So I visited a developed .cc website...

[Archangel]

A friend of mine sent me a URL via Yahoo messenger. Naturally, I clicked on it. Lo & behold, I was there, at http://www.cdcovers.cc And... wait, kids... look at the extension. I JUST VISITED A DEVELOPED .CC SITE for what I can recall, the first time in my life. And she told me that this site was #1 on GOOGLE with the keyphrase 'cd covers.' Ya don't believe me? Look yourself: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cd+covers&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10 So here is my question: How in the f*** did a .cc get to #1 on Google for a phrase that has over 2.5 MILLION results? I'm shocked enough to be seeing a developed .cc site. The #1-on-Google thing was just plain freaky.

Edit: And somehow, it's #1 on Google for 'dvd covers' too. How can this be? Where is the logic? .cc isn't in any way powerful... so what gives?

 

[Jaco]

Just a guess here...

The site sells CD Covers... It has a .CC extension as a clever gimmick.

For whatever reason (probably because it was almost a decade ago and people didn't quite fully understand just how 'bottom tier' esoteric ccTLD's would eventually become) the site ops flew with their site hanging on a .cc extension and it's been running ever since. Given the substantial weight G gives to aged sites, they very well may be the most well aged and established site in their niche for their keywords, thus the extension isn't that big of a deal.
I don't think this is as much of a "Wow, look what a .cc can do!" as much as it is "look what a developed, well aged site was able to do over the past 10 years, regardless of the extension".

While I'm pretty much a .com hardcore purist in most all ways (save for a few random purchases for fun), I think this goes to show that content is indeed king, but so is age. While starting a .cc site and running it for a decade on that extension might have been a winning formula in 2000, I don't know if it's such a good idea today.

 

[netfleet]

A great .com, with equal development, will likely outrank that random .ext every time. .

I don't agree with that at all.

In fact I'd go as far to say that a .com will rank worse than certain extensions but never better:

1. For any given search on Google.com.au 9 out of the top 10 results will be .au results. So, in this case .au outranks .com
   
2. I just searched for "frogs tv". Two of the top ten results are .tv extensions. As I very, very rarely see .tv results, it suggests that Google takes into account the extension and gives extra weighting (it even bolds it just to show this is the case). In this case .tv outranks .com
   
3. I searched for "dogs info" and three of the top ten results are .info sites. As above, this suggests that in this

case .info outranks .com

 

[Don]

I don't agree with that at all.

In fact I'd go as far to say that a .com will rank worse than certain extensions but never better:

1. For any given search on Google.com.au 9 out of the top 10 results will be .au results. So, in this case .au outranks .com
   
2. I just searched for "frogs tv". Two of the top ten results are .tv extensions. As I very, very rarely see .tv results, it suggests that Google takes into account the extension and gives extra weighting (it even bolds it just to show this is the case). In this case .tv outranks .com
   
3. I searched for "dogs info" and three of the top ten results are .info sites. As above, this suggests that in this

case .info outranks .com

I don't think you've said anything here that proves your theory or comes close to countering what I said...

-

1.) Google.com Vs. Google.com.au

Site Comparison of google.com (rank #1), google.com.au (#5,185) | Compete

Not sure about you - but when it comes to SEO, I'm only going to care about one of the above - and it doesn't end in .au.

-

2.) "Frogs TV"? Not one single person on the planet searches for that phrase according to google. So I won't even argue this one.

-

3.) "Dogs Info"? Though I don't know anyone that would type "dogs info" into a search engine, it seems there are a whopping 590 global searches for the phrase each month on google.

So lets examine this outranking of the "phrase".com to compare development strategies etc...

Nevermind! DogsInfo.com doesn't resolve. No parked site, no minisite, nada. So the results for this phrase really do nothing to counter what I said at all either.

-

I'm 100% up for hearing good arguments, backed by relevant stats, that counter what I said - but I feel you've missed the mark with the above.

And the following...

In fact I'd go as far to say that a .com will rank worse than certain extensions but never better

... is just plain crazy talk, imo.

 

[immediate]

Mainstream and domaining professionals may look down upon it because you reg domains to sell them for a profit. But when it domes to a website, .com may still be favorable but not so much as it is in the domaining industry considering a lot of other factors. There are lots of people who love .cc, especially from non-English speaking countries in addition to the fact that plenty of good keywords and short ones are available under this tld.

I don't think there's anything odd about it. Also when it comes to internet marketing and SEO, no TLD is any superior to the others in google's point of view, not even .com.

 

[netfleet]

I don't think you've said anything here that proves your theory or comes close to countering what I said...

-

1.) Google.com Vs. Google.com.au

Sorry why are we comparing Google websites? What has that got to do with the argument? I just gave a very clear (well I thought so but perhaps not clear enough for some ) example of an instance where the .au outranks the .com. If you didn't get it, I was referring to country specific websites... google.co.uk, google.de etc

Not sure about you - but when it comes to SEO, I'm only going to care about one of the above - and it doesn't end in .au.

Actually I don't give a damn about appearing in Google.com. My products are generally aimed at Australians who use google.com.au. But again that's not relevant. Do you agree that I showed an example (albeit in the ever so lowly google.com.au website) where .au domains outrank .com domains? Yes or no?

2.) "Frogs TV"? Not one single person on the planet searches for that phrase according to google. So I won't even argue this one.

Again you've completely missed the point!! I just picked the first random thing that came into my head & popped a tv on the end.

So because you don't like the example, you don't want to argue it?? Is this or is this not, another instance where a .tv extension outranks a .com? Again, a yes or no question

3.) "Dogs Info"? Though I don't know anyone that would type "dogs info" into a search engine, it seems there are a whopping 590 global searches for the phrase each month on google.

So lets examine this outranking of the "phrase".com to compare development strategies etc...

Nevermind! DogsInfo.com doesn't resolve. No parked site, no minisite, nada. So the results for this phrase really do nothing to counter what I said at all either.

Errr... so what is dogsinfo.com doesn't resolve??? You've lost me!

All this example shows is that .info domains are batting above their weight in this search instance. Do you agree or not?

I'm 100% up for hearing good arguments, backed by relevant stats, that counter what I said - but I feel you've missed the mark with the above.

And the following...


... is just plain crazy talk, imo.

Well I gave you three very clear examples (however bizarre) to demonstrate cases where non com extensions appear to rank better than com.

Unless you can show that these examples are not valid (and ridiculing the examples doesn't do it) then your statement looks increasingly shaky.

If you do respond, please respond with reason & logic rather than saying things like "..... is just plain crazy talk, imo." I don't think any statement like that is really likely to win any argument, do you?

PS I was in SEO many years before domaining.

 

[Archangel]

I think you've said it beautifully. As strange as it might seem to see a .cc as #1 on Google, it's possible. And as you and many others said, it could be done with the right SEO/aged domain etc.

Just a guess here...

The site sells CD Covers... It has a .CC extension as a clever gimmick.

For whatever reason (probably because it was almost a decade ago and people didn't quite fully understand just how 'bottom tier' esoteric ccTLD's would eventually become) the site ops flew with their site hanging on a .cc extension and it's been running ever since. Given the substantial weight G gives to aged sites, they very well may be the most well aged and established site in their niche for their keywords, thus the extension isn't that big of a deal.
I don't think this is as much of a "Wow, look what a .cc can do!" as much as it is "look what a developed, well aged site was able to do over the past 10 years, regardless of the extension".

While I'm pretty much a .com hardcore purist in most all ways (save for a few random purchases for fun), I think this goes to show that content is indeed king, but so is age. While starting a .cc site and running it for a decade on that extension might have been a winning formula in 2000, I don't know if it's such a good idea today.

---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 AM ----------

2 things you should know:

1.) Google DOES take the ext and treat it like a keyword. That was one of the selling points of .info back in the heyday.

2.) Country-specific SE's practically always favor domains in that ext. So yeah, you'll likely see a .au outrank a .com on an .au search engine.

I don't agree with that at all.

In fact I'd go as far to say that a .com will rank worse than certain extensions but never better:

1. For any given search on Google.com.au 9 out of the top 10 results will be .au results. So, in this case .au outranks .com
   
2. I just searched for "frogs tv". Two of the top ten results are .tv extensions. As I very, very rarely see .tv results, it suggests that Google takes into account the extension and gives extra weighting (it even bolds it just to show this is the case). In this case .tv outranks .com
   
3. I searched for "dogs info" and three of the top ten results are .info sites. As above, this suggests that in this

case .info outranks .com

 

[SeanPreston]

It's a great site, but now thinking about it, there are very few developed .cc's

 

[Don]

Sorry why are we comparing Google websites? What has that got to do with the argument? I just gave a very clear (well I thought so but perhaps not clear enough for some ) example of an instance where the .au outranks the .com. If you didn't get it, I was referring to country specific websites... google.co.uk, google.de etc

Actually I don't give a damn about appearing in Google.com. My products are generally aimed at Australians who use google.com.au. But again that's not relevant. Do you agree that I showed an example (albeit in the ever so lowly google.com.au website) where .au domains outrank .com domains? Yes or no?

Sure, I'll agree that .au might have a leg up on other extensions in google.com.au.

My point - is simply that competing on google.com.au IS NOT, by any means, the same as competing on google.com.

If you don't feel that matters in this discussion, I digress.

Again you've completely missed the point!! I just picked the first random thing that came into my head & popped a tv on the end.

So because you don't like the example, you don't want to argue it?? Is this or is this not, another instance where a .tv extension outranks a .com? Again, a yes or no question

It's not about "not liking" the example. It's simply a terrible example. If I needed SEO done, and you came to me with a #1 ranking for "frogs tv" - I would laugh you out of the room, and so would anyone else. There is NO competition for this phrase - which is why it's not relevant in a discussion about SEO.

Errr... so what is dogsinfo.com doesn't resolve??? You've lost me!

All this example shows is that .info domains are batting above their weight in this search instance. Do you agree or not?

No my friend - you've lost me!

Never once, have I said that other ext's can't battle their weight in the engines... quite the contrary actually.

You started this back and forth based on the following comment by me: A great .com, with equal development, will likely outrank that random .ext every time.

For the search phrase "dogs info" - the .com domain I'd consider GREAT - would be dogsinfo.com.

As I've already shown - dogs.info IS NOT competing with the great .com in this case (dogsinfo.com doesn't resolve) - which is why this one wasn't a good example either.

Well I gave you three very clear examples (however bizarre) to demonstrate cases where non com extensions appear to rank better than com.

Unless you can show that these examples are not valid (and ridiculing the examples doesn't do it) then your statement looks increasingly shaky.

If you do respond, please respond with reason & logic rather than saying things like "..... is just plain crazy talk, imo." I don't think any statement like that is really likely to win any argument, do you?

I "ridiculed" the examples because they were laughable at best, and I've explained in great detail as to why.

As someone who claims...

PS I was in SEO many years before domaining.

... you should've known better than to pull "frogs tv" and "dogs info" out of your hat.

If you still disagree and feel the examples you gave were reasonable and logical examples of another ext outranking the GREAT .com (with equal development) on the most competitive SEO playing field there is (google.com) - I give up.

:lol:

 

[SeanPreston]

... you should've known better than to pull "frogs tv" and "dogs info" out of your hat.

:lol:

haha, lol..agreed.

 

[netfleet]

Oh dear... once again you've entirely missed the point.

It's not about how competitive a search is, it's about whether the extension is taken into account when returning results.

You stated:

A great .com, with equal development, will likely outrank that random .ext every time.

I stated:

In fact I'd go as far to say that a .com will rank worse than certain extensions but never better:

To prove my theory, all I had to do is show an example of where that is the case. I showed you three examples which you are not disputing (only ridiculing the examples).

Now you can either

• dispute my theory (with logic and reason)
• prove your theory (which you haven't even attempted to do)

The reason I chose search terms that were not so competitive was so that we could more quickly see the results. If I chose a term like "poker tv" for example, to analyse the results, I might have to examine many pages in.

Let me explain:

A search for "frogs tv" (phrase match) yields 987 results. So analysing 1% of the results means you only need to look at the first page. A search for "poker tv" yields 431,000 so to anaylse 1% you'd need to examine 413 pages.

Therefore, to make it easier to demonstrate, I picked a bizarre search term. This is a common method of testing in SEO.

Anyway I think this is all a little over your head so don't worry about it.

BTW is there a contradiction in your statements?

A great .com, with equal development, will likely outrank that random .ext every time.

and

I'll agree that .au might have a leg up on other extensions in google.com.au

 

[copper]

Obvious winner in a landslide: netfleet

JMO

L2

Easy.
There is no winner or loser here.
Just discussions

 

[Don]

Oh dear... once again you've entirely missed the point.

No... I haven't.

It's not about how competitive a search is, it's about whether the extension is taken into account when returning results.

Um... yeah, sure - whatever you say, as long as it'll get you to stop rambling on about "google.com.au", "frogs tv" and "dogs info".

You stated: A great .com, with equal development, will likely outrank that random .ext every time.

Yes, yes I did...

I stated: In fact I'd go as far to say that a .com will rank worse than certain extensions but never better

... and yes, yes you did.

To prove my theory, all I had to do is show an example of where that is the case. I showed you three examples which you are not disputing (only ridiculing the examples).

Now you can either

• dispute my theory (with logic and reason)
• prove your theory (which you haven't even attempted to do)

Ugh... do we really have to keep repeating ourselves?

Your only "examples" have been completely irrelevant, I HAVE disputed them, AND given reasons as to why... yet you still fire back with the same exact "reasoning"...

The reason I chose search terms that were not so competitive was so that we could more quickly see the results.

Yes, lets cut corners to speed up the results - who cares if those results mean absolutely nothing, right?

If I chose a term like "poker tv" for example, to analyse the results, I might have to examine many pages in.

Let me explain:

A search for "frogs tv" (phrase match) yields 987 results. So analysing 1% of the results means you only need to look at the first page. A search for "poker tv" yields 431,000 so to anaylse 1% you'd need to examine 413 pages.

Therefore, to make it easier to demonstrate, I picked a bizarre search term. This is a common method of testing in SEO.

If you really think you can extract ANY relevant SEO information from a search phrase that NOBODY in the SEO world is competing for (because nobody in the world is searching for it), I have a hard time believing you know what you're talking about.

And you probably didn't run with "poker tv", because, well...

Google

... the entire first page of results is completely dominated by .com - one of which (#4) is pokertv.com, imagine that!

Thanks for providing an example of a half assed "kw.com" development that's somehow managing to outrank almost all of the 400,000+ sites returned for the query.

Anyway I think this is all a little over your head so don't worry about it.

Yes, you're probably right. After all - you're the expert, I'm just some kid who read SEO for dummies this weekend and thought it'd be fun to come to NP's to pick a neverending SEO, erm, "discussion".

C'mon now.

BTW is there a contradiction in your statements?

"A great .com, with equal development, will likely outrank that random .ext every time."

and

"I'll agree that .au might have a leg up on other extensions in google.com.au"

If you see a contradiction there, it's only because ranking on google.com.au means something to you - and I completely understand why it would.

But for me personally, SEO is about ranking on the most competitive engine in the world, end of story.

Which is why the first statement, really has nothing to do with the second, imo.

 

[netfleet]

Easy.
There is no winner or loser here.
Just discussions

Agreed.

And I enjoyed the discussion - hope you did too Don.

No hard feelings about our disagreement, mate.

 

[Don]

I'm starting to think we were ex lovers in another life.

We communicate with each other so effectively...

:lol:

 

[copper]

Agreed.

And I enjoyed the discussion - hope you did too Don.

No hard feelings about our disagreement, mate.

I'm starting to think we were ex lovers in another life.

We communicate with each other so effectively...

:lol:

That's more like it

 

[mwzd]

Just for the record, I find no grounds of disagreement with Don, he really knows his stuff and I'd pay attention to what the man said about seo and development.

I also have a vague idea about seo, seeing how its the main focus for our company for the last few years.

I've seen that google results are biased towards gtlds at google.com and towards the local cctld at google.cctld - I think you'll find where the .com is developed for the exact same keyword and to a similar extent as a cctld, the .com will rank higher at google.com the cctld MIGHT rank higher at google.cctld. But develop a cctld with more content and relevance than the .com and you can beat the .com in ranking even on google.com

 

[joexbl1]

Just out of interest, going back to the original op's point, i just saw a poster advertising yesterday while i was shopping - the clothing giant CUE uses a .cc as it's main website - Cue

the .com is parked