I want to see a real discussion going..

[undream2]

Do you think that .ORG domains are understated/undervalued?

Personally, I believe that .org's are understated, and someday people will be wishing they bought more.. I hear people telling others, that name doesn't fit with a .org, etc.

Who cares, if you have a name like, concrete(.)organization, or e43(.)org, in the real meaning. People do not pronounce it organization, its .org. And, now the .ORG is starting to fad away from the organization term.. I remember, in '96, '97. When a .org was only registed by real 'non-profit organizations', and I think they were the only ones who could register back then, if I remember correctly.

I don't understand it, but they should be selling for more.. If someone, is going to register a .us over a .org,, When .org was here way longer,,, and more respectable and always will be.. Go ahead, and I will be buying the sore thumb of .org, so please let them all expire..

The inflation here should be higher.. Since, there is so much money chasing, so few names.. Plus, the internet search engines are so huge.. And, they don't really care about extensions...

Overall, you have to love 'marketplaces'. Where there is always something undervalued and overvalued at times.. Though, .org is the future and I believe that..



What do you think?

 

[-REECE-]

I also believe .org is heavily undervalued. Get some while they're still cheap

 

[Jeff]

I also believe .org is heavily undervalued. Get some while they're still cheap

Generic and geo-targeted .ORG's! ^ :bingo: :imho:

-Jeff

 

[Ross]

.org is possibly the only extension used for its intended use. Which in all reality makes it a respectful extension. If you visit a .org more than likely you will see that it owned by an organization or developed in to an organization, i.e. dnoa.org or domainers.org.

I do like the .org extension but as far as reseller value goes its minimal compared to other extensions just because of the fact that its used for its intened use.

 

[-REECE-]

As you said -- .org is a respected extension and is often used as per it's intended purpose.

If someone built a site on domainers.net, my first thought would be "He couldn't afford the dotcom" -- I don't feel that way at all about domainers.org.

.org is possibly the only extension used for its intended use. Which in all reality makes it a respectful extension. If you visit a .org more than likely you will see that it owned by an organization or developed in to an organization, i.e. dnoa.org or domainers.org.

I do like the .org extension but as far as reseller value goes its minimal compared to other extensions just because of the fact that its used for its intened use.

 

[michaeldotcom]

Do you think that .ORG domains are understated/undervalued?

Yes, I do think so.

Actually I think that meaningful extensions like .org, .tv and .info are very undervalued at the moment. I think we'll see much more of those in the years to come, as they'll be seen as great alternatives to .com

As you said -- .org is a respected extension and is often used as per it's intended purpose.
If someone built a site on domainers.net, my first thought would be "He couldn't afford the dotcom" -- I don't feel that way at all about domainers.org.

You're spot on, Reece...
Actually the .net extension has always been second best and has never really been used as per its intended purpose.

Extensions like .org or .tv are actually much more meaningful than .net

 

[Ross]

As you said -- .org is a respected extension and is often used as per it's intended purpose.

If someone built a site on domainers.net, my first thought would be "He couldn't afford the dotcom" -- I don't feel that way at all about domainers.org.

My exact thoughts.

As stated the .org extension is more respectful and in most cases puts it above the .net extension. Reseller value i just dont see it unless you find a motivated buyer that really really wants the .org to START an organization.

Its like .net is the child of .com and .org is the sister of .com. Which one would you respect more?

Extensions like .org or .tv are actually much more meaningful than .net

.tv is a ccTLD. Which in most cases means it not used in intended format.

 

[undream2]

Tivo,

With you saying, .org's are still used for their intended purpose.. okay makes sense.., but any company, the mob, and etc. are considered an organization... Just non-profit..

 

[michaeldotcom]

.tv is a ccTLD. Which in most cases means it not used in intended format.

The .tv extension is widely considered as a gTLD nowadays.

When the NHL develops its NHL.tv website, do you think they do it in order to have a major videocentric site or to target the Tuvalu market ?

If online video was what it is now when extensions were created, .tv would definitely be a gTLD like .com, .net or .org and Tuvalu would have got a different one.

 

[Ross]

Tivo,

With you saying, .org's are still used for their intended purpose.. okay makes sense.., but any company, the mob, and etc. are considered an organization... Just non-profit..

I never once stated that "Just non-profits" use the extensions. I was refering to organizations as a whole. If you look at my previous posts i refer to DNOA.org and Domainers.org which im pretty sure are not non-profit organizations.

The .tv extension is widely considered as a gTLD nowadays.

When the NHL develops its NHL.tv website, do you think they do it in order to have a major videocentric site or to target the Tuvalu market ?

If online video was what it is now when extensions were created, .tv would definitely be a gTLD like .com, .net or .org and Tuvalu would have got a different one.

No matter what use your use the extension for .tv will always be a ccTLD. It is contry specific. I think this is why you see some companies developing the .tv extension and you see most others developing the xxxxTV.com. Which in reality makes way more sense to the consumer than a foriegn ccTLD.

 

[undream2]

Oic

 

[michaeldotcom]

No matter what use your use the extension for .tv will always be a ccTLD. It is contry specific. I think this is why you see some companies developing the .tv extension and you see most others developing the xxxxTV.com. Which in reality makes way more sense to the consumer than a foriegn ccTLD.

No Internet user actually sees .tv as a foreign TLD.

Moreover, .tv is much easier to remember and more brandable than tv.com

Why did the NHL choose NHL.TV rather than nhltv.com ? The first one is very clear and memorable for every average Internet user, the second is much more confusing and longer.

 

[Ross]

No Internet user actually sees .tv as a foreign TLD.

Moreover, .tv is much easier to remember and more brandable than tv.com

Why did the NHL choose NHL.TV rather than nhltv.com ? The first one is very clear and memorable for every average Internet user, the second is much more confusing and longer.

Most internet users have never heard of .tv. Honestly before i started domaining i had no idea there was a .tv.

It is quite brandable i will give it that but it is only brandable, as in any case, if you have lots of money to brand it or you offer something unique on the website.

Which NHL covers one of those, has lots of money and the fan base to publicly release something of that magnitude.

 

[bijaybd]

i also preffer .org domains are very undervalued

 

[Michael]

I absolutely believe .org will surpass .net. Reece said it perfectly, when people see a .net they think the company is cheap, when they see the .org they think it is respectable. I think the extension has a lot of potential for end users.

 

[networkmsia]

I will always stick with .coms only :p :p :p

 

[Alan Glennon]

While I highly value .org, since it is being used for its intended purpose (organizations and groups), the likelihood that a large, rapid market value shift will occur is low. The market value increase of the tld has also been modest and slow, albeit steady. It's a fine tld, but not suited well for the quick flip domaining market.

 

[bmugford]

This just depends on the category. Obviously for anything .com is the standard. However, any tech company or forums can use a .net effectively. Something like buycomputers.net makes more sense than buycomputers.org, but something like helpthehomeless.org makes more sense than helpthehomeless.net.

 

[-REECE-]

Yep.

I do prefer alot of generics (as Jeff said above) in .org though.

Beer.net sounds boring... Beer.org sounds like a fun club for beer lovers! :wave:

This just depends on the category. Obviously for anything .com is the standard. However, any tech company or forums can use a .net effectively. Something like buycomputers.net makes more sense than buycomputers.org, but something like helpthehomeless.org makes more sense than helpthehomeless.net.

 

[DomainMayhem.com]

Actually I think that meaningful extensions like .org, .tv and .info are very undervalued at the moment. I think we'll see much more of those in the years to come, as they'll be seen as great alternatives to .com



You're spot on, Reece...
Actually the .net extension has always been second best and has never really been used as per its intended purpose.

Extensions like .org or .tv are actually much more meaningful than .net

I agree with these points as well. They are a great, valid alternative, so I think they will continue to grow.