question Why is .net looked upon unfavourably?

[domains21]

Over the years I have read many people talk about how .net isn't a good choice for a chosen domain (unless it's in a hack sense) and have seen recommendations for .org over it, and I have to wonder why is this? I read something about a price increase but it doesn't look to be that much of a divide in this area.

In the early/mid-2000s I remember .net meaning something do with the WWW/Internet/Net or a network and .org was mainly used for charitable organisations. And using the main three extenstions was made easy through browser shortcuts, in fact I see these are still in use with Firefox (Win: Ctrl + Enter = .com, Shift + Enter = .net, Ctrl + Shift + Enter = .org) whereas Chrome only allows for .com. Not sure about others like Opera/Vivaldi, not tried them and I totally avoid IE.

Now, I am not being an old man shouts at cloud here as I do remember they opened up .org away from the charity sense. However, to me personally, I still see .net as the better of the two.

What say you?

 

[maxtra]

I personally prefer .org, but .net can certainly be a better extension in many cases.

I think you see some of the highest-trafficked websites (Wikipedia.org, Craigslist.org, etc.) use .org making it more recognizable, more sales of .org vs .net for 2018, and it has more of a professional/business vibe to it IMO.

 

[domains21]

I think you see some of the highest-trafficked websites (Wikipedia.org, Craigslist.org, etc.) use .org making it more recognizable

Good point. Wikipedia kind of proves my point about the types of organisations, that for me, you would expect to see with it. And, do you think had craigslist used .net instead it would have made much difference? Being that the extension would have fit for its networking aspect?

more sales of .org vs .net for 2018, and it has more of a professional/business vibe to it IMO

I get that .org works well to represent a organisation, though does this put it at risk of .co taking over for smaller businesses who are not quite at that level? I quite like it being short for company myself even though that's not what it is.

 

[maxtra]

Good point. Wikipedia kind of proves my point about the types of organisations, that for me, you would expect to see with it. And, do you think had craigslist used .net instead it would have made much difference? Being that the extension would have fit for its networking aspect?

I get that .org works well to represent a organisation, though does this put it at risk of .co taking over for smaller businesses who are not quite at that level? I quite like it being short for company myself even though that's not what it is.

Probably not. It is all about the execution.

I like .co as well, still far behind in terms of reported sales vs .org and .net, but time will tell how it pans out over the long term.

 

[hookbox]

I read that in the early nineties .net was the preferred extension to invest in over .com. Not sure how much truth was in that info. Old schoolers I'm sure could say if that was true or not. @equity78 knows a lot about the history of domains so maybe he could chime in.

.Org is a great extension if it matches the correct concept. Charities, organizations etc.. should all use a .org. Any real business should use a .net if they can't get the .com

Personally I think .net is underrated and see them more and more in regular use. if I wasn't a domain investor and knew nothing about domains I would easily choose a .net for my business and not think twice about it. The only time I would use a .net is if the business was not an online entity. If the business concept was purely online then there is no doubt I would want the .com and do everything in my power to acquire it.

 

[garptrader]

.Net is fine for a small local business which does not really engage customers via its website (restaurant or dry cleaners or hair salon). Domain investors have generally found that .Net despite its thirty year existence and some 15 million registrations and low renewal cost is very difficult to sell to end users. Sad that the newbies ignore this fact when loading up on new TLDs.

 

[HotKey]

There are many, many examples of a .net or .org pre-dating the .com counterpart registration date during the 90's. Whatever was believed the best fit extension was chosen for the name. Of course, we rarely have that option anymore.

I would not choose giving.net over giving.org for example.

 

[Truespin Domains]

I think it's a region thing. I find commercial organisations using .org really odd, and personally it sets off all types of alarm bells. I think that's partly because in the UK, our equivalent of .org.uk is only ever used by charitable organisations. You simply NEVER see a commercial service branded under a org.uk.

So my mindset is much the same with .org - it just doesn't sit very well with me.

Equally, maybe it's a UK thing, but I never really associated .net with internet service provider activities. I don't think anyone in the UK really thinks about this as a thing.

My preference therefore remains .com .net and then .org.

 

[domains21]

I read that in the early nineties .net was the preferred extension to invest in over .com. Not sure how much truth was in that info.

It's possible but as a child of the 90s I do remember that the .com was the one to have if you could.

.Org is a great extension if it matches the correct concept. Charities, organizations etc.. should all use a .org. Any real business should use a .net if they can't get the .com

This is where I am too.

The only time I would use a .net is if the business was not an online entity

Agreed. As I said above, .net to me means the web, internet or online presence and so to not be about that would seem out of place.

.Net is fine for a small local business which does not really engage customers via its website (restaurant or dry cleaners or hair salon)

Considering the above quote above yours, I do not understand why any of those would suit having a .net. They are all physical establishments and so a .net would seem completely out of sorts for them, imo.

There are many, many examples of a .net or .org pre-dating the .com counterpart registration date during the 90's. Whatever was believed the best fit extension was chosen for the name. Of course, we rarely have that option anymore.

I would not choose giving.net over giving.org for example.

In regards to the bold, naturally that would be the case and your example proves that.

I think it's a region thing. I find commercial organisations using .org really odd, and personally it sets off all types of alarm bells. I think that's partly because in the UK, our equivalent of .org.uk is only ever used by charitable organisations. You simply NEVER see a commercial service branded under a org.uk.

I totally agree, a company with an org just doesn't feel right and it could well be because, as you say, the way they are seen and used regionally.

My preference therefore remains .com .net and then .org.

Same here.

 

[Pedro Santos]

In an ideal world, I would like to see .com used only for commercial purposes, .co for company/corporate websites, .net for primarily non-commercial activities carried out by individuals or small informal groups, .org for non-business organizations.

 

[cooljub]

.net for primarily non-commercial activities carried out by individuals or small informal groups

I think you underestimate .net
She would never settle for this.

 

[Pedro Santos]

I think you underestimate .net
She would never settle for this.

Yeah, actually on second thought .net should be "for everything else".

 

[namerav]

.net has it's place under the Sun.
Three extensions which will never disappear and have some kind of uniqueness are .com, .net and .org

 

[cooljub]

Yeah, actually on second thought .net should be "for everything else".

The great all-rounder

 

[Weber]

Imo, most would define "Organization" as:

- A group of persons organized for a particular purpose; an association or business.
- A group of persons organized for some end or work; association.
- An organized structure or whole.

 

[nomen]

I've always felt that .NET has a sort of indie vibe to it, i.e. by going with .NET you're underlining the fact that you didn't go with .COM, you're proud of it. Dunno where that's coming from because I don't feel it with, say, .CO which I only see as a substitute and inferior to .COM.

Also, while I feel that informational/personal websites and most services (offlines too) could be perfectly fine with .NET, I wouldn't start an online store on .NET. IMO not an extension for selling stuff.

 

[DnEbook]

Still a great extension to get started with, get a keyword for cheap and develop it
~
People will remember a .net web address as opposed to a new gtld

 

[DGMDomains]

I agree its still a pretty good extension, I sold a couple of them a year ago to a few end users. They still like to mainly have the .com and .net combo going for their website.

 

[MR Harrist]

personally I prefer with dot net than Org, in fact, I prefer biz than COm , but the truth is, market said the opposite! afterall who am I , I only seller, so I follow what market said

 

[namerav]

By the way there is .net discussion thread: https://www.namepros.com/threads/net-the-official-discussion-and-showcase-thread.647683/