11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

FYI -- Google Delists co.cc....Misprint on My Part

by Charles Harper
9 replies
Hello Warriors:

I did not see this posted, so I thought I would pass along the news:

Google Delists All CO.CC Domains From Index

Thanks,
CT
#delists #domains #fyi #google
  • Profile picture of the author brunom
    Not a surprise, they were being abused.
    Signature
    1500 Backlinks For Youtube Videos

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4174463].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Didn't see anything about .CO domain names. Tittle is misleading CT.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4174500].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author warhammer
    Originally Posted by Charles Harper View Post

    Hello Warriors:

    I did not see this posted, so I thought I would pass along the news:

    Google Delists All CO.CC Domains From Index

    Thanks,
    CT
    What do .CO domains have to do with .co.cc domains? .co.cc is just a second level extension of the .CC TLD, just like .co.uk is a second level extension of .UK TLD, so the thread's title talking about .CO domains is definitely misleading. You may want to correct it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4174613].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
    Google delisted the Free Hosting Site "CO.CC" not all .CO and .CC sites.
    Just the site and it's subdomains on "CO.CC".

    Have a Great Day!
    Michael
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4174623].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author IamJack
    Yup, the thread title is misleading. co.cc is a (free) sub-domain provider while .co and .cc are top level domains. their is no relationship between these two. as someone has already suggested, you may want to correct it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4174625].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author idk007
    I doubt they would ban legit sites like O.co
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4174645].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Charles Harper View Post

    Google Delists .CC and .CO Domains
    This is wrong.

    Google has effectively delisted all .co.cc subdomains, by having delisted the single .co.cc domain. Only that one domain has been delisted - including its (very many) subdomains.

    Google has not delisted .co domain-names.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4175147].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Charles Harper
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      This is wrong.

      Google has effectively delisted all .co.cc subdomains, by having delisted the single .co.cc domain. Only that one domain has been delisted - including its (very many) subdomains.

      Google has not delisted .co domain-names.
      You and everyone else is correct, Alexa.

      My sincerest apologies everyone.

      CT
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4175172].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Duncan
    From the article linked:

    Google reserves the right if they “see a very large fraction of sites on a specific freehost be spammy or low-quality, we do reserve the right to take action on the freehost as a whole
    Hmm...seems like they are being a bit selective here.

    I can think of more than one free hosting platform that has a huge number of spammy websites...yet they won't ever delist that entire freehost as a whole.

    I know there were quite a few malicious websites (hacking related) utilizing .co.cc domains...which probably factored into their decision.

    Interesting explanation on why there were so many abuses of .co.cc

    Why are so many phishing sites based at co.cc or on the .tk domain?
    CO.CC is actually a subdomain service, while TK is the country code for the tiny atolls known as Tokelau. In the latter case, this New Zealand territory has leased their delegated top level domain (TLD) to a company that sells or gives away domains under the .TK TLD.


    We’ve seen large amounts of other types of abuse on these and similar services, and they often seem powerless to stop the abuse. This is usually said to be because of low margins (free services tend to have low margins of course) and lack of personnel to combat this abuse up front. We find these arguments to usually be spurious or at least misinformed, as these problems have been solved many times at relatively low-cost for some basic protection, and we even pointed out that a Russian service, pochta.ru had addressed their abuse problems quite well during the same time period. It’s more about will and commitment to reducing abuse than it is about adopting something with exorbitant costs.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4175213].message }}

Trending Topics