.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.

 

[surprise]

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 .co web survey stats are earlier in this thread.

Regards...jmcc

Same applies to .com pages , i am not measuring how many .co sites are there but i am comparing the ratio between .com Vs .co percentage wise .

 

[the_poet]

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's an average and as such it applies to all TLDs. As for parked and PPC pages, I would expect that if a TLD is made up mainly of such kind of "development", that ratio should be very low as each domain would contain a low number of pages.

 

[jmcc]

Same applies to .com pages , i am not measuring how many .co sites are there but i am comparing the ratio between .com Vs .co percentage wise .

Basically you are comparing one unknown with another unknown. The problem isn't the size of the TLDs, it is the simple fact that the method is not reliable because you don't know exactly what you are trying to measure. And even then you don't know if you are measuring the same thing twice in .com and .co.

Regards...jmcc

 

[surprise]

Basically you are comparing one unknown with another unknown. The problem isn't the size of the TLDs, it is the simple fact that the method is not reliable because you don't know exactly what you are trying to measure. And even then you don't know if you are measuring the same thing twice in .com and .co.

Regards...jmcc

How many times we have to go through that .com is king and is better , really is someone out there argue about that? But now we are talking about the development percentages , apparently percentage wise .com is lower than .co which is understandable cuz .co is a small cctld , .com is speculative and is hijacked by cyber squatters lets face it , that's the reality and there is nothing wrong about it if we didn't break others rights , so don't tell me that .co is underdeveloped but .com is not , unless you have real numbers i would appreciate if you share them here mate .

 

[equity78]

Lori Anne Wardi featured in Two Articles.

 

[the_poet]

Basically you are comparing one unknown with another unknown. The problem isn't the size of the TLDs, it is the simple fact that the method is not reliable because you don't know exactly what you are trying to measure. And even then you don't know if you are measuring the same thing twice in .com and .co.

Regards...jmcc

Man, it's an average, I'm not providing detailed data. When you state that the vast majority of .co domains use GoDaddy's domaincontrol.com nameservers you're basically providing little information as those could be both one-page landers and developed domains with a certain number of indexed pages (as you know GoDaddy invariably uses these nameservers). That's where the average ratio may be useful.

 

[Kate]

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

When you don't have the raw source, you make your own snake oil.

I've compiled a few surveys on the .co zone without cooperation from the registry and I'm not doing too bad.
One example:
http://www.namepros.com/573976-co-official-discussion-showcase-sales-report-350.html#post4386124

Today we have roughly 1.3M .co registered but that figure alone doesn't tell us anything. If there is a lot of development in the extension, it is a good sign. On the other hand, imagine if 33% or possibly 50% of all registered .co names are parked/inactive, that would mean many of those regs are defensive/speculative perhaps - so the actual interest from end users and developers is much lower than you believe.

When you look at the name servers used you begin to have a rough idea of the level of development:
http://www.namepros.com/573976-co-official-discussion-showcase-sales-report-351.html#post4386159

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 .

I'm not expecting .co to behave any differently. It's their right to restrict zone data, like most ccTLDs do. JMCC and I are just calling out the .co registry on their PR spin. But I know that some people have invested in .co and hold high hopes so they will gladly accept whatever the registry throws at them (that is, nothing), because that's what they want to believe.

 

[surprise]

When you don't have the raw source, you make your own snake oil.

ahha so you want me to buy your snake oil but you don't want me to drink a Colombian coffee !

 

[jmcc]

Man, it's an average, I'm not providing detailed data.

But an average of what? That's the point I am trying to make. You really don't know what the Google SERPs mean. You don't know the level of government/state webpages in those SERP numbers. You don't know what kind of sites are included in those SERPs.

When you state that the vast majority of .co domains use GoDaddy's domaincontrol.com nameservers you're basically providing little information as those could be both one-page landers and developed domains with a certain number of indexed pages (as you know GoDaddy invariably uses these nameservers). That's where the average ratio may be useful.

I also provided the .co web survey data that actually distinguishes Godaddy's PPC lander page from genuinely developed .co websites.

Regards...jmcc

 

[surprise]

numbers ?

 

[jmcc]

numbers ?

Well this is a survey from September 2011:

Website % | Website Type
13.2433 | Active/Unclassified
1.9987 | Brand Protection
0.0096 | Compromised/defaced
0.6269 | Inpage Redirect
7.8163 | External TLD redirect
1.7280 | 403 etc
9.1436 | Holding Pages
8.4740 | Internal Site Redirect
4.2275 | Expired
0.4836 | Premium Domains
3.6623 | Matched external TLD redirect
0.0412 | Duplicate Content
43.2461 | PPC Parking
0.2424 | Redirect (Unclassified)
0.9440 | For Sale/Rent
1.7054 | Unavailable
0.0121 | Unknown content
2.3949 | Redirect to other .co

These percentages didn't have the clone detection algorithm applied.

Regards...jmcc

 

[surprise]

Well this is a survey from September 2011:

Website % | Website Type
13.2433 | Active/Unclassified
1.9987 | Brand Protection
0.0096 | Compromised/defaced
0.6269 | Inpage Redirect
7.8163 | External TLD redirect
1.7280 | 403 etc
9.1436 | Holding Pages
8.4740 | Internal Site Redirect
4.2275 | Expired
0.4836 | Premium Domains
3.6623 | Matched external TLD redirect
0.0412 | Duplicate Content
43.2461 | PPC Parking
0.2424 | Redirect (Unclassified)
0.9440 | For Sale/Rent
1.7054 | Unavailable
0.0121 | Unknown content
2.3949 | Redirect to other .co

These percentages didn't have the clone detection algorithm applied.

Regards...jmcc

what i do with these mate ? we are comparing .cos Vs .coms ( percentage wise ) , do you have any verified numbers ?

 

[jmcc]

what i do with these mate ?

Marvel in awe? Panic? Do a little happy dance?

we are comparing .cos Vs .coms ( percentage wise ) , do you have any verified numbers ?

Talk to Verisign for .com stats. Otherwise it might be very expensive.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Kate]

Surprise, what is the point you are trying to make precisely ?

We all know there is a lot of speculation in .com too. But .com is established and has an aftermarket. That's why there is speculation in .com, because there is demand from end users.
With .co and the more recent TLDs, the trend is opposite, a lot of speculators register large numbers of domains as soon as the floodgates are open, anticipating end user demand that isn't there yet, and will not materialize in fact.

In fact, the problem with .co is not the huge volume of speculation and non-development, but the fact that the mass of idle registrations is not offset by major development efforts - unlike .com. This is the difference.

I track quite a number of ccTLDs other than .co out of academic interest. I have no stakes in the extension. Just reporting what I found. It is my prerogative to claim that .co is overrated as an alternate TLD :gl:

If you want to commit resources to take the analysis further feel free to get in touch. I have little interest to do so because it's resource- and time-intensive. If you have stakes in .co don't believe the hype and do your homework. Once again 1.3M regs means little if it's the only data you have. You need to look at the usage patterns to understand how the TLD is being used (or not) in the real world. Parked domains will do nothing to enhance the status of the extension, it's like they do not count at all.

In .xxx I noticed that the vast majority of domains are inactive. It is a dead zone. The registry will of course never mention that in press releases. They will just say that it continues to grow and development is going strong. Yeah right. I'm not blaming them, they want to sell you something.

 

[surprise]

Surprise, what is the point you are trying to make precisely ?

This is exactly the same question i asked you all many times , whats your point ? this is a .co thread so it is acceptable to post our reg here and recent sales , the real question is whats your point from jumping every other post to tell us that : .com is better , .co is another cctld , .com is the real deal . .co is underdeveloped . ...etc , really i don't understand this you can ofcourse say this once or twice but keeping posting these facts that we all know doesn't make sense to me , why ? it doesn't make sense because .com is also speculative in a much larger degree , so what ? .com is also underdeveloped as we showed you the numbers from google indexed pages , .com is also risky cuz all good short names are gone , remain the long tail .com so it is not a rosy extension either go to the auction section here and see how sellers try to sell a 4 or 5 .coms starting with 1 $ , and there is hardly any bidders , this is domaining , no news here . So why keep jumping here with the same comment hey .com is better , .co is undeveloped you guys didn't bring anything new i know this already and i don't care , i had one .co only and just now i added another one which is a one Spanish word an expired domain , that's my point ..

:wave:

 

[arend]

Judging by the number of posts on and the intensity the .Co extension can't be too bad. Judging by this thread there is a lot of interest in dot Co.

 

[surprise]

Judging by the number of posts on and the intensity the .Co extension can't be too bad. Judging by this thread there is a lot of interest in dot Co.

Giddyup :lol: , really i wasn't that much interested in .co but they dragged me to it so i scanned many Spanish words and just now i regged one lol

:wave:

 

[Kate]

.com is also underdeveloped as we showed you the numbers from google indexed pages

That's what JMCC is trying to tell you: you are using those numbers as a baseline but you don't even know what they mean or how accurate they are. To begin with, plenty of domains are not indexed in google because their existence is not even known to google. What are these numbers supposed to represent exactly, the total number of indexed pages for all crawled websites ? Something else ? You tell me.
You are not going to be able to gather the number of websites, the number of domains, or the development ratio from a simple google search.

If you think this is a meaningful measure you can try .bz or .tk in google, the figures are good too

 

[surprise]

That's what JMCC is trying to tell you: you are using those numbers as a baseline but you don't even know what they mean or how accurate they are. To begin with, plenty of domains are not indexed in google because their existence is not even known to google. What are these numbers supposed to represent exactly, the total number of indexed pages for all crawled websites ? Something else ? You tell me.
You are not going to be able to gather the number of websites, the number of domains, or the development ratio from a simple google search.

If you think this is a meaningful measure you can try .bz or .tk in google, the figures are good too

Same applies to .co unindexed domains as well , it is a bout percentages and averages not to mention .co is new and .com is very old so which one is more indexed ( percentage wise ) .......

 

[Domainstore]

Hello,
I totally agree with this. Why always the same negative posts ?
I know some people who have 100's of .CO's registerred in the last month.
And there are also backorders, what means that people want a domain very much !

The big drop is finished though, to my impression.

It's quite logical that there were drops, because renewals are 3 time or more as expensive as new registrations.
Because of the birthday of the exention, a big drop came, but lots were already registerrred again.

This is exactly the same question i asked you all many times , whats your point ? this is a .co thread so it is acceptable to post our reg here and recent sales , the real question is whats your point from jumping every other post to tell us that : .com is better , .co is another cctld , .com is the real deal . .co is underdeveloped . ...etc , really i don't understand this you can ofcourse say this once or twice but keeping posting these facts that we all know doesn't make sense to me , why ? it doesn't make sense because .com is also speculative in a much larger degree , so what ? .com is also underdeveloped as we showed you the numbers from google indexed pages , .com is also risky cuz all good short names are gone , remain the long tail .com so it is not a rosy extension either go to the auction section here and see how sellers try to sell a 4 or 5 .coms starting with 1 $ , and there is hardly any bidders , this is domaining , no news here . So why keep jumping here with the same comment hey .com is better , .co is undeveloped you guys didn't bring anything new i know this already and i don't care , i had one .co only and just now i added another one which is a one Spanish word an expired domain , that's my point ..

:wave:

 

[jmcc]

The big drop is finished though, to my impression.

It is not. There are a few more to come due to COInternet's Godaddy promotions.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Domainstore]

The last code of Godaddy doesn't get it under appr. 10 USD for new registrations any more.
Does anybody has a new one or knows why ?
I got different prices on diferent browsers.

 

[surprise]

The last code of Godaddy doesn't get it under appr. 10 USD for new registrations any more.
Does anybody has a new one or knows why ?
I got different prices on diferent browsers.

try these :

iapcom829

cjc799CCb1

iapcom779

 

[MicroGuy]

The big drop is finished though, to my impression.

The big drop is not an end-point it's a cycle. As frustrated investors drop their .CO domains, fresh investors move in and pick up the drops. Then the process repeats creating a declining cycle. Each year there are then fewer and fewer new investors to pickup the drops and hence the extension fades into the background as it's replaced with newly marketed extensions. This is a repeatable predictable pattern.

 

[mwzd]

This is a repeatable predictable pattern.

Though the numbers suggest just the opposite.

1.3 million total registered domains in two years is better performance than anyone predicted.

And their marketing is spot on, they are targeting startups, incubators and other similar end users and letting the secondary market be a function of demand and supply.