Type In's going way of the Dodo?

[tpruby]

With the advent of Google's revolutionary Omni Bar in their Google Chrome web browser, one cannot help but wonder if the value of a single generic word will lose it's value, with the inevitable decline of type in traffic.

As all web browsers follow suit ( how could they not, Omni bar is amazing technology that actually works and saves time) mis-spelled domains will be virtually without value.

The Omni bar and Chromes default home page pretty much turns into a rarity when a surfer will need to input a full and correctly spelled type in.

Take the word dictionary for example.

The Chrome Omni bar, you only need to actually type in the letters ' D and I ' and google then gives you number one dictionary .com (http://dictionary.reference.com/) and then offers to search the full word on google directly below.

I look at this and can only conclude that the future of domaining will not be Dependant upon a perfect single key word.

 

[banners]

These sort of things will have a big impact. But those same domains will prove just as valueable provided you do the work & can keep it in the number 1 position in the SERPS

 

[Archangel]

That's a good arguement. Only time will tell, though

 

[holeinone]

Am I wring or Didn't/Doesn't firefox/opera have this feature

 

[thebutler]

More money

The browsers along with the search companies will make sure that "results" start to appear along with their ads. Some generics will suffer alot in the future.

 

[tpruby]

The browsers along with the search companies will make sure that "results" start to appear along with their ads. Some generics will suffer alot in the future.

Yes, I do agree, I suspect that the industry will change quickly. Type ins will lose their value, as people get used to these new technologies.

 

[Kate]

Ten years ago some people were already speculating that domain names would not matter anymore because everybody would be using search engines.
The truth is, search engines don't draw 100% of Internet traffic.
Not everybody is using chrome either...

 

[zoogo]

When I first heard of "type-ins" I couldn't believe it.

"You mean there's people who sit there and type stuff into their browser and put .com after it?"

I wasn't sure I wanted to attract the sort of people who didn't know about google...

 

[tkstark]

already, even before the omni bar, i've noticed something unexpected and troubling. i saw that friends were not typing the name of my main website into their browsers, even though they know the url - they instead were typing it into google and then clicking the link to get to my site.

one friend even typed the name of my blog into google as i was telling it to him when he just as easily could've typed it into the address bar.

bothered me so much i dropped my longish, non-generic dot com in favor of a shorter, memorable dot net.

not sure yet if that makes a difference in whether they type it in or use google (or maybe people try to type it and write .com instead of .net), but i think the change was a smart decision for a number of reasons. but now something else occurs to me. when people typed the longer dot com into google (either as separate words or run together) my blog and my website are at the top of the results. now if they type the new more generic name in i drop to No. 3. i'm sure that it it were a truly generic name, it would've dropped off the first page (probably the first 10 pages) entirely.

 

[tpruby]

already, even before the omni bar, i've noticed something unexpected and troubling. i saw that friends were not typing the name of my main website into their browsers, even though they know the url - they instead were typing it into google and then clicking the link to get to my site.

one friend even typed the name of my blog into google as i was telling it to him when he just as easily could've typed it into the address bar.

bothered me so much i dropped my longish, non-generic dot com in favor of a shorter, memorable dot net.

not sure yet if that makes a difference in whether they type it in or use google (or maybe people try to type it and write .com instead of .net), but i think the change was a smart decision for a number of reasons. but now something else occurs to me. when people typed the longer dot com into google (either as separate words or run together) my blog and my website are at the top of the results. now if they type the new more generic name in i drop to No. 3. i'm sure that it it were a truly generic name, it would've dropped off the first page (probably the first 10 pages) entirely.

It's refreshing to see that there are domainers who not only acknowledge this reality, but accept it as a fact. On another front, auto-complete on the address bar, further mitigates any requirement for a short domain.

 

[Domagon]

Unassisted type-ins have been going down for quite awhile.

Most type-ins are being intercepted by google, etc / browser search bar, ISPs, and various other software / services (ie. OpenDNS) the user may be using.

To be clear, the bulk of intercepted type-ins still result in the user getting to the site the domain is associated with, assuming the domain isn't a typo nor associated with some other obvious site with a similar name / purpose.

An easily memorable unique brandable domain is the single best way, regardless of the roadbumps put up by the SEs, browsers, and add-ons, to ensure the user gets through. The next best way is having a developed website that already gets quality traffic - that's why, in my view, high quality traffic generics won't be affected much. The maginal type-in domains (especially typos) is the group most at risk of significant traffic loss due to all the intercepting going on.

Ron

 

[Jaco]

When you hear people crowing about the "value" of type-ins, to a man, they're people who got in back during the 'good old days' and are able to calculate them as a function of ROI which for them is extremely low since a lot of them secured these names for reg and their cost to carry is renewal.

Right now, save for MAYBE some geo stuff, you cannot go out and pay a 2009 aftermarket price got a premium .com and expect to have it yield anything approaching a reasonable return based on "type ins" alone.

And I totally agree, they're going away. Let one generation die off (who lived the majority of their lives without computers and don't understand how the internet works- these are the people doing the type-ins) and the next generation mature (who've been completely wired since birth, understand how the internet works and never, ever do direct navigation), type-in traffic is history, or at least profoundly marginalized.

 

[h2o]

I always knew "typo" domains are a bad investment. If you have some, you should try to liquidate as soon as possible. On the other hand, not all typos are bad. If your name is widow.com, (for window.com) then you're ok.

 

[Archangel]

I have hand-regged .infos that get a few visitors a day. They get clicks at times -- one to twenty cents a click. If you can get a good typo .info for reg fee it's not a bad idea but know that you might only make 5x the reg fees from it.

 

[Archangel]

Did you mean Typo or Type-in ?

Type-in: People typed in the wrong URL and got to my domain

 

[Sam]

As long as good old microsoft is still alive, there will be typos.

Thank you Mr. Balmer.

 

[Kate]

Great post Seabass. I agree with your vision.
For one thing, domain names are an essential advertising tool for business. Also, many Internet users will not tolerate that google or microsoft control their surfing habits, in particular the more Internet-savvy people. I don't think the new generation (younger Internet users) will be less savvy than we are.
Type-in might decrease but not vanish.

 

[Jaco]

If you can bag a good, generic name with a reliable streams of typeins for a cheap price, congrats. You've laid a beat on the system.

Given the insane prices that generic coms command (which at this time, bear absolutely no relationship to their ability to actually yeild a reasonable ROI- aka, a mania) I sort of view typeins as a "symptom' of a great name, as opposed to the 'goal' of the purchase.