"It is the single biggest mistake one can make on the Internet"

[IAmAllanShore]

According to Rick Schwartz, the "...single biggest mistake one can make on the Internet" would be registering and promoting a .net that you don't own the .com for also.

I know that many a 'folk here have .net's that they don't own the .com for, myself included.

<snip http://www.dnjournal.com/columns/cover020204.htm >
Still, Schwartz thinks the new extensions are a better bet than one old-timer, .net. “.org is the #2 extension because of its widespread use with charities and heavy TV and print advertising. .net is the orphan. It has no identity and loses massive amounts of traffic automatically to the .com counterpart. Not basing your business on a .net extension is the #1 piece of advice I would give anyone that asked. I would choose .whatever over ANY .net unless you own the .com version. If you promote .net, and don’t own the .com, you are likely working hard for someone else and wasting 15%-25% or more of your hard work and marketing efforts. It is the single biggest mistake one can make on the Internet.”

Schwartz recognizes that “it is statements like that where folks either totally agree with me or hate me for saying it. But it is FACT and the more the fact is shown the greater the hate grows. Having a .net to base your business on is like building a boat with a BIG gaping hole in it. What does it say about the boat owner/builder that gets angry when you point out that HUGE LEAK?”
</snip>

Can't help but think that this guy has made millions and millions doing this, so he must know what he's talking about... but at the same time it's depressing to think that 3 letter .net's might even be OVERvalued right now...

-Allan

 

[Midano]

Good advice, indeed.

 

[VisualArtistFrankBonilla]

Hmmmm

Hmmmmm. does make you think, huh???


Frank

 

[armstrong]

I like .net for tech-oriented sites like hosting, programming, webmasters, etc. Schwarz's opinion might be true for b2c sites like ebay and amazon, but I feel that he exaggerates, specially his statement "I would choose .whatever over ANY .net unless you own the .com version.". If he settles for something like .tk over the widespread recognizability of .net, then he should have his head examined, IMHO.

Besides, the "lost traffic" theory is faulty, IMHO. Let's say you wanted to go to php.net, but put in php.com instead. Do you then give up and go perl.com? No, you just shrug and try again.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

I have often picked .info domains over a .net when the domain would be informational. If use for NETworking related, I think .net is better. Otherwise sometimes I do feel .info or .us is better. However, I do normally get both the .net and .info if they are available and each would work. Overall, I'd put .info on the same level with .net. I have fewer .net overall than I do .info, .biz, or .us.

 

[EbookLover]

I have to agre with Rick Schwartz. I tell people who are starting up an ecomm site about this all the time. They want to use the .NEt just becue they like the name. They do not realize all the traffic they will most likely lose to the .COM. Most never liten. they think the extension has nothign to do with it. oh well.

 

[IdahoFarmer]

Amen. dotcom is king.

Besides, the "lost traffic" theory is faulty, IMHO. Let's say you wanted to go to php.net, but put in php.com instead. Do you then give up and go perl.com? No, you just shrug and try again.

I respectfully disagree. If I'm looking for a market leading website I'd google search OR type in a logical URL. Therefore, I'd try PHP.com. If that was a parked site I would try PHPpros.com or PHPsource.com or something similar before I would ever try a .net. This is just me, of course, but I believe there are many others whom would act similarly.

The question isn't IF traffic would be lost... it is simply HOW MUCH.

 

[RogueWriter]

Eh, I am building a site at www.militaryhistory.net , and am not going to change based on that essay. If I have unique content, they will come back: especially if they bookmark the site, which I think I can convince them to do. I'm not going to wrest militaryhistory.com from someone for less than thousands, and my pockets don't run that deep yet. I certainly would not trade militaryhistory.net for some lesser .com, like mymilitaryhistory.com or emilitaryhistory.com , because it makes less sense.

 

[anyweb]

Ask yourself: why would Rick give this advice?
Is he trying to help you get rich?
Highly unlikely!!
Obviously, there are bigger mistakes that one can make on the net
So why does Rick say dot nets are?
Maybe Rick is busy buying up key word dot nets very cheaply
They are very cheap right now
Yet the public seem to love them.
Only domainers seem to reject them

 

[vimkar]

Ask yourself: why would Rick give this advice?
Is he trying to help you get rich?
Highly unlikely!!
Obviously, there are bigger mistakes that one can make on the net
So why does Rick say dot nets are?
Maybe Rick is busy buying up key word dot nets very cheaply
They are very cheap right now
Yet the public seem to love them.
Only domainers seem to reject them

i disagree ....
he made his millions without faking....

"He was one of the very first people to see that domains had the same potential in cyberspace that real estate had in the real world. He took that initial $1800 nest egg and started plowing the money into domain names even though his friends questioned his sanity for doing so."

 

[Jeffrey]

I just registered (reg fee) a .COM domain, where an established .NET website may have commited a mistake by not registering the .COM. Also there's an established .CO.UK website of the same name. The domain is getting a few decent type-ins.

Probably, the lesson that Rick is trying to imply is: Buy the .COM first, and/or the .NET as well.

I agree buying the .NET first is a mistake.

 

[armstrong]

If both .com and .net are available, then of course you should reg both. Schwarz's thesis, however, is that if the .com isn't owned by you (i.e., someone else owns it), then don't go develop with a .net.

That's just silly, like in the php.net example. there's no way I would trade php.net with PHPpros.com or PHPsource.com. Honestly now, can you say that you would gladly give up php.net for PHPpros.com or PHPsource.com?

 

[.Mike]

Eh, I am building a site at www.militaryhistory.net , and am not going to change based on that essay. If I have unique content, they will come back: especially if they bookmark the site, which I think I can convince them to do. I'm not going to wrest militaryhistory.com from someone for less than thousands, and my pockets don't run that deep yet. I certainly would not trade militaryhistory.net for some lesser .com, like mymilitaryhistory.com or emilitaryhistory.com , because it makes less sense.

I agree, it is fine if you have a 'keyword' subject (like business, sex, travel, etc) in some cases a good double keyword (creditcards, etc) where people would type in before going through a search engine, however as soon as people start googleing the .net is a strong as anything else (within reason) - and as we all know it then comes down to page rank (and the contributing factors to it). Even then with good keywords, most aren’t specific - they are categories, for example if I was looking to buy a new computer I doubt I would type in computer.com (although I might end up there), I would be more likely to go to a search engine and type in 'buy computer' and see what comes up. Even when you go to computer.com you see that the company isn't called ‘computer’ and I doubt it really pushes www.computer.com (although I may be corrected in that) as its main website. Keywords are great for driving general traffic but aren’t as good for driving specific traffic (the ones that are most likely to buy) – this comes from the search engines, then we are back to it doesn’t really matter what the extension is.

There is the other case when you have a large, well known business (GE, GM, IBM, etc, etc) which I think is what Rick Schwartz is talking about when the com’s are vital above everything else and the company name then becomes a type in. So I can understand that if you own a business that has potential to be more than a SME it is important to own the .com.

IMHO

 

[Zeeble]

Besides, the "lost traffic" theory is faulty, IMHO. Let's say you wanted to go to php.net, but put in php.com instead. Do you then give up and go perl.com? No, you just shrug and try again.

Thats not his point. What if a competitor owns the .com and has a website there? You just GAVE them traffic.

 

[Mystic]

Imagine microsoft with microsoft.net and somebody having a linux distro on microsoft.com (forget legal suff exists)

Then microsoft would lose a lot of traffic due to type ins, aswell as 1000s if not millions of customers, Same with google, if somebody said to you go to google, without you ever knowing about google i think you would typein google.com not the .net, i got some of the same words in .net and .info and the .info;s get more type ins lol

 

[RogueWriter]

- - - - -
Thats not his point. What if a competitor owns the .com and has a website there? You just GAVE them traffic.
- - - - -

For militaryhistory.net , a competitor DOES own the .com . However, losing some traffic to him is a washout since I gain even more traffic from having a killer, brandable domain name. What he is skipping over is the fact that an extremely relevant domain name is key to search engine traffic, and helps with brandability.

If any of us happened to pick up sex.net after it dropped, can you honestly say, hey, that's a .net I'm not going NEAR it, instead, I'll develop littleoldnekkidgranny.com ?

The only situation I would agree with him on is a name that might have a trademark associated with it, especially after the .com is already developed. But that's more of a legal issue rather than evaluating the worth of the .net TLD.

 

[equity78]

Good Point RW an d If you are negative on .net then seel your .cc and .ws because at least the public has heard of .net. I think Schwartz was really focusing on PPC too not so much development and SEO. I agree with ARM rather have PHP.net then PHPSOURCE.com not even close. Both of them would suck for PPC so who cares if you are devleoping you need brandability and the best Keyword you can get. IMO

 

[-db-]

A lot of good points, and logic on both sides.

Like with any situation, I think so much depends on the domain. As in Armstrong's example (php.net -VS- PHPpros.com or PHPsource.com) I would choose the single word or short generic .net, .us, .biz, .info domain every time over the 2 word made-up .com version. On the other hand, obviously I would prefer the short generic in .com but that's just not possible to attain for most people.

It also depends whether you are looking at things from a reseller, ppc or pure development perspective.

 

[equity78]

Right on DB

 

[-db-]

(Type-in traffic aside)

My new analogy for developing any non .com space...

There are 7 streets in my neighborhood. There's a lot of different houses on each street. The first time people come over I give them a map; directions. After that, they know where to find me. All those other streets and houses don't seem to prevent them from arriving at my house party each weekend, right on time. They even drove right past the biggest house in the neighborhood, on the corner, where the Comstock family lives. They don't get confused or lost. They find me every time. I guess because I'm unique, because my home (while not the biggest on the block) is very nicely developed and designed, and whenever you come to my house I try to provide meaningful content and things worth noting. So you remember me.

My name is Mr. "Not A. Com" and it's a pleasure to meet you.