NameSilo

The domain.us.com extension

SpaceshipSpaceship
Watch

-Adam-

The Caffeine King!VIP Member
Impact
115
I am interested in anyone that can help me out with this type of extension. I would like to know if anyone has had any luck selling at a nice profit with this type of domain. I have a few single word names that I know are available I could get in this extension but before I drop the money on them I would like to know if it would be a wise investment or not. Thanks.
 
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
AfternicAfternic
most people don't like this kind of subdomains. But some people do, there was even a long thread here about the poker subdomains
 
0
•••
ahh, thanks for the reply. I have seen very little about this type of domain type even after several google attempts so I was trying to find a baseline on it.
 
0
•••
I used to own communications.us.com, moscow.ru.com & beijing.cn.com. Dumped them all six years ago. No regrets.
 
0
•••
Users gazzip and "quality" are advocates for the web.com and other subdomains - most "domainers" are not.
Even web.com no longer hypes any of the subdomains, and pushes you to the gTLD's to register instead.
The poker.web.com thread is something of a "classic" as many members (myself included) have serious doubts about the entire situation, but it was quite enlightening in regards to the subdomain history.
-Allan :gl:
 
0
•••
My personal opinion is that your money is better spent elsewhere. I came across a few domains in the .us.com extension a few years back, but after some research, I decided that they simply weren't worth it.
 
0
•••
i don't even consider it an extension....
 
0
•••
familywatchdog.us.com $3,000
flirt.us.com $1,400

sold in 2005.

wetten.de.com EUR 500
sold last week

go figure.

From sedo.snaper.de
 
0
•••
johnny6 said:
i don't even consider it an extension....

Coz these are subdomains, but few people do like them.
 
0
•••
Adam2k said:
I am interested in anyone that can help me out with this type of extension. I would like to know if anyone has had any luck selling at a nice profit with this type of domain. I have a few single word names that I know are available I could get in this extension but before I drop the money on them I would like to know if it would be a wise investment or not. Thanks.
There have been a few sales which are not bad but probably rare (Josh posted a few).
I agree with Denver that there are better ways to spend your money.
The problem with those subdomains is that you depend on a single registrar (usually Centralnic) and they are free to adjust their pricing (BTW it's a bit more expensive than a regular .com).
They may look attractive as there are still many keywords available. On the other hand many people will know it's not the real thing or will find it odd.

I read somewhere (here ?) that certains subdomains like .uk.com are OK in the UK. All in one I would not advise you to invest a lot in these subdomains.
 
0
•••
IAmAllanShore said:
Users gazzip and "quality" are advocates for the web.com and other subdomains
-Allan

I did'nt mean to sound like an advocate for sub domains :hehe: but....I did say as I was only paying $5 for two years reg for nice keywords then I was willing to take the gamble on finding an enduser that did'nt have $100,000 for a one word .com.

Did it pay off ...... No - Not yet, I have only had one low xxx offer so far.

Would I renew if they were the same price ?.... Some but definetly not all.

I still beleive that if they are bought for development they can do just as good as any other extension.

A few more sub sales are :

GlitterGraphics.us.com - $2,000
Medicine.us.com - $ 1,698

Men.eu.com - $ 200
xxx.eu.com - $1000
sms.eu.com - 700 euros

Do I beleive Quality sold the Poker one for a fortune - NO :hehe: it is "probably" still showing in his signature too ?? :blink: hmmm



.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Appraise.net

We're social

Spaceship
Domain Recover
CatchDoms
DomainEasy — Payment Flexibility
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back