discuss What after .COM?

[Arpit131]

Which extension do you think is the next big hit after .COM and .ORG?

Name an extension that you really really believe in!

For me, it is .CO

 

[Joe N]

Byte.co was released this week and it's another example that .co is doing the job for startups.

Is it doing the job better than other extensions? Do you have any data to share that shows .co is the clear frontrunner?

 

[iAdam]

I'm not a data guy maybe you should ask @Bob Hawkes All my comments are based on what I see trending.

Byte was on the top list within the first 24 hours of it's launch and that's not just because of the .co of course.

 

[Joe N]

I'm not a data guy maybe you should ask @Bob Hawkes All my comments are based on what I see trending.

Byte was on the top list within the first 24 hours of it's launch and that's not just because of the .co of course.

Bob actually did a great blog post recently on sales volume of various extensions. You should check it out.

 

[CrazyOldGoat]

It will always be .com.

.co.uk / .de / .fr / .cn and other popular geo extensions will be equally as trusted.

.org for non-profits will be equally as trusted.

.net has been around forever and should probably be up there but I'd place it slightly lower. Just like with .co, people must wonder "if this is such a trusted company/website - why couldn't they get the top-level domain extension?"

.biz has been around just as long but still seems sketchy - I suppose because you don't call a business a bizness.

.co is technically Columbia's ccTLD but they're making too much money to care and tell customers to register .com.co for Columbian businesses. Also, I've always thought it was perfect for those with ill-intent hoping for visits from popular.com's to their .co's or even private emails that missed out the "m" at the end of .com by mistake. Although this article disagrees that .co domains are worthless (and they have some really great graphs):

https://growthbadger.com/top-level-domains/

This comment sums up my thoughts:

"It’s hilarious to me that people trust .co – a country code top-level domain for Colombia – more than they do .org – a generic top-level domain used by Wikipedia, non-profits, and other orgs."

 

[CNF]

In my opinion,

.com, net, org, io, (and other ccTLDs)

 

[Recons.Com]

It will always be .com.

.co.uk / .de / .fr / .cn and other popular geo extensions will be equally as trusted.

.org for non-profits will be equally as trusted.

.net has been around forever and should probably be up there but I'd place it slightly lower. Just like with .co, people must wonder "if this is such a trusted company/website - why couldn't they get the top-level domain extension?"

.biz has been around just as long but still seems sketchy - I suppose because you don't call a business a bizness.

.co is technically Columbia's ccTLD but they're making too much money to care and tell customers to register .com.co for Columbian businesses. Also, I've always thought it was perfect for those with ill-intent hoping for visits from popular.com's to their .co's or even private emails that missed out the "m" at the end of .com by mistake. Although this article disagrees that .co domains are worthless (and they have some really great graphs):

https://growthbadger.com/top-level-domains/

This comment sums up my thoughts:

"It’s hilarious to me that people trust .co – a country code top-level domain for Colombia – more than they do .org – a generic top-level domain used by Wikipedia, non-profits, and other orgs."

Great research, but there are some design flaws in it. Part of low trust (even .com had only 3.5) could have been that people were also sharing their trust perception about "mattressrankings" as a brand.

And, of course, the demographics with 2/3 of 1500 people being 26-40 is strange. And we don't know if there was also some selection bias. Maybe, they offered the survey to 6000, only 1500 agreed, but those who agreed and even offered might have been part of the shared affinity and not represent the general population.

 

[CrazyOldGoat]

Great research, but there are some design flaws in it. Part of low trust (even .com had only 3.5) could have been that people were also sharing their trust perception about "mattressrankings" as a brand.

And, of course, the demographics with 2/3 of 1500 people being 26-40 is strange. And we don't know if there was also some selection bias. Maybe, they offered the survey to 6000, only 1500 agreed, but those who agreed and even offered might have been part of the shared affinity and not represent the general population.

Yeah you're right and I'd be incredibly interested in. The difference between 13-21 year olds and those over 25 as the younger generation have always had a large number of extensions so it may be more normal for them.