.co .CO - The Discussion, Showcase and Sales Report Thread

[ZOX]

Well, it seems like Colombia will be releasing .CO to the internet market:
...
http://www.mincomunicaciones.gov.co...ge=./mods/contenido/noticia_user_view&id=1043
...
This could truly be a big competitor to .COM (especially being a "typo").
I would say with proper guidance .CO could REALLY have a bright future!
...
Let me know your thoughts please.

 

[Kate]

so whats the point form your post ...

What's yours ?
We can indeed speculate in many extensions, and sometimes there are sales taking place but the level of risk is not the same across all TLDs. If you are suggesting .co is as good as .com for domaining purposes I wouldn't agree.

 

[surprise]

What's yours ?
We can indeed speculate in many extensions, and sometimes there are sales taking place but the level of risk is not the same across all TLDs. If you are suggesting .co is as good as .com for domaining purposes I wouldn't agree.

Thats a .co showcase thread so it is expected to discuss .co sales , and i said it many times .com is much better and sells for much higher prices , but then again it is rarer and harder to find and more expensive to buy as i pointed out earlier he risked 30$ to get lll.co .

 

[jmcc]

"The .Co Numbers Are In: Over 1.35 Million Registered .Co Domains: Our Chat With The COO"

Numbers but no real statistics. This is an interesting statement though:

"For domain names acquired after GA, the blended rate of renewal is 62%, which includes the average of first and second time renewals.

Second time renewals are particularly strong, with an average renewal rate of 72%.
"

Regards...jmcc

 

[the_poet]

Numbers but no real statistics.

Would you require them to give you their bank account credentials? lol

 

[surprise]

Numbers but no real statistics. This is an interesting statement

what's the difference ? do you have access to .com zone file ?

 

[jmcc]

Would you require them to give you their bank account credentials? lol

No. I would require them to give accurate statistics. Perhaps not as detailed as these:
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/reports

Regards...jmcc

 

[the_poet]

No. I would require them to give accurate statistics. Perhaps not as detailed as these:
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/reports

Regards...jmcc

How many ccTLD Registries provide all that information?

 

[jmcc]

what's the difference ?

The difference is it allows COInternet to waffle about how great the figures are without any verification of the figures. Now that might be fine for "technology" journalists in the media but in the domain industry, numbers are how things are measured.

do you have access to .com zone file ?

Care to hazard a guess?

Regards...jmcc

 

[Kate]

Would you require them to give you their bank account credentials? lol

It's not unreasonable to ask for slightly more detailed statistics.
The numbers mean very little without the details. For instance, they say nothing about the actual use and level of development. Guess what, they don't want you to find out.

what's the difference ? do you have access to .com zone file ?

I do. Anybody can get access to the .com zone file. .co and most ccTLDs restrict access or don't provide it at all.
But both I and JMCC have posted our findings pertaining to .co.
They contrast with the PR fluff from the .co registry.

 

[jmcc]

How many ccTLD Registries provide all that information?

Quite a few ccTLD registries supply statistics to their registrars. There is also a trend for registries to do quarterly or annual domain industry reports providing registrations/deletion/transfer/renewal data and a breakdown of figures by registrars. What you see in those ICANN reports are the "raw" statistics.

Regards...jmcc

 

[surprise]

The difference is it allows COInternet to waffle about how great the figures are without any verification of the figures. Now that might be fine for "technology" journalists in the media but in the domain industry, numbers are how things are measured.

Care to hazard a guess?

Regards...jmcc

Ah ok so you can verify .com numbers but not .co , what about other cctlds is it a common practice to restrict access for there dns figures ?

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 AM ----------

It's not unreasonable to ask for slightly more detailed statistics.
The numbers mean very little without the details. For instance, they say nothing about the actual use and level of development. Guess what, they don't want you to find out.


I do. Anybody can get access to the .com zone file. .co and most ccTLDs restrict access or don't provide it at all.
But both I and JMCC have posted our findings pertaining to .co.
They contrast with the PR fluff from the .co registry.

Ok , but if you don't have access to .co numbers how you have came to these findings you are talking about ...?

 

[AbdulBasit.com]

I recently grabbed iTravel DOT ((CO))

What's your input guys considering the below iWORD.CO sales:

iflorist.co $4,718
ishot.co $4,000
ishop.co $925

 

[the_poet]

@Abdul

Like all brandables, it depends. Certainly the keyword is great and it's also a verb, so "I travel" is another way the domain could be interpreted.

 

[surprise]

I just checked out some of the forex brokers and apparently they registered their domain names in the .co extension as well :

Igmarkets

Fxcm

Oanda

Mbtrading

fxdd

 

[jmcc]

It's not unreasonable to ask for slightly more detailed statistics.
The numbers mean very little without the details. For instance, they say nothing about the actual use and level of development. Guess what, they don't want you to find out.

The numerology published by COInternet about .co website usage is completely unreliable and, more importantly, so utterly inaccurate that it gives a false view of .co website development and usage. At least 50% of .co is PPC parked or on holding pages. The numerology that COInternet published obscured the PPC Parking/Holding page issue in the ccTLD to make it look like a healthier ccTLD.

However COInternet points out that it is a great success and has over 1.35 million domains registered. It is a great success alright - a great success for the registry.

Regards...jmcc

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

Ah ok so you can verify .com numbers but not .co , what about other cctlds is it a common practice to restrict access for there dns figures ?

Most ccTLDs publish some statistics but since 2003, most of the larger ccTLD registries shut down access to their zonefiles due to abuse.

Ok , but if you don't have access to .co numbers how you have came to these findings you are talking about ...?

Hard work and research.

Regards...jmcc

 

[surprise]

JMCC : "Most ccTLDs publish some statistics but since 2003, most of the larger ccTLD registries shut down access to their zonefiles due to abuse."

If thats the case for larger cctlds why you expect .co to be different .

---------- Post added at 09:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 AM ----------

"Hard work and research.

Regards...jmcc"

 

[the_poet]

The numerology published by COInternet about .co website usage is completely unreliable and, more importantly, so utterly inaccurate that it gives a false view of .co website development and usage. At least 50% of .co is PPC parked or on holding pages. The numerology that COInternet published obscured the PPC Parking/Holding page issue in the ccTLD to make it look like a healthier ccTLD.

However COInternet points out that it is a great success and has over 1.35 million domains registered. It is a great success alright - a great success for the registry.

Regards...jmcc

A raw method I use when I want to have a quick look at how an extension is doing development-wise is doing a Google search for the number of pages indexed by Google for that particular TLD (for example, site:co). If I want to compare 2 or more TLDs, I just need to consider the ratio indexed pages/total registrations for each of them.
What I noticed is that the number of indexed pages for .CO has doubled in the last year, from around 400 million to the current value of 800 million (both numbers of course include domains in second level extensions like .com.co).

 

[jmcc]

JMCC : "Most ccTLDs publish some statistics but since 2003, most of the larger ccTLD registries shut down access to their zonefiles due to abuse."

If thats the case for larger cctlds why you expect .co to be different .

Well many of these large ccTLDs still publish statistics even if they don't allow access to their zonefiles.

Regards...jmcc

 

[surprise]

A raw method I use when I want to have a quick look at how an extension is doing development-wise is doing a Google search for the number of pages indexed by Google for that particular TLD (for example, site:co). If I want to compare 2 or more TLDs, I just need to consider the ratio indexed pages/total registrations for each of them.
What I noticed is that the number of indexed pages for .CO has doubled in the last year, from around 400 million to the current value of 800 million (both numbers of course include domains in second level extensions like .com.co).

Is that method accurate ?
I just checked site:com and it gave me only 25.3 Billion !!! so if we divide that at .co numbers 0.81 Billion the multiply is only 31.2 times only !! Shouldn't the multiply be much greater than that ?! hence there is 105 Million .com Vs only 1.35 Million .co = multiply of 77 times not 31 !! not to mention that .com is much older !!

 

[the_poet]

@Surprise

Yes, the ratio is higher for .co

 

[surprise]

@Surprise

Yes, the ratio is higher for .co

there is something wrong i went to google.com.co instead of google.com and i searched for site:co it gave me only 271 million why you think is that ?

 

[the_poet]

there is something wrong i went to google.com.co instead of google.com and i searched for site:co it gave me only 271 million why you think is that ?

I do all searches on Google.com

 

[jmcc]

A raw method I use when I want to have a quick look at how an extension is doing development-wise is doing a Google search for the number of pages indexed by Google for that particular TLD (for example, site:co). If I want to compare 2 or more TLDs, I just need to consider the ratio indexed pages/total registrations for each of them.
What I noticed is that the number of indexed pages for .CO has doubled in the last year, from around 400 million to the current value of 800 million (both numbers of course include domains in second level extensions like .com.co).

That is a totally unreliable method of measuring how an extension is doing.

You don't know exactly what Google is returning. It might be returning holding pages, PPC pages, clone websites, .co websites that actually are from other TLDs but have no proper redirect set up for their .co (duplicate content). And that doesn't even get into the development issues (how many websites are abandoned/half-finished/compromised etc).

It might be better to use a limiter like index.html or index.php in these searches. The other aspect is that with a ccTLD, there will be a lot of government webpages (legislation etc) that will be included in a wider search. The .eu is one of the worst for this as it publishes the same content in approximately 27 languages.

Regards...jmcc

 

[surprise]

That is a totally unreliable method of measuring how an extension is doing.

You don't know exactly what Google is returning. It might be returning holding pages, PPC pages, clone websites, .co websites that actually are from other TLDs but have no proper redirect set up for their .co (duplicate content). And that doesn't even get into the development issues (how many websites are abandoned/half-finished/compromised etc).

It might be better to use a limiter like index.html or index.php in these searches. The other aspect is that with a ccTLD, there will be a lot of government webpages (legislation etc) that will be included in a wider search. The .eu is one of the worst for this as it publishes the same content in approximately 27 languages.

Regards...jmcc

Nope , sorry to burst your bubble but that applies to .com pages as well , if that method is not accurate please show me the numbers i would like to know ....

 

[jmcc]

Nope , sorry to burst your bubble but that applies to .com pages as well ,

I never said it didn't.

It is not a reliable method because you don't know what Google is measuring and therefore you don't know what the numbers mean. The method is on a par with saying that water freezes when it gets cold and boils when it gets hot.

if that method is not accurate please show me the numbers i would like to know ....

The .co web survey stats are earlier in this thread.

Regards...jmcc