.tv I have more evidence on this .TV SEO bias

[localexperts]

looks like Google is more biased than Yahoo.

Tulsa.tv - getting some traffic - right?

High search term - "tulsa"

Tulsa.TV is first page of Yahoo
Tulsa.TV is third page of Google.

So there is some life, but Google having Tulsa.com #1 - basically a glorified article landing page while burying Tulsa.TV on page 3 is fustrating. At least Tulsa.tv came up. Guess that is better than nothing.

The reason I'm studying this is because of our difficulties getting traction with our .TVs and my stockholder's screams to steer traffic away from our .TV brands to .COM and .NET.

I would prefer to push CONTRACTOR.TV next year, not dicker around trying to find a grade C .COM or .NET to drive all our home improvement ads.

UPDATE --------------------------------------

just checked Officiants.TV on first page of Yahoo for search term "officiants"

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=officiants&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

I just sent out a "think outside the Google box" email. Finally a pulse.

Now the someone needs to kick Google in the pants, I still think we don't get the same advantage as .COM or .NET and Tulsa.tv only re-enforces that opinion.

 

[konipro]

www.tulsa.com

Creation Date: 1997-03-19

We have seen this over and over haven't we? Many people looking for OLD Domains recently.

 

[localexperts]

I don't disagree that this might be the central problem, however since the .TV domains will be newly regged or newly developed domains, it is still a bias toward .TV that has nothing to do with content.

As investors, I would think this is a concern.

Small type in traffic footprint and SEO handicap (whatever the reason).

And yes I look for older domain, weddingphotographers.net (1998)

 

[Dr. Mindwrecker]

Ok correct me if im wrong, but I thought if the .com was up since 1998, that gives it a huge advantage over your site as it has been in the net longer which will put it up higher in the rankings?

How does it make Google bias? doesn't that mean Google goes for what they find most relevant, and my understanding is that time on the net is relevant to the Google search algorithm, which means they will rank relevant sites higher based on how long they have been on the net.

 

[localexperts]

All I know is this. I have purchased domains from BuyDomains. Old .COMs .NETs that were parking pages for years. At the same time, I launched .TV sites. I spend $2,500 a month on Google driving traffic to both. Same content (different categories) on both. The .COM and .NET is on first page, the .TV is not.

.TV domains are going to be newer domains or newer sites. Whether or not the bias is toward .TV explicitly or toward newer sites, there is still a bias that effects .TV and COULD THE VALUE OF .TV DOMAINS.

I'm an end user. I had a choice, launch and drive to LAWNS.TV or buy LAWNMAINTENANCE.NET from BuyDomains. I bought LAWNMAINTENANCE.NET for $600, sold some of my .TVs to do it and guess what LAWNMAINTENANCE.NET will be a developed site and LAWNS.TV will be on the sideline.

One less developed .TV, one less end user (in a small pool) buying .TV (actually selling .TV to buy .NET)

Hey if you don't think that is an issue fine. I do.

In the stock market, this type of sector rotation would cause the sector to go down. There is a very small sector for .TV. As one friend told me (who runs a public mid-size internet company), when I do a search and I see alot of .TVs, then I would put money in .TV.

Because the value of a domain is in its ability to get traffic and brandabilty.

Without typein and SEO bias (for whatever reason - new sites or country code), the only value in .TV is branding to end users.

Perception and Reality.

 

[Dr. Mindwrecker]

Oh I hear you, but the question is, is the bias towards new sites, or towards .tv ? This is interesting...

 

[localexperts]

Correct. Either bias will effect new .TV sites and could impact valuations.

I'm just glad Officiants.tv has some life, because now I can see some light to promote Contractor.TV (which is the domain I want to use for Home leads)

 

[konipro]

I am not disputing there is a bias, but just trying to understand where / what exactly the bias is. It is always a guessing game with Google as it is hard to figure out there complex system of algorithms.

We see some sites with almost ZERO content and very few back links get ranked high because of the age of the domains name. Other sites with lots of content and lots of back links with newer domains and different TLD's are ranked very high on Google.

So is there a direct biased against .TV or is .TV being penalized for being rather new?
I think if a site has lots of relative content, good, solid back links, and is SEO'd well
it will be ranked high in Google despite it being a .TV or even a .WS or .BIZ. But surely
the age of the domain seems to matter in many cases and there is nothing we can do about that with .TV's but like a good wine they will increase in value as they age.

Many others must feel the same as I see sport.biz is bid at 10,000 Euros right now on Sedo. That is about $14,500 I think in US dollars. Pretty good for a .biz name.

Local, I think you have to take into account that certain keywords will have a lot more competition than others and therefore some of your sites will take longer to gain ground in Google. "officiants" overture score is only 320. Tulsa is 43547 and contractor is 86499. To me that means that it would theoretically be a lot easier to
gain a higher ranking with the term "officiants" than "Tulsa" or "Contractor". Agreed?

 

[StargateCapital]

IMHO - regarding google indexing - older 1998 .com is not necessarily better than a 2007 .tv. Especially if content on the .tv is better than what's on the .com. Maybe to really test this out, one can register a new .com and a .tv at the same time and test that scenario out (with the exact same keywords)?

Sneakers

 

[konipro]

Good idea but how could you make the test fair? If you put duplicate content on both sites would not that be penalized by Google? And if you didn't put duplicate content then how could the test be fair?

 

[localexperts]

same type of content. two different verticals. similiar to what showbiz (sorry bulldog) is doing with his wordpress content sites.

 

[StargateCapital]

Good point - I suppose it would have to be as similar as possible without getting in trouble for duplicate content? This would be a very interesting test though!

S

 

[localexperts]

To me that means that it would theoretically be a lot easier to
gain a higher ranking with the term "officiants" than "Tulsa" or "Contractor". Agreed?

100% agree. I don't expect Charleston.tv to get #1 for "charleston" as easy as Officiants.tv for "officiants".

but the issue that raised the red flag (with me) was that Officiants.tv is no where to be found on Google for "officiants" while BanquetFacilities.com is #1 for "banquet facilities". Similiar content. Similiar sites. Lauched as same time. Both have $X,XXX a month ad budget at Google Ad Words. BF has a higher budget, so I used Videographers.net as a second data point since that budget is the same as Officiants.tv.

Only difference is age of the domain and .TV/.COM/.NET

 

[TheBulldog]

Best way to find out is with one of us........take a xxxxx.tv, and the protection buy of xxxxxtv.com.

Assuming it is unique enough, load the the same and see which one makes it to the top the soonest.

If anyone wants to, I own channelmoi.tv (I believe but could be wrong that moi is french for me.) channelmoi.com is also available.

Then we pick a keyword at random, and I mean random......hjunkerpickle would be a good one. We load the sites up EXACTLY the same and see which one is picked up first.

If someone wants to buy channelmoi.com, I will host both and we can conduct our experiment.

 

[equity78]

I think it is available because while MOI is French for me the channel means nothing in french it would be Canal

 

[TheBulldog]

agreed, just for an experiment

both of those are available as well though........

canalmoi,com
canalmoi,tv

or
canalme.com
canalme.tv