing, etc pick a .com extension. The amount of big companies that go out of their way for a .info extension is few and far between. Google loves authorities, and in general, those authorities pick .com's. <--- I do not have evidence to support this point. Only common sense.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by co2

I am only saying that they "could" be devalued. And there would be a logical reason to devalue them.

Logic is generally backed up by facts. You are simply making assumptions about the quality of .info's.

Originally Posted by co2

I firmly stand behind my assertion that .info domains are more likely to have low quality content. I would have thought that would be a commonly accepted assumption.

Assumptions do not make it real.

Originally Posted by co2

I don't have time to analyze the millions of domains on the internet. But in general, .info domains have a higher percentage of scratched together content.

Again, this is just an assumption with nothing to back it up except your feelings.

Originally Posted by co2

I do not have evidence to support this point.

Obviously.

[dukestravels1972]

Doesnt seem to be a definitive answer to this. I read this response on another forum couple days ago.


QUOTE:
There's a guy that I really respect in the business, one of the few WSO's I ever thought was valuable. That's the fatcat blueprint.

The guy has been tinkering with money making sites and adsense from the very beginning. He's scripted up, gotten mass banned, learned from mistakes and current SEO trends, shifted and molded his strategies through the years, always keeping current with what currently is working for getting ranked.

Here are some quotes from his WSO ... highly recommended reading ...

Quote:
Which TLD?

The domains you choose should either end in ".com", ".net" or ".org". Each of those three extensions at the end of the domain name is known as a TLD (Top Level Domain).

Try first to get the ".com", then the ".net" and then if both of the former are unavailable, then go for the ".org". If your niche is exclusive to only one specific country, say the United kingdom, then by all means start with the TLD for that country. In the case of the United Kingdom for example, you would start with "co.uk", for Canada you would start with ".ca", Australia would be ".au", etc. I think you get the picture.

...

Do not use ".biz" extension! My testing shows that domains with the .BIZ extension get indexed normally on Google and Yahoo (now using Bing results). However they may take a lot longer to be indexed on MSN (or Bing). I tested 120 domains with an equal amount of .COM, .NET, .BIZ and .ORG extensions. After 6 months, all of the .COM, .NET and .ORG domains were indexed in the three major search engines. However only 4 of the 30 .BIZ domains were indexed on the MSN search engine. So if you want to get indexed quickly on MSN (probably Bing too).

...

I know some of you will be asking, hey Bertil, what about the cheap ".info" TLD? The short answer is no, avoid it if you can. This is not necessarily because your site might not get ranked because of using the .INFO extension, but the reason is because of perceived value of the domain. Remember that these AdSense sites you will be building are also assets that can be sold to the marketplace at a premium. Use a TLD with a low perceived value is only going to reduce the value of your website assets.

Imagine trying to sell your expensive 8 bedroom mansion that has a heated swimming pool and marble floors but is located in a rat infested slum where all your neighbors are crack dealers and pimps. This is the problem with using the ".info" TLD.

...

Any good entrepreneur will have an exit strategy. You should not try to be the exception. The exit strategy for your AdSense sites should be to sell them off if you wish to. But some buyers of websites will pay more for websites with .COM extensions than those with .INFO extensions. Naturally you would want to get the best price for your assets.
On a very limited scale (I have less than 100 domains), I notice that EMD is effective on .NET, .ORG and .COM (without dashes) ... very ineffective on .US and .INFO. and .NET/.ORG/.COM that have dashes, ineffective on .NET/.ORG/.COM that have EMD + some extension (like buyEMD, EMDshop, etc). It's that EMD bonus that gets easily ranked for the exact keyword combo in the domain.

The EMD bonus I'm talking about is what makes a site rise to the teens on a medium difficulty keyword without even backlinking ... EMD without dashes or additional words added to it seem to get a slight boost over other combinations in my opinion.

My preference (on a microniche site) is EMD .COM/.NET/.ORG, then if I can't get those I pick a quirky brandable .COM which may have a partial keyword in the domain. For instance, if I wanted a domain for a dog training site, I if "dogtraining.com/.net/.org" was taken, I would consider a name like "dogsmart.com" ... partial keyword, memorable and brandable name. I'd prefer that over "bestdogtraining.com".

[stephaneM20]

I really never heard this before. So would be grateful to other members if they can show any strong evidence for this issue!

[bhuff85]

Originally Posted by dukestravels1972

I know some of you will be asking, hey Bertil, what about the cheap ".info" TLD? The short answer is no, avoid it if you can. This is not necessarily because your site might not get ranked because of using the .INFO extension, but the reason is because of perceived value of the domain. Remember that these AdSense sites you will be building are also assets that can be sold to the marketplace at a premium. Use a TLD with a low perceived value is only going to reduce the value of your website assets.

Imagine trying to sell your expensive 8 bedroom mansion that has a heated swimming pool and marble floors but is located in a rat infested slum where all your neighbors are crack dealers and pimps. This is the problem with using the ".info" TLD.

Dukes, I know you didn't originally post this, but I will say that I don't see the .info being a "downer" as far as "perceived value" is concerned.

On the flipside of his ".com is a mansion" comparison, you could have a .com that appears to be a "nice, fancy mansion" on the outside, but once you get a look inside, you see that it has been completely trashed due to poor maintenance. Not everything is always what it seems.

Again, here is the deal - if you have a website that is making $100 a month and it is a .info and another website making $100 a month and it is a .com, in my eyes, they could both fetch the same amount (let's say 10x monthly income, or $1,000).

In the case of selling websites, the only time I could see a .com fetch more was if it were a brandable domain that had potential for growth. If you're looking to create or grow a brand, a .com is essential simply because it is what most of us associate larger brands with (and most major corporations buy out ALL other domain extensions anyway to eliminate anyone from purchasing another extension of their domain - i.e. google.info).

When buying a website, all I truly care about is whether or not it is earning income, has a steady income history, has a reliable source of traffic and requires little to no maintenance. If I found a .info that met all of that criteria, I wouldn't pass it up because of the extension. Should anyone else do that, it's cool with me, because I'll swoop it up and add it to my portfolio. Their loss.

[WiFi]

Check out this article, Google says NO DIFFERENCE:
Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Sharing advice from our site clinic

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Logic is generally backed up by facts. You are simply making assumptions about the quality of .info's.

My argument is...

premise 1. in general .info's have lower quality content
premise 2. google is not afraid to devalue a group of websites based on general tendencies (ie. panda)

conclusion: google might devalue .info domains because they have lower quality content in general

Your counterargument seems to be that I cannot prove that .info's have lower quality content in general. I have given you the reasoning behind why I 'assume' that .info's are less likely to have quality content.

Do you want to suggest that authoritative sources are equally as willing to acquire a .info over a TLD? Even though I can't prove it, I cannot and will not believe that a company like Youtube even considered buying a .info domain. I don't know what fantasy land you live in. But most authorities pick a .com extension. Like I said, .info domains are usually chosen when a TLD is not available or because they cost less money.

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Assumptions do not make it real.

Of course not. Logic is entirely based of assumptions. Many intellectuals would even argue that there is no such thing as proof. I don't know if I'd go that far. But I would go so far as to say that nobody has proof when it comes to google. I wasn't making an argument for how google treats domain extensions. I was only exploring the possiblity of them using domain extensions in their valuation process.

I am not trying to prove anything. Look at the title of the thread. I'm asking a question, not making a statement.

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Again, this is just an assumption with nothing to back it up except your feelings.

Feelings do not enter into it at all. I have a very impersonal relationship with google.

[RimaNaj2011]

I never had a problem with ranking a site but I once bought a .info and I just couldn't rank it no matter what. I know Google says the type of domain doesn't matter but I'd rather buy a .com with a prefix or suffix than a .info EMD.

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by co2

My goodness. The argument that since webmasters find .com domains hard to rank, they must be just as difficult as .info is just silly.

My opinion is that .info's are harder to rank than a .com extension. I never said that .com's aren't hard to rank. If someone is incompetent at seo, it really does not matter what extension they use. They are going to fail.

And the prchecker.info example.... Again, I never said that .info domains can't rank or gain authority. My argument is that it takes them longer to rank and gain google trust.

That is silly. Plain and simple. They are not harder to rank. But changing
PEOPLE'S opinion is hard. Google has nothing to do with anyone's opinion.

There's no trust factor, except for domain resellers selling myths.

The prchecker is a great example. It's a website on a google product
and no dot com can touch it. In fact, if it mattered, then I suppose
everyone here and a dot com would be beating it like a dead horse.
But they are not. The authority of that site is second to none.

Now, tell me, what other site is going to rank for new york subway,
or subway schedule, or any other such combo? Nothing but a
dot info, that's what.

How long did it take google to love that site? Since the first day
it was friggin' built. I guess the people who built it just did not
get the memo.

I feel, I think, I presume, I assume,....is not SEO. SEO by feelings
has zip to do with anything.

"Oh, I tried it once so it must be so all the time..."

Like I said, you have no idea why a site will rank or not rank.
The extension has nothing to do with it. Many people take a dot
com, then pull their hair out because it won't rank. Same for
a dot info. There are reasons nobody knows why a site won't
rank.

But you can rest assured, and 100% know that it is not whether it
is a dot info or a dot com. Period.

The argument should stop right there. But it won't.

The myth will not die.

People mix crap up all the time. Presumptions are why a lot of
people fail. They think cause and effect in cases where it's
not in the mix.

The sky looks blue, so the sky must be made out of something blue.

If you are from Canada, you must be a great hockey player.

Silliness abounds.

Paul

[JerrickYeoh]

That true .

All seo article keep on remind us choose only .com domain . While people thought that .com is common one but .com domain is the most friendly among the search engine. I believe it do taking advantages over other domain extension.

Just like country domain extension do take advantages over other domain extension in local search engine.

In order to overtake them with not .com domain , you only can go with build more backlink.

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by paulgl

The prchecker is a great example. It's a website on a google product
and no dot com can touch it. In fact, if it mattered, then I suppose
everyone here and a dot com would be beating it like a dead horse.
But they are not. The authority of that site is second to none.

Paul

That would be a great example if I said that .info domains can't become an authority. <--- I never said that though. I was only questioning whether google "slightly" devalues a .info domain.

PS. This has been a ridiculous argument for awhile now. I also believe that google doesn't discriminate against domain extensions. But I lack the arrogance to claim that I KNOW what google includes in their algorithm. I was hoping that opening this thread would give some insights into any general trends that warriors had noticed. I did not intend to get berated for offering up an alternative answer. Again, I don't think that google cares about the domain extension. But I also would not be surprised or shocked if I was wrong.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by co2

But I lack the arrogance to claim that I KNOW what google includes in their algorithm. I was hoping that opening this thread would give some insights into any general trends that warriors had noticed. I did not intend to get berated for offering up an alternative answer. Again, I don't think that google cares about the domain extension. But I also would not be surprised or shocked if I was wrong.

I agree that nobody can say with 100% certainty that they know what is or is not in Google's algorithm, especially with the 400+ changes they make to the algorithm each year.

But also just as unlikely is having access to Google's measuring stick for what it considers to be a quality website.

I understand your belief that .info's are more 'likely' to be sites of low quality. I merely stated that there was no hard evidence to back this up. In the IM world, it may very well be true. However, Google does not solely operate in the IM world. There are tons of very legitimate .info's out there too.

Google has never in the past taken hard action against a TLD. I know people who have built almost their entire business off of .info sites (and I mean real .info sites, not low quality networks to build even lower quality backlinks off of ).

But to answer the original question, I have several high PR .info sites in my own personal network. I have never found any evidence whatsoever that any search engine values those links any less than any other links.

[awj888]

it would depend on how highly regarded your .info backlink is! you can have a PR6 .info link and a PR1 .com and you will see much more benefit from a .info in that case! otherwise if you were looking at PR2 .com and PR2 .info then probably .com will give you more benefit

[CoryW]

Interesting thread...thanks for all the info! I will add that it is important to try and consider which backlinks will stick around as well. This is obviously closely tied to the quality of the content and the site itself.

[rahul2020]

some one from warrior makes $4k from info domains without any backlinks but people debating for info don't rank or hard to rank.

I bought 22 info last year outof which i worked in one and now it is on 8th position and makes few sales every day. So, info is not hard to rank. We buy info because we thing yes domain is available and in cheap without bothering competition in SERP.

And later we blame info that it is hard nut to crack.

[leemart]

Hi

Can someone maybe give me some advice on the below

I have a .info domain pointing at my main site, If i was to blast that .info with backlinks then would my main site get credit for these links and would it be liked by google or wud panda come in and destroy

Thanks

Lee