.tv Tv and Google

[hullswingerscom]

i can not get my tv domains ranked high in google if i just use the keyword

if i add the keyword.tv it will...rank ok

no matter what i do i get a poor rank in google yet yahoo is ok..

anyone else have this bother....

 

[bigdipper]

Sounds like what we are hearing here almost makes a case for a lesser searched, lesser known "brandable" .tv versus a highly searched, high quality "keyword" .tv..... Just find a highly focused, relatively non-competitive niche, and we are on our way...

If it's truly that difficult to rank for highly competitive keywords then i certainly can understand the hesitation and resistance to certain aspects of the dot tv extension.

I have a few that i'm just starting to plan develop. I must say that i do appreciate everyone's thoughts and insight here in that i may have to alter my plans slightly.

%%-

 

[localexperts]

Most end users want generic names tied to high volume search terms.

Brandable domain names. Unless you have millions to brand the name here is what you are faced:

1) An inability to get high ranked in Google - so no traffic
2) And no advertisers since no one will find your site

So you will be forced to spend thousands of dollars each month driving traffic to your site. Losing money for months, if not years - hoping to build a base.

Brandable domains - do have value - but it is very spotty since the value of the domain is not predictable depending on an end user wanting that domain vs any other alternative.

generic domains == predictable value

OH and I say that as the person who ran Respond (dot) com. That domain was worthless to us who wanted to be highly ranked for keywords like 'weddings', 'home improvement', 'cosmetic surgery', 'fitness', 'landscaping'

That domain might be worth millions, but it was worthless to me because I had to purchase most of the traffic we got.

I'm not a big fan of brandable domains.

Sounds like what we are hearing here almost makes a case for a lesser searched, lesser known "brandable" .tv versus a highly searched, high quality "keyword" .tv..... Just find a highly focused, relatively non-competitive niche, and we are on our way...

I wouldn't, unless this is a hobby and not a business.

 

[hullswingerscom]

its all getting Complexed
all i know is if i dont get a good google ranking for my tv keyword i will shop someplace else.

i will close all my dot tvs down over the next few days

if i cant get a little village ranked whats the point i have one page org.uk coming soon ranked better.

and wait see if things change!

 

[soggyindo]

hi, just another person reporting anecdotal evidence that .tv ranks much, much worse than .com, .net, or .org.

IMHO a brandable name is ok for SEO - as long it's a brandable .org, .com or .net!

my gut feeling is that .me is even ranking great - and a ccTLD also - i can't understand why that would be.

i love the idea of .tv. but i've had "coming soon" pages ranking high in .org, compared to .tv sites with content not even appearing in search results - both indexed, both same amount of SEO, links, equally competitive terms...

as someone looking to make a few bucks with searches not adsense, i have to say i've stopped buying .tv and won't be developing any more, unless i hear things have changed. it's disappointing - we need to have 10,000,000 great .tv sites out there to cause a change - but on a limited money/ time budget, what else can you do?

add to that $30 renewal fees...

:td:

 

[bigdipper]

So i keep trying to think around this problem with things like "KeywordTv.com" again...

But almost no one that i am aware of currently searches for "Keyword + Tv"?



I must be a real dummy b/c i still have faith. It may not be right here, right now... but somehow i have this "stubborn" faith in the future of dot tv. How is it going to happen though if everyone keeps having these traffic issues?

 

[localexperts]

But almost no one that i am aware of currently searches for "Keyword + Tv"?

I agree.

In fact that is the point.

But in a few days someone will post on this thread that their site is #1 for some remote KeywordTV search and say "Google loves .TV. I don't think there is an issue. I love .TV. Want to buy my .TV domain ranking #1 for Superior TV on Google. $10,000".

 

[bigdipper]

I agree.

In fact that is the point.

But in a few days someone will post on this thread that their site is #1 for some remote KeywordTV search and say "Google loves .TV. I don't think there is an issue. I love .TV. Want to buy my .TV domain ranking #1 for Superior TV on Google. $10,000".

LocalExperts, folks like you have a lot more knowledge through your experiences than i could hope to have at this point. It's the good folks like you that are willing to share that make this site so damn appealing.

Thank you and everyone else for your thoughts!!!

:wave:

 

[localexperts]

I don't know whether I have more experience with SEO. I was really fustrated when I was at Respond. We couldn't rank well on Google for any keyword of value. So I hired a couple SEO experts. They did nothing.

The funny thing is that I bought my current company from one of my SEO experts because it was highly ranked for the keyword "wedding". That person could never replicate that success with any of our domains.

So when I moved to the new company, I do have an SEO team that has a better track record.

But here is what I did. Google is a tech company. The algo was written by engineers. I'm an engineer.

So I found the Stanford thesis written by the Google founder and I read it. As a programmer, I felt like I understand what they were trying to do. So I bought a domain and went on my gut.

First day it was spidered. No sandbox. Not page three. Bottom of page one for the keyword I was targeting. Within months, it was #1.

That search term get 60,000+ searches a month on OVT according to Estibot/AJAX. It is a high search category, but not overly competitive.

My SEO team was shocked. Their comment, how did you do that. My response, I stopped trying to assume I knew how Google worked....I read their playbook and understand their mental approach to search.

So we did it again, and again, and again. We had a cookbook.

Then I came to .TV. Having success with .COM and .NET, I was like "hey lets try this with .TV, so many quality terms are unregged".

The cookbook didn't work for .TV. I had my SEO guys start working on it. They couldn't get it to work. I spoke with some friends. I got feedback that anything other than .COM, .NET, and .ORG would be an issue. I thought they were just religious zealots.

I'm no SEO expert. I'm just a programmer. When you think like a programmer, Google's search algor makes sense. Remember, I have spent alot of time debugging code written by other programmers. I've had to put myself in their shoes and anticipate where the problem is in code (that when printed would be more pages than War and Peace).

 

[equity78]

So local will you be selling your .tv portfolio ?

 

[localexperts]

So local will you be selling your .tv portfolio ?

No, but I am focused on QUALITY (as you have preached).

There is another story that ties to my .TV investments. So we had a deal with contractor (dt) com. At the time, Respond had 10X the traffic (in home improvement) of our partner. We charged $350/yr. Contractor charged $1,000. When the partnership ended, we lost many contractors to them. I would sit in on customer service calls with contractors who were leaving our service. The message I got was that the contractors are willing to pay MORE on a site with LESS traffic because "we are a contractor, we have to advertise on Contractor(dt)com". I believe the same logic will apply to DOT TV.

I believe this logic will only apply to .COM and .TV (because both extensions have universal branding). It won't work with .NET, .ORG, .INFO, .BIZ, etc. .PRO - it might work 2 - haven't tested it with our advertisers.

How I've adjusted my strategy is to keep my prime DOT TVs. For the most part they are one word DOT TVs. The two word DOT TVs I will keep have significant value like TummyTuck.TV or PestControl.TV in the sales process.

How I have changed my approach is that I now have to go after .COM and .NET domains to bolster weak areas where we only have a .TV in that vertical.

I love DOT TV as a brand, I just don't like it for SEO.

 

[equity78]

Thursday, August 02, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Written by Greg Grothaus and Shashi Thakur, Search Quality Team

Held on June 27th, Searchnomics 2007 gave us (Greg Grothaus and Shashi Thakur) a chance to meet webmasters and answer some of their questions. As we're both engineers focused on improving search quality, the feedback was extremely valuable. Here's our take on the conference and a recap of some of what we talked about there.

Shashi: While I've worked at Google for over a year, this was my first time speaking at a conference. I spoke on the "Search Engine Friendly Design" panel. The exchanges were hugely valuable, helping me grasp some of the concerns of webmasters. Greg and I thought it would be valuable to share our responses to a few questions:

Does location of server matter? I use a .com domain but my content is for customers in the UK.


In our understanding of web content, Google considers both the IP address and the top-level domain (e.g. .com, .co.uk). Because we attempt to serve geographically relevant content, we factor domains that have a regional significance. For example, ".co.uk " domains are likely very relevant for user queries originating from the UK. In the absence of a significant top-level domain, we often use the web server's IP address as an added hint in our understanding of content.

I have many different sites. Can I cross-link between them?


Before you begin cross-linking sites, consider the user's perspective and whether the crosslinks provide value. If the sites are related in business -- e.g., an auto manual site linking to an auto parts retail site, then it could make sense -- the links are organic and useful. Cross-linking between dozens or hundreds of sites, however, probably doesn't provide value, and I would not recommend it.


Greg: Like Shashi, this was also my first opportunity to speak at a conference as a Googler. It was refreshing to hear feedback from the people who use the software we work every day to perfect. The session also underscored the argument that we're just at the beginning of search and have a long way to go. I spoke on the subject of Web 2.0 technologies. It was clear that many people are intimidated by the challenges of building a Web 2.0 site with respect to search engines. We understand these concerns. You should expect see more feedback from us on this subject, both at conferences and through our blog.

Any special guidance for DHTML/AJAX/Flash documents?


It's important to make sure that content and navigation can be rendered/negotiated using only HTML. So long as the content and navigation are the same for search crawlers and end users, you're more than welcome to use advanced technologies such as Flash and/or Javascript to improve the user experience using a richer presentation. In "Best uses of Flash," we wrote in more detail about this, and are working on a post about AJAX technology.



Labels: accessibility, crawling and indexing, events


The comments you read here belong only to the person who posted them. We do, however, reserve the right to remove off-topic comments.
32 comments:
Matt said...
"Before you begin cross-linking sites, consider the user's perspective and whether the crosslinks provide value."

And let's hope that once we consider the user's perspective and realize that the link is completely relative that Google knows enough to judge the link the same way as well.

Can Google assume that they know better than me what my website's users will also be interested in?

August 2, 2007 12:30 PM
Philipp Lenssen said...
> Can Google assume that they
> know better than me what my
> website's users will also be
> interested in?

I guess they can try... and I think this is meant to defend against spammers, not you (assuming you're not a spammer). If you only put up some relevant cross-links there should be no harm. Guess it's more about a threshold -- do you have 30 domains which are all linking to each other? Sounds like it's a link farm...

August 2, 2007 12:50 PM
.::[ Mani Karthik ]::. said...
Shashi -

I have audience both in US and UK.

As of today i rank number 1 for a particular term in the UK, because my servers are located there.

Provided my site is well optimized for the keyword, what impact will it have on the SERP's if i set up a server in the US?

Assuming that the existing competitors are weak for the keyword.Would there be any other factor to be considered like the age of server and the like?

Cheers!
Mani

August 2, 2007 11:00 PM
Steven said...
I have a site that contains mostly North American content, but also has significant content targeted at other locations (UK and Australia mostly).

The site is a .org. and is hosted in the US, so won't have any of the IP address or domain hints for geographic location. It's an established site, and I don't want to artificially slice it into multiple domains.

Instead, it would be great if I could supply some geographic hint in the form of a per page metatag. Allow me to specify locations, with a total weighting of 1.0 (so I have to prioritise). So UK:0.7,Ireland:0.15,Europe:0.1,World:0.05 as an example for UK targeted content.

August 3, 2007 12:12 AM
Delo said...
> it would be great if I could supply
> some geographic hint

I like steven's suggestion: I also want to provide a service for US, UK and Australian customers, but my servers are located in Germany. Therefore it is very difficult (read: nearly impossible) for me to provide a localized service that has a fair ranking chance.

August 3, 2007 2:12 AM
Asia said...
I hope that this isn't too presumptuous but may I have more clarity on cross-linking please.

Two years ago, we expanded our destination travel to Arizona, Mexico and Canada. Our Nevada based company has a very specific URL for Nevada - therefore, offering other destinations within our current URL was unrealistic. We then created each destination and each location specific to that destination within their own URL. No cross property duplications on any site. Mexico was Mexico, Canada is Canada etc...

We currently rank high on Google with all our destinations. No cross-links (read further)

We removed the cross-links due to Yahoo - who banned us specifically for it, in-fact. Yahoo stated that we should run URL's as follows:

Nevada-Properties/Mexico/

Brain Surgery Please? Anyway - It seems really odd that we should not utilize the cross-links since all of our customers utilize one or more of our destinations.

Now for the clarity that I need. Is it fair for me to assume that the Mexico Properties are of value to my Arizona URL and therefore cross -link the sites? Keep in mind, the Mexico properties are found no where in my Arizona site - Yet when the client calls us, we do offer these options for additional destinations - Could a simple "Mexico" link suffice, without fear of being banned from Google?

I'm sure this is quite confusing, can you imagine if we did what yahoo advised us to do? In fact I was told to shut down our highest yielding URL (original) and start a new one that encompassed all 4 destinations as well as losing all my Google Rankings. (Genius!)

August 3, 2007 1:01 PM
Darren Rowse said...
I find the server location thing a little odd. Many non US sites are now hosted in the US due to the affordability of hosting there (and the performance) in comparison to local server options. Seems a pity that to take advantage of this we need to move onto more expensive and worse performing options.

August 3, 2007 3:01 PM
MJE Sales, LLC said...
Most of my sites are hosted in texas - although we are not located in texas. Its just where the web host is.

Several of our sites reside on a clustered host which actually only has 2 ip addresses for all of their clients to share amoung hundreds of sites. However the hosting system they have fly. So i hope that those ips can be flagged and ignored.

As for cross linking between sites - we always take a look at the content of our sites and see which ones go together and link together those that make sense.

August 3, 2007 9:45 PM
mikes said...
I am building a website of about subdivisions and will also have websites for each of the subdivision that I will offer for free for those subdivision to use as their own website for those who don't currently have a website. I want to have my main site link to all the subdivision websites even though they will all be hosting on only a few servers. Will Google penalize me for that?!?

August 3, 2007 11:45 PM
root123 said...
Is there is any possibility that sometimes in the future when Googlebot will be able to see high end graphics as it is seeing at the textual contents now..?

August 6, 2007 11:20 PM
Nicolai said...
"In the absence of a significant top-level domain, we often use the web server's IP address as an added hint in our understanding of content."

Does that mean a website with a .com-Domain and an IP adress in Germany is considered more relevant for Germany than e.g. the US?

August 7, 2007 8:55 AM
Search said...
Myself I think every website is treated differently with special Google Hand Editing I guess we found what the 900 non google engineers do. Besides select nifty google videos in youtube and assign quality scores.

Truth? I think that is pretty much accurate otherwise we would see some employees over 25. If you paid them more maybe they wouldn't have to run imputantly controled google adsense ads. Whats good for them seems to be invalid for us.

August 7, 2007 2:19 PM
the no good programer said...
Hi
I am trying to give my trading company a International trading feel with a .com, but with 80% of my trade in the UK do I need a .co.uk ? But then I have duplicate content. Mmmm more things to keep me awake

David

August 7, 2007 10:52 PM
Greyer said...
I have a question regarding the link exchange. Google guidelines states:

"Examples of link schemes can include:

* Links intended to manipulate PageRank
* Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
* Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes ("Link to me and I'll link to you.")
* Buying or selling links

Could you please define Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes ("Link to me and I'll link to you.") a little bit better? A lot of people where i am from are worrying they will get banned because they have reciprocal links on their sites. If I make link exchanges with sites relevant to mine, will I get banned? Can we please have a clear Yes/No answer on this?

August 9, 2007 3:03 AM
nick said...
We server US market, our site is .com but we host our site in UK. We have lost our page ranking since March 2007 and have not been able to figure out why. Other things being same, would we achieve better rankings if we shift our hosting to US server?
Could this make a huge difference?

August 11, 2007 6:36 PM
Tony said...
I also find the server location thing odd, I like to take advantage of the pricing and support hosting options in the US, but because of this my local organic search results are compromised in the UK.

It would be far better to be based on where your domain name is registered too? Surely this would make perfect sense rather than where your server is located!

August 12, 2007 10:54 AM
Jakke.Pivo said...
I find the usage of 'server location' and/or .TLD odd. Granted I assume there's some valid points to that, such as 'easy to check', rather than doing whois queries to see which country the registered company/individual has been set up into.

This is rather alarming for me as my results have gotten quite a bit worse, I used to have results for a certain relevant keyword between positions #1 and #3 for years, and now my site cannot be found within 2 or 3 pages of the same keyword.

I, my company and whole business is based in finland (.tld .fi), however *I* use .net domain and my server(s) are in the United states. The language used on the site is finnish, but apparently that doesn't matter?

..also, interestingly my position on the google results started to deteriorate as soon as I started purchasing adword-traffic, for this certain keyword, and dozens of other relevant ones. Clever trick to make customers purchase more traffic, to make their "free" rankings lower? [/end conspiracy theory]

August 14, 2007 7:22 AM
Spanish speaker said...
Delete my previous message , this a good translation.


We know that in order to position a domain in a local Google search engine (Google.es google.de google.it, etc) the domain extension and its Ip are important influential factors. This has just recently been revealed by Google even though it was already well known.

Do you think this is good?
In Spain for example, the hosting companies are not very good so that important webs that must be up and running all of the time, it is recommended to host them in the USA to provide stability and proper customer service. If you contract a hosting service in USA and on top of that you have a .com domain, it makes it much more difficult to position the page in a local version of Google. There are two ways to fix this problem:

-Change the domain .com to a local domain and redirect all of the content (not that this would be very advisable)

-Change the hosting to one in your country, but this would imply a slower web page, a decline in customer service , problems with servers going down....

It would be a step in the wrong direction for the services we provide the user.
Is Google really providing more relevant contant for the user by offering web pages with local domains and local Ip adresses?

Does this not go against the idea of a universal search?

August 14, 2007 8:25 AM
Tom said...
Regarding server location, Google servers have taken to giving me UK servers, though I'm in California, and my IP address shows that clearly. Also, my language preferences are US English, not UK.

I'm baffled and want my US servers back. No offense to the UK intended, to be sure

September 5, 2007 12:13 PM
Vapaeso! said...
No wonder most of my visitors come from the US.

October 10, 2007 10:22 AM
Gintaras said...
Is it very bad to link from my site A to my site B, and from site B to site A? Both are related.

November 3, 2007 8:59 PM
Evandro.Net said...
I have audience both in BR and PT in my personal website.

Have same keyword to set up a server in the BR?

November 14, 2007 1:05 AM
cupar garden centre said...
I'm not sure if anyone has totally cleared this one up.

I have a .uk.com domain
(http://www.onlinegardencentre.uk.com), but we use a US webhost called Hostgator. Therefore both of Google's hints point it towards the fact it is a US site. However, it is actually based on the UK market and is entirely written in British-English.

Will Google only display this site efficiently on google.com or will it be shown as being a UK site on google.co.uk?

Thank you

November 17, 2007 2:32 PM
cupar garden centre said...
I forgot to mention the onlinegardencentre.uk.com leads into our retail shop at http://www.cupargardencentre.co.uk. Would that be enough to indicate to Google that it is a UK site?

November 17, 2007 2:35 PM
Susan Moskwa said...
Cupar garden centre:
Check out the new geographic location tool that we recently released. It should help resolve your questions.

November 19, 2007 10:22 AM
Evandro.Net said...
It would be far better to be based on where your domain name poker is registered too? Surely this would make perfect sense rather than where your server is located!

November 22, 2007 2:24 PM
Paz said...
It would seem initially that the language options area a better bet than the geographic element. Many sites wish to attract the UK, USA or Australian markets as they are in the same language. Targeting multiple locations as you can in the adwords is the miost sensible option overall . I am in Spain yet I target English incoming clients. The site is hosted in USA with .com.. That must be a very typical scenario. Yes I want to appear in the Uk results, thay are 40% of my business but I cannot afford the risk of losing the other 60% can I ? I just hope all the time that the searchers do not utilise the uk results only option etc. Then I will hopefully still pick up half of the Uk clients anyway, giving me estimated 80% target potential as oppose to the 40% if I just make it Uk only. It is 2008 and majority of online businesses will definatly aim at multiple locations. This needs to allow this quite obviously dont you think?

January 28, 2008 3:50 PM
Jim said...
Many good questions and comments but if Google never replies to any of these questions/comments what good are they?

February 5, 2008 6:23 AM
Paz said...
Dont ever kid yourself that Google is interested in anybody that cannot make them lots of money.

Its a corporation now not a helpful community thing that it once was. 90% of people using it nowadays in many many guises are probably doing it out of neccessity as oppose to the love and respect lets face it.

That was never a good thing for the internet and never will be.

They remind me of the American government a little haha Lets see how much of the world we can own, how much money we can make and all the sheep will blindly follow

February 7, 2008 11:48 AM
juan said...
The geographical issue is really a controversial one.

I have been testing a way to avoiding the hosting ip, by placing language and country meta tags. I ignore if these meta tags are effectively crawled by google, but at least I will give it a try

February 8, 2008 2:08 PM
xenswimwear said...
Matt, I do feel that since the ZA Geo graphic enforcement and the problem of 27th December 2007 has really hurt our US & UK visitor base. We have seen a gradual but marked drop in vistors since August till now even thought we are indexed.

February 15, 2008 10:29 PM
Google Webmaster Central said...
Hi everyone,

Since several months have passed since we published this post, we're closing the comments to help us focus on the work ahead. If you still have a question or comment you'd like to discuss, free to visit and/or post your topic in our Webmaster Help Group.

Thanks and take care,
The Webmaster Central Team

April 24, 2008 10:32 PM

We currently only allow you to associate your site with a single country and location. If your site is relevant to an even more specific area, such as a particular state or region, feel free to tell us that. Or let us know if your site isn't relevant to any particular geographic location at all. If no information is entered in Webmaster Tools, we'll continue to make geographic associations largely based on the top-level domain (e.g. .co.uk or .ca) and the IP of the webserver from which the context was served.

 

[localexperts]

Good info.

And for the folks wondering why I offered the GEO .TVs for sale. Its no secret, that I have been selling smaller cities. I still feel like we have too many GEO .TVs. I went into this wanting one - CHARLOTTE.TV and I ended up alot. Seriously, I only wanted one GEO .TV where we could focus all our energy. Then I got caught up in the frenzy.

I'm going to make money building out the large cities, the smaller cities - while great for someone who can focus 100% on them - would probably end up being a distraction.

If I got a large enough offer, I could buy .COM and .NET domains we need. All I got was small offers.

 

[equity78]

Now I am no SEO expert but Local it seems they keep saying the IP address of the servers so even if using CCTLD of Tuvalu no one here has servers there, why do they keep mentioning IP of the server and does it make any sense to you ?

 

[localexperts]

Yes, but this line:

For example, ".co.uk " domains are likely very relevant for user queries originating from the UK. In the absence of a significant top-level domain, we often use the web server's IP address as an added hint in our understanding of content.

implies the top level domain is first, then the server IP. So my guess is that if the site is .co.uk - UK site. If it is a .com, then they use the server IP to determine if you are US, UK, or other local.

They counter their own point by saying in the absence of, then saying "as an added hint". I have .ca domains, but my servers are in the US. My site is still targeted to Canada.

I have not tried the Webmaster tools, maybe I should try making sure our .TVs are classified as US related domains.

It makes perfect sense they would use IP for TLDs.

But here is the big issue, if the ccTLDs take precedence then you are locked into an area. I mean google has google.com, google.ca, google.de.

In that case, they are not going to give .de preference over the .com in US searches - even if both servers are in the US.

.de domains are meant to be German domains.

Here more conflicting information, relating to .INFO - but also applies to .TV

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/017473.html

Then look at this

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/017332.html

and this

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/017332.html

 

[TheBulldog]

It means very simply that .tv will not rank high as long as it is considered a ccTLD. That is PAINFULLY obvious from what they said.

If you were to get on the internet in tuvala, then you would likely see a LOT of .tv results in google. (Assuming they have internet, which I think I read they don't).


Simply put:

.tv is a ccTLD. In order to get ranked high, you would have to be huge with tons (read: millions) of links/ backlinks etc. Lot's of mentions on big sites. That type of thing. 100 backlinks isn't going to do it folks.

You will have to be VERY niche, or VERY big.

Choose your adventure:
For Niche, turn to page 37.
For Big, turn to page 142.

 

[localexperts]

Yep even spending $10,000 a month driving traffic from google adwords won't help a .TV get high ranking for competitive keywords.

I know that for a FACT. Because I have tried it.

 

[TheBulldog]

OK, so now that we have that settled, can we move on?

Fact: google considers .tv a ccTLD. until that changes, it will be very difficult to get great search rankings.

What does that leave us with? Networking and building up huge niche markets. Basically we have to work together to make it work.

Or give up.

For the most part, unless you are buying to flip, then you have to dev. If you are going to dev, then you have to network to get known. If you are going to flip, then great luck to you.

 

[localexperts]

I'm fine with dropping it, but instead of complaining about Demand Media and Channel Me, we should spend that energy on getting DM to speak with Google in getting .TV reclassified.

 

[TheBulldog]

Well then let's keep talking about it then.

Asking demand media to talk to google is not only silly, it's a waste of time. Richard has proven quite well that he doesn't give a shit about tv.

Verisign is in control of .tv, and through them, Tuvala. until ICAAN makes .tv a gTLD, google will very much not be changing how they rank, and they have no reason to.

.tv IS, whether we like it or not, a ccTLD. That will NOT change unless ICAAN steps in. And they won't unless people complain to them. And since the extension was already granted to Tuvala, it is very unlikely it will be changed without a court battle and/or ICAAN making a decision to change it.

So we can bitch and moan all we want, but it will take ICAAN to change this. NOT demand media, not verisign, not you, not me. Now I don't know about you, but I simply do not have the time or resources to fight this battle.


If you want to hire me to lobby ICAAN, we can work that out, but I doubt anyone around here would be ponying up that kind of dough to get a team working ICAAN on this.

 

[localexperts]

OK I will bite.

Well when Channel Me site got de-listed, who did DM speak with?

It would appear they had some pull there. If they want Premium prices for .TV domains - then they need this fixed.

Also, same problem exists with .ME, .CC, .FM, and all the ccTLDs being marketed as something they are not.