question Why is .net looked upon unfavourably?

I personally prefer .org, but .net can certainly be a better extension in many cases.

I think you see some of the highest-trafficked websites (Wikipedia.org, Craigslist.org, etc.) use .org making it more recognizable, more sales of .org vs .net for 2018, and it has more of a professional/business vibe to it IMO.

maxtra said:

I think you see some of the highest-trafficked websites (Wikipedia.org, Craigslist.org, etc.) use .org making it more recognizable

Click to expand...

Good point. Wikipedia kind of proves my point about the types of organisations, that for me, you would expect to see with it. And, do you think had craigslist used .net instead it would have made much difference? Being that the extension would have fit for its networking aspect?

maxtra said:

more sales of .org vs .net for 2018, and it has more of a professional/business vibe to it IMO

Click to expand...

I get that .org works well to represent a organisation, though does this put it at risk of .co taking over for smaller businesses who are not quite at that level? I quite like it being short for company myself even though that's not what it is.

domains21 said:

Good point. Wikipedia kind of proves my point about the types of organisations, that for me, you would expect to see with it. And, do you think had craigslist used .net instead it would have made much difference? Being that the extension would have fit for its networking aspect?

I get that .org works well to represent a organisation, though does this put it at risk of .co taking over for smaller businesses who are not quite at that level? I quite like it being short for company myself even though that's not what it is.

Click to expand...

Probably not. It is all about the execution.

I like .co as well, still far behind in terms of reported sales vs .org and .net, but time will tell how it pans out over the long term.

I read that in the early nineties .net was the preferred extension to invest in over .com. Not sure how much truth was in that info. Old schoolers I'm sure could say if that was true or not. @equity78 knows a lot about the history of domains so maybe he could chime in.

.Org is a great extension if it matches the correct concept. Charities, organizations etc.. should all use a .org. Any real business should use a .net if they can't get the .com

Personally I think .net is underrated and see them more and more in regular use. if I wasn't a domain investor and knew nothing about domains I would easily choose a .net for my business and not think twice about it. The only time I would use a .net is if the business was not an online entity. If the business concept was purely online then there is no doubt I would want the .com and do everything in my power to acquire it.

.Net is fine for a small local business which does not really engage customers via its website (restaurant or dry cleaners or hair salon). Domain investors have generally found that .Net despite its thirty year existence and some 15 million registrations and low renewal cost is very difficult to sell to end users. Sad that the newbies ignore this fact when loading up on new TLDs.

There are many, many examples of a .net or .org pre-dating the .com counterpart registration date during the 90's. Whatever was believed the best fit extension was chosen for the name. Of course, we rarely have that option anymore.

I would not choose giving.net over giving.org for example.

I think it's a region thing. I find commercial organisations using .org really odd, and personally it sets off all types of alarm bells. I think that's partly because in the UK, our equivalent of .org.uk is only ever used by charitable organisations. You simply NEVER see a commercial service branded under a org.uk.

So my mindset is much the same with .org - it just doesn't sit very well with me.

Equally, maybe it's a UK thing, but I never really associated .net with internet service provider activities. I don't think anyone in the UK really thinks about this as a thing.

My preference therefore remains .com .net and then .org.

hookbox said:

I read that in the early nineties .net was the preferred extension to invest in over .com. Not sure how much truth was in that info.

Click to expand...

It's possible but as a child of the 90s I do remember that the .com was the one to have if you could.

hookbox said:

.Org is a great extension if it matches the correct concept. Charities, organizations etc.. should all use a .org. Any real business should use a .net if they can't get the .com

Click to expand...

This is where I am too.

hookbox said:

The only time I would use a .net is if the business was not an online entity

Click to expand...

Agreed. As I said above, .net to me means the web, internet or online presence and so to not be about that would seem out of place.

garptrader said:

.Net is fine for a small local business which does not really engage customers via its website (restaurant or dry cleaners or hair salon)

Click to expand...

Considering the above quote above yours, I do not understand why any of those would suit having a .net. They are all physical establishments and so a .net would seem completely out of sorts for them, imo.

HotKey said:

There are many, many examples of a .net or .org pre-dating the .com counterpart registration date during the 90's. Whatever was believed the best fit extension was chosen for the name. Of course, we rarely have that option anymore.

I would not choose giving.net over giving.org for example.

Click to expand...

In regards to the bold, naturally that would be the case and your example proves that.

whenpillarsfall said:

I think it's a region thing. I find commercial organisations using .org really odd, and personally it sets off all types of alarm bells. I think that's partly because in the UK, our equivalent of .org.uk is only ever used by charitable organisations. You simply NEVER see a commercial service branded under a org.uk.

Click to expand...

I totally agree, a company with an org just doesn't feel right and it could well be because, as you say, the way they are seen and used regionally.

whenpillarsfall said:

My preference therefore remains .com .net and then .org.

Click to expand...

Same here.

In an ideal world, I would like to see .com used only for commercial purposes, .co for company/corporate websites, .net for primarily non-commercial activities carried out by individuals or small informal groups, .org for non-business organizations.

Pedro Santos said:

.net for primarily non-commercial activities carried out by individuals or small informal groups

Click to expand...

I think you underestimate .net
She would never settle for this.

cooljub said:

I think you underestimate .net
She would never settle for this.

Click to expand...

Yeah, actually on second thought .net should be "for everything else".

.net has it's place under the Sun.
Three extensions which will never disappear and have some kind of uniqueness are .com, .net and .org

Pedro Santos said:

Yeah, actually on second thought .net should be "for everything else".

Click to expand...

The great all-rounder

Imo, most would define "Organization" as:

- A group of persons organized for a particular purpose; an association or business.
- A group of persons organized for some end or work; association.
- An organized structure or whole.

I've always felt that .NET has a sort of indie vibe to it, i.e. by going with .NET you're underlining the fact that you didn't go with .COM, you're proud of it. Dunno where that's coming from because I don't feel it with, say, .CO which I only see as a substitute and inferior to .COM.

Also, while I feel that informational/personal websites and most services (offlines too) could be perfectly fine with .NET, I wouldn't start an online store on .NET. IMO not an extension for selling stuff.

Still a great extension to get started with, get a keyword for cheap and develop it
~
People will remember a .net web address as opposed to a new gtld

I agree its still a pretty good extension, I sold a couple of them a year ago to a few end users. They still like to mainly have the .com and .net combo going for their website.

personally I prefer with dot net than Org, in fact, I prefer biz than COm , but the truth is, market said the opposite! afterall who am I , I only seller, so I follow what market said

By the way there is .net discussion thread: https://www.namepros.com/threads/net-the-official-discussion-and-showcase-thread.647683/

There will always be some kind of nostalgic value there for longtime internet enthusiasts. I was just remembering of all the irc servers that end in XXXXnet.org, lol. Maybe a trust thing with .org, never really understood it. Sourceforge doesn't even forward to .net, while slickdeals does..just weird to me. I feel like .io is the new .net in this confusing new world of extensions. If anything, they're great for apps, cdns, and addresses not reliant on type-in traffic?

.Net has largely lost its way as an aftermarket play. It once had a life when search ranking algos assigned weight (ranking lift) to keywords in domain name. Most of that has evaporated. .Net was also meant to be a play on "network" ~for ISPs, etc. Ironically, most hosting companies, ISPs, etc. defaulted to .Com URLs.

I've held on to a handful of .Net domains but mostly because they "fit perfectly" ~Intranets.net, VirtualPrivateNetwork.net, Extranets.net and a few similar "here's where they belong" domains.

As to .Org there are plenty of "competitive in the SERPs" .Org based information sites or other types of sites that are monetized via advertising, affiliate links, lead gen, etc. The .Org domain addresses are fairly robust (industry defining).

I'd be comfortable with a .Org if it fits ^that^ criteria 1) industry defining (Tourism.org, for example); 2) has a solid basis in commerce yet doesn't lose that commercial nexus simply because the related site resides under .Org (Export.org, Commerce.org), and 3) the .Org domain based site would likely benefit from any added measure of ".Org trust" - which trust must also be earned or enhanced via useful (to visitors) development.

Most of what I hold in the .Org space I've held for eventual development, however along the way I've received offers that - at the particular moment - lead to sales, sometimes to use the funds to develop other projects. I never publish my sales but, along the way, one or two "got out there". The vast majority of those who post here likely could stop working for a year or two based on the proceeds of any one sale that went unreported.

FWIW, I suggest you always look at an acquisition from the (imagined) perspective of a potential end user purchaser BUT ALWAYS ALSO evaluate "the metrics" (search volume, PPC values, trend analysis, etc) AND consider the opportunity to build something on it by yourself. Not easy but always easier if you start with a solidly sensible .Org web address.

Alrighty. Long time since I've posted (ever?) here and long time since I've bothered to read a post here.

Good luck to you all.

It's all about convergence to a simple naming convention. Consumers demands simplicity.

I'm reminded of this little note I keep which is copied from an article written on February 12, 2015 by Andrew Allemann:

========
After 20 years of being known as Sonic.net, the California ISP and telecom rebranded as merely "Sonic" after acquiring Sonic.com.

When Dane Jasper started ISP company Sonic in 1994, Sonic.com was already taken by Sonic Solutions the year before. "We were a network service provider and every ISP was pretty much on a .net, like earthlink.net, so it wasn’t a big deal to not have the .com at that time."

Over the past couple decades, Jasper realized there were drawbacks to operating as Sonic.net. There was credibility, customer confusion and email accidentally sent to sonic.com. The opportunity came after Sonic Solutions was acquired by Rovi. Sonic.net officially rebranded as simply Sonic late last year.

Jasper sees a lot of companies starting up with trendy two letter domain names. "For an infrastructure company like ours that’s providing a critical service, we can’t be a little startup on a .ly. We need to be on a .com and to control that part of our identity."
========
Source: https://domainnamewire.com/2015/02/12/why-sonic-net-rebranded-as-sonic-and-how-it-got-sonic-com/

domains21 said:

Why is .net looked upon unfavourably?

Click to expand...

Why can't Pepsi ever seem to catch up with Coke?

Kassey Lee said:

Over the past couple decades, Jasper realized there were drawbacks to operating as Sonic.net. There was credibility, customer confusion and email accidentally sent to sonic.com.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, if you have to rebrand because of credibility, confusion and accidental loss of emails, the problem is not due to your site not being a dot-com, it is because:

1) There is a communication problem between you and your customers on to how to communicate with you

or

2) Your customers may need to be better versed into the .com/plexities of the Internet