.NET versus .ORG which is better?

[Highestlevel]

I'm curious what you guys think about the long term prospects of .net versus .org domains. Currently the perception is .com 1st (by a country mile of course) then .net (2nd) and .org (3rd) my view is long term .net and .org will be pretty much equal second in terms of global perception.

 

[Jaco]

Because it's the interNET. Makes more sense in lots of cases more than an org. NET is surely more descriptive of an internet website than ORG. Unless you have a real organization an ORG site make no sense.

I was being facetious about the whole "NETWORK" thing. Orgs do definitely make sense for plenty of keywords that aren't "organizations" in the strictest sense. If I had a choice between CheapGuitars.net and CheapGuitars.org, I'd take the .net. If I had a choice between Tupelo.net and Tupelo.org, I'd take the .org. In that regard, the keyword makes perfect sense with the call to action properties of the TLD.

The idea that there is a fixed TLD hierarchy that goes .com, then .net, then .org is completely outdated, circa 1999 thinking. The keyword dictates what extension is best- there are outlying cases of a .org being better than a .com (for non profit organizations, for example) but there are absolutely no circumstances where a .net is better than a .com.

 

[Archangel]

I'm glad someone pointed that out. I'm sick and tired of noobs preaching that ".com is king" (I hate that cliche), and "the next is .net and then org. That's the order and nothing can change that." That mindset worked well in 1999-2000 but that was a decade ago, ppl. It's not like the net is 60 years old or something.

The idea that there is a fixed TLD hierarchy that goes .com, then .net, then .org is completely outdated, circa 1999 thinking.

 

[Jaco]

.com still is king. Whether it stays there forever or not who knows, but it's certainly looking that way well out to the foreseeable horizon.

It's the idea that the next choice for whatever keyword is .net, then .org... That was a common domainer mentality in the old days. In some cases it's true, but in other cases, it isn't. The evolution of TLD usage over the years has determined what goes best with what extension.

.com is what you choose first, pretty much always.
.net is what you choose if Frank Schilling already owns the .com you want.
.org is what you choose if you're seeking to gather the attentions of people- with some sort of commonality between them- for a purpose that isn't explicitly commercial (even though such endeavors can still be adequately commercialized)

Don't care of people 'get' the value of .org or not. I do, plenty of others do. We will be the ones winning. Place your bets, place your bets, everyone step up to the window and place your bets.

 

[labrocca]

The idea that there is a fixed TLD hierarchy that goes .com, then .net, then .org is completely outdated, circa 1999 thinking. The keyword dictates what extension is best- there are outlying cases of a .org being better than a .com (for non profit organizations, for example) but there are absolutely no circumstances where a .net is better than a .com.

I agree. However the pecking order won't change between net and org either.

.org is what you choose if you're seeking to gather the attentions of people- with some sort of commonality between them- for a purpose that isn't explicitly commercial (even though such endeavors can still be adequately commercialized

That's just rhetoric. It doesn't negate the fact you mention the .net as the alternative if you can't get the com.

Don't care of people 'get' the value of .org or not. I do, plenty of others do. We will be the ones winning.

I get the value of org just fine. But it's only under certain rare circumstances that it's value is more than a .net. Look at any org sales list and many would be more valuable as .net. That's just how it is. Just like having the com is ALWAYS going to be the most valuable.

That's the order and nothing can change that." That mindset worked well in 1999-2000 but that was a decade ago, ppl.

It's the same mentality today. Show me evidence it's any different.

 

[Jaco]

I agree. However the pecking order won't change between net and org either. That's just rhetoric. It doesn't negate the fact you mention the .net as the alternative if you can't get the com.

Nothing I said there was rhetorical.

There is no 'pecking order between .net and .org' no more than there is a pecking order between oranges and frisbees. One serves an entirely different purpose than the other and when coupled with certain keywords, one imparts a far clearer meaning and intent.

Obviously, the most heavily incentivized segment of internet usage- from a development standpoint- is commercial internet. This is why .com became king and this is why .net will probably have more aggregate registrations than .org. It is a commercial-use alternative to .com, whereas .org doesn't fit that bill. .org is entirely it's own thing and incomparable to either.

As far as .org's interest gaining or increasing relative to .net, lets take a look at the very hard data per zooknic,

For 2009, .org started with 7,308,646 entries and ended with 7,927,152, or an 8.46% increase over it's 01.15.09 baseline.

.net started with 11,998,108 entries and ended with 12,620,834 or a 5.19% increase over it's 01.15.09 baseline.

So, relatively speaking, .org saw a meaningful proportional increase in entries into the zone compared to .net. for 2009.

Anyway, evidence. That 3% year/year proportional increase advantage to .org is statistically significant and probably a pretty accurate harbinger of user sentiment.

 

[Archangel]

I don't think this argument will ever end. I'll just throw in a few things and hope it at least help put an end to this (but I'm sure it won't but hey, I tried):

I still see .nets with a higher price tag. I believe -- correct me if I'm wrong; I won't mind -- most ppl simply saw the com/net registered and regged the .org since many investors still see .org as the "3rd best" behind com/net. That could explain why .orgs are so heavily regged.

To further that statement: I've seen a lot more decent-or-better .orgs drop. I don't see as many similar .nets dropping. .net holders seem to hold onto their domains longer than .org owners do.

All of that aside: Some ppl see no value in .org but that means nothing whatsoever -- .org HAS value whether you realize it or not. And you can make decent cash with them. I can't solidify anything with a trivial example but I once acquired a .org (contracted word/phrase that has nothing to do with organizations) for around $16 and flipped it for $300. And the funny thing is, I posted in the appraisal section and EVERYONE that I recall saw no real value in it. Most said that it had no commercial value and made no sense with the extension. Reg fee-$20 or so. And I sold it for $300.

Does Google or any search engine think .net is better than .org or vice-versa? No. It used to have a lotta weight in it but Google favors content more these days. The X-factor is more or less what the USER sees in it. I and most of you, I'm sure, have seen more developed .nets than .orgs and it's damn silly to say .org is the "American standard." It just goes by what the INDIVIDUAL prefers. Many still don't even know .info or .biz exist so looking at the Big Three, .com is king (I wasn't denouncing it, Dong. I was just saying I hated the cliche) but ppl recognize net/org both. NEITHER is better than the other. What do I prefer? .net but that's just me. We all have opinions but accept the fact: NEITHER IS TRULY BETTER THAN THE OTHER. No, the com/net/org mindset is old. You need proof? Research it.

So both of you are right in ways and wrong on others. I won't sieve through it to point out one another's flaws. But before this thread becomes a flame or something: Just choose one allegiance and move on. There's little other choice other than trying fruitlessly to put your man on top.

 

[labrocca]

There is no 'pecking order between .net and .org' no more than there is a pecking order between oranges and frisbees. One serves an entirely different purpose than the other and when coupled with certain keywords, one imparts a far clearer meaning and intent.

Insanity! And you don't think you're using rhetoric?

Oranges and frisbees ehh? Really now. So .org and .net have no similarities at all. Wonderful my friend. Just wonderful. Hopefully people reading this won't fall for your BS. The old adage is Apples and Oranges which for this discussion is more realistic. Both are fruit, both grown on trees, both edible, both in a round shape, and both make popular fruit juice drinks. Apples taste better in pies though. NET and ORG have differences but enjoy more similarities than anything else. Surely you see the flaw in your analogy.

Dec 2006 NET = 8,627,675
Dec 2009 NET = 12,620,834
46% gain

Dec 2006 ORG = 5,408,739
Dec 2009 ORG = 7,927,152
46% gain

So much for your evidence. Over 3 years it's practically the exact same growth. So what if ORG had a good 2009. Not a big deal imho. There is still a deep gap between their registration numbers and even at 3% gain per year it would be over a decade before they were even. It's not likely going to happen. We'll see a flux but no significant gains. NET has enjoyed increases in some years too.

All of that aside: Some ppl see no value in .org but that means nothing whatsoever -- .org HAS value whether you realize it or not. And you can make decent cash with them.

Absolutely. Org rules imho. It's a great extension. It's part of the trusted CNO group. I am just tired of reading this ORG is gaining on NET rumors. Even if you see ORGs being traded off at good numbers this doesn't make NET or COM worth less. It just means ORGs are getting their due in the marketplace. It could be simply because people are cashing out and others want in and a decent price ORG is attractive compared to a high price COM. LLL.com's being sold at $8000 minimums didn't last long either. ORG is just enjoying some recent pops in sales activity.

 

[Jaco]

So much for your evidence.

I'm guessing you're not a 'math guy'. The figures I posted were pretty clear.

Over 3 years it's practically the exact same growth. So what if ORG had a good 2009. Not a big deal imho. There is still a deep gap between their registration numbers and even at 3% gain per year it would be over a decade before they were even. It's not likely going to happen. We'll see a flux but no significant gains. NET has enjoyed increases in some years too.

A few things here, since that part of your post was just all over the map.
First off, you dismiss the most RECENT (as in, 2009 data) growth in proportional .org registries with "so what". Not a particularly solid position. Secondly, as far as that trend continuing, it's easy to say it's "not likely to happen", but usually, a claim like that should have some basis in fact. I'm open to the possibility that .org gaining on .net may or may not continue, but in the here and now, the math supports my position, not yours, and you can "so what" it away if you wish; there is a right and wrong answer to this question with each of us on different sides.

If you recall, what we're talking about here is an emerging trend. This means that what .net did "in some years" is totally irrelevant, since we aren't looking in a rear view mirror. If that were the criteria, then .cc would have a bright future, since there was that one banner year when peope thought it was the 'next .com but even better, because you can type it faster!!!'.

We're talking about what .org is doing and what .org is likely to do. Might it take a decade for .org to catch up to .net? Perhaps. Perhaps it never will, but per the unarguable data, it's begun the process.

It's part of the trusted CNO group. I am just tired of reading this ORG is gaining on NET rumors.

The data I posted wasn't a 'rumor'.
.org DID gain on .net over fy09 whether you happen to like that fact or not. We aren't asking what Santas favorite cookies are here. There is a right and wrong answer to this question that can be subjectively quantified.

You're one of the few guys I like on this forum and I still do, but you're a mile off on this one. There's nothing wrong with .net- I just bought LLCs/net from RJ for peanuts, matter of fact, and count that as the best purchase I've made so far in 2010- but there's no escaping the fact that it's a second banana, whereas .org is it's own thing. The intent and meaning conveyed by a proper keyword on a .org is something that even .com can't accomplish, where .net accomplishes nothing that isn't better served with a .com or a .org. Over the years. .org has attained a unique purpose.
Over those same years, .net has simply become .com's redheaded stepchild. It might not be 'fair' but it is what it is.

 

[Cronus]

I and many of my friends have never visited a .org in eons, aside from the occasional organizational website. I'm remaining civil in my asking but what made you assume the .org is so commonplace in America?

It has been eons since you visited Wikipedia.ORG, Craigslist.ORG, W3.ORG, archive.ORG, or Slashdot.ORG?

Count me in the .org camp (though I own thousands of .net names as well). Org has its own identity--sites such as Wikipedia and Craigslist own the .com, but CHOOSE to keep and brand with the .org. When a .net site gets large, they usually become increasingly frantic about acquiring the .com and switching to it. As the number of TLDs proliferate, I think .net will be diluted far more than com or org due to this lack of identity and specific purpose.

 

[Archangel]

Silly justification, my compatriot. I use Wiki daily, Archive at least once a week and CraigsList sparingly. But you cannot possibly justify your 'correctness' by mentioning a FEW .orgs. Shall I make you a list of developed .net sites? A few heavy-hitting orgs doesn't make your point correct or even 1 micro-percent so.

But I still like .orgs, don't get me wrong. I just prefer .net.

It has been eons since you visited Wikipedia.ORG, Craigslist.ORG, W3.ORG, archive.ORG, or Slashdot.ORG?

 

[Blade1941]

Silly justification, my compatriot. I use Wiki daily, Archive at least once a week and CraigsList sparingly. But you cannot possibly justify your 'correctness' by mentioning a FEW .orgs. Shall I make you a list of developed .net sites? A few heavy-hitting orgs doesn't make your point correct or even 1 micro-percent so.

But I still like .orgs, don't get me wrong. I just prefer .net.

Indeed, wikipedia.org and web.archive.org, oswd.org are the only .org sites I've used these last few years.

I visit up to 900-1000 pages a day, all of them either have .net or .com or .info, rarely do I see .orgs. Must've been living under a rock or something since this user has been seeing a lot? :blink:

 

[labrocca]

First off, you dismiss the most RECENT (as in, 2009 data) growth in proportional .org registries with "so what". Not a particularly solid position.

3% is in no way significant given the overall history. So what refers to a one-year statistics you have given. The past year has been volitile.

Secondly, as far as that trend continuing, it's easy to say it's "not likely to happen", but usually, a claim like that should have some basis in fact.

Facts are that I showed you 3 years of trends but anyone can review that chart to see that some years NET does better and some years ORG does better.

I'm open to the possibility that .org gaining on .net may or may not continue, but in the here and now, the math supports my position, not yours, and you can "so what" it away if you wish; there is a right and wrong answer to this question with each of us on different sides.

Your math only support a slight recent gain. It doesn't prove any long-term trends.

This means that what .net did "in some years" is totally irrelevant

Exactly why one year 3% growth is irrelevant.

THREE PERCENT! How is that the basis of your argument? HOW?

You're one of the few guys I like on this forum and I still do, but you're a mile off on this one.

I like you too. But it's good to have something to argue about with you. I don't take it personal. I like good discussions. Otherwise this place would bore me.

The intent and meaning conveyed by a proper keyword on a .org is something that even .com can't accomplish, where .net accomplishes nothing that isn't better served with a .com or a .org.

I can generally agree with that too but we are talking about mindset here. People look to see if com is taken. Their next look is NET. That's most cases except for a few specific genres like health, charity, schools, or events. ORG has imho an amazing purpose. I like ORG plenty and if I was a charity or health organization I'd have a pile of them. But I am not. I develop websites. NET has suited my purposes on many occassions. My #1 site is a NET getting 40,000 visitors a day.

Over those same years, .net has simply become .com's redheaded stepchild.

ORG is the babysitter.

 

[Archangel]

I like both of you, truly (although I know Dong and I have had issues ib the past, I respect the hell out of him). But I was going to pretty much leave this thread since I had nothing further to contribute. But I read this and it got me to thinking:

I can generally agree with that too but we are talking about mindset here. People look to see if com is taken. Their next look is NET.

I am a webmaster as well as a domainer (and I'm a writer. I need to drop 2 of those 3 lol And the latter will be the one that survives). I've noticed that the above is very true in almost every case I've ever seen. The com/net/org order mindset still exists although the actual ordering no longer applies. But I understand this and have seen many examples of it in the past 6 years. It kind of goes with what I said earlier: People see the com/net taken an they opt for the .org. I don't really think there have been as many .org registrations in the past few years because of .org's "popularity." I believe it's only because, as I said, many great .orgs drop while the same domains in .net are typically held onto. With these .orgs dropping, I can see how there would be a rush (especially by investors) to reg a decent .org when the com/net are taken. And since good .orgs are more plentiful (since more decent+ .orgs drop than .com or .net), they receive a heavy registration rate. Investors have been like that for years and I think it's all still the same: Reg a .com; if it's gone, take the .net; if both are gone, the .org. And in some cases, taking the .info or .biz is all they can do before venturing into ccTLDs. And believe me: they'd rather have a .org than a .biz because most ppl believe .org is the 3rd best.

 

[zoomactive.com]

Have not read above replies, please dis-regard this message if stated above.

.org is intended for organizations.

.net is similar to .com

it depends on the keyword as well.

Example:

ibuildcomputers should be a .net while helphaiti should be a .org

 

[vjyong]

according which site and which information you contribute to else, .com,.net,and.org are selected for different purpose.

 

[dbtbandit67]

.net but not by much

which keywords you own is a more important question. it's always trivial things that are heavily debated while people go on arbitrarily hand-regging hundreds of terrible domains and this behavior goes on encouraged

 

[SOULZRIPPER]

.net is far better than .org for the fact that the latter is hardly seen on the SERP of Google..

 

[Web 3.0]

Interesting debates here.

I plan to develop a forum for travel & local culture,
and found that .com has been taken(and parked).

I'm still undecided which extension I should go for for my travel forum site: .net or .org?

Any input will be appreciated!
　　　
　

 

[alien51]

Whether NET or ORG, doesn't matter.

But if you are a purist, use NET if you have Adsense. Use ORG if it is a non-profit site.

If you want to stay in the GRAY AREA, you probably would rather choose ORG. Because ORG sites give the psychological impact to people that you are sincerely devoted on your topic/hobby/interest, and you don't care about money.

Most cynical people will think that NET sites are just built because the website owner wants you to click the Adsense so he can make money. So they might dismiss your travel forum as nothing but an MFA site.

And besides, it's not illegal to put ads on ORG sites anyway. It's a non-restricted extension. So maybe you can hit 2 birds with one stone by going for an ORG site instead for a forum. You will appear legit, at the same time you can put ads.

 

[Steven]

I personally prefer .org over .net for any keyword

 

[chat111]

Definitely whether "the name fits the extension" will tip the scales in favor of one or the other.

This is even where the .com is involved: for example, BaseballGame.com (currently on DM3) is in my opinion inferior to BaseballGame.org on all points, including that of commerce.

 

[Archangel]

To each his own. A good term is always taken in the major extensions & most ppl, I believe, would see a non-organization site on a .org as a site at which the owner couldn't afford the com/net. I never trust a site on a .org unless it IS an organization (save for a few exceptions). I highly doubt I'm the only one. It looks unprofessional and very sloppy to have a just-anything site on a .org.

Whether NET or ORG, doesn't matter.

But if you are a purist, use NET if you have Adsense. Use ORG if it is a non-profit site.

If you want to stay in the GRAY AREA, you probably would rather choose ORG. Because ORG sites give the psychological impact to people that you are sincerely devoted on your topic/hobby/interest, and you don't care about money.

Most cynical people will think that NET sites are just built because the website owner wants you to click the Adsense so he can make money. So they might dismiss your travel forum as nothing but an MFA site.

And besides, it's not illegal to put ads on ORG sites anyway. It's a non-restricted extension. So maybe you can hit 2 birds with one stone by going for an ORG site instead for a forum. You will appear legit, at the same time you can put ads.

 

[chat111]

I never trust a site on a .org unless it IS an organization (save for a few exceptions). I highly doubt I'm the only one. It looks unprofessional and very sloppy to have a just-anything site on a .org.

Admittedly from a newbie perspective (but then, it a perspective of a consumer!) i'm the opposite

At first sight - I think we are really talking here first sight, because once you get on the site you usually have more or less good feeling quite soon whether the site is trustworthy or not - it looks unprofessional to have a generic term coupled with .com, unless the generic term is the name of the company.

.Com still inevitably associates with commerce. But what is immediately commercial about, say, BaseballGame? The answer is, nothing. When you hear words "baseball game" you first associate them with game, entertainment, sport, competition, activity, and the matters of commerce come only second, as means to enable those primary qualities. Hence when you stumble upon baseballgame.com, subconsciously it looks wrong, because what is special about baseball game for ordinary consumers is not its commercial aspect.

.Org appears to be completely different in this respect, in that the primary association of the extension is with aspects of life other than commercial - cause, information, community, etc - all of which resonate well with primary associations of a generic term such as baseball game: information about baseball games, community of people who like baseball games, etc. And of course, you can have the commerce on the site like this, but the extension of the name correctly confirms that commercial stuff is secondary.

Even extension .net differs from .com in this respect. Generic terms often better fit the extension .net - as the latter does not contradict the primary association of the generic term with non-commercial qualities such as community of people, providing information etc regarding the generic term, but with added emphasis that this is the community of people, information etc over the internet. Just think about the website "photo.net". It is so much obviously better than "photo.com" - in my view precisely because the extension does not contradict the generic nature of the domain name, plus suggests the connection with the internet. Hence photo.net is a most popular community of professional photographers, which is at the same time a very profitable website - but they became so not by pushing on the commerce, but on features which in the eyes of ordinary people primarily associate with the generic word "photo" - information about photography, lessons, guides, community, competitions etc.


This how it seems to me anyway But as I said, it seems anyway that the extension and how it fits the name is not the highest denominator in determining the professionalism of the website and the service it provides. Del.icio.us name was hardly pretty - but it didn't matter much because the idea behind the website and the execution was top notch, hence the deserved success and popularity. And then they were able to buy .com as well

 

[Archangel]

You have good points. I think it boils down to what's to the left of the dot, when you're comparing net/org. I'd better trust cars.net than cars.org but I'd never trust UsedCheapReallyGoodCars.net over cars.org

Admittedly from a newbie perspective (but then, it a perspective of a consumer!) i'm the opposite

 

[alien51]

I believe, would see a non-organization site on a .org as a site at which the owner couldn't afford the com/net.

I don't think the Paris Hiltons and the Lindsey Lohans of this world are even aware about the battle going on among domainers trying to snatch the COMs out of each other's hands.

To the non-domaining target audience, an ORG extension speaks for itself -- it's an ORGANIZATION. And the word "organization" is more biased towards "non-profit".

If you brand something as for "non-profit", whether real or just a perception, it gives people the impression that you are not building this website for financial gain. A lot of people just want to read stuffs from "real" people. Not from businessmen. So probably it won't matter much whether the ORG is not as professional as it "looks". What they want is "real information", ... not manufactured mini-sites, autoblogs, or scraped content that is synonymous with a lot of COM/NETs.