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

[TOXX]

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]

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

 

[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 ?