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?

 

[Jeff_Libert]

.Net has largely lost its way as an aftermarket play. It once had a life when search ranking algos assigned weight (ranking lift) to keywords in domain name. Most of that has evaporated. .Net was also meant to be a play on "network" ~for ISPs, etc. Ironically, most hosting companies, ISPs, etc. defaulted to .Com URLs.

I've held on to a handful of .Net domains but mostly because they "fit perfectly" ~Intranets.net, VirtualPrivateNetwork.net, Extranets.net and a few similar "here's where they belong" domains.

As to .Org there are plenty of "competitive in the SERPs" .Org based information sites or other types of sites that are monetized via advertising, affiliate links, lead gen, etc. The .Org domain addresses are fairly robust (industry defining).

I'd be comfortable with a .Org if it fits ^that^ criteria 1) industry defining (Tourism.org, for example); 2) has a solid basis in commerce yet doesn't lose that commercial nexus simply because the related site resides under .Org (Export.org, Commerce.org), and 3) the .Org domain based site would likely benefit from any added measure of ".Org trust" - which trust must also be earned or enhanced via useful (to visitors) development.

Most of what I hold in the .Org space I've held for eventual development, however along the way I've received offers that - at the particular moment - lead to sales, sometimes to use the funds to develop other projects. I never publish my sales but, along the way, one or two "got out there". The vast majority of those who post here likely could stop working for a year or two based on the proceeds of any one sale that went unreported.

FWIW, I suggest you always look at an acquisition from the (imagined) perspective of a potential end user purchaser BUT ALWAYS ALSO evaluate "the metrics" (search volume, PPC values, trend analysis, etc) AND consider the opportunity to build something on it by yourself. Not easy but always easier if you start with a solidly sensible .Org web address.

Alrighty. Long time since I've posted (ever?) here and long time since I've bothered to read a post here.

Good luck to you all.

 

[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.

 

[Rich]

There will always be some kind of nostalgic value there for longtime internet enthusiasts. I was just remembering of all the irc servers that end in XXXXnet.org, lol. Maybe a trust thing with .org, never really understood it. Sourceforge doesn't even forward to .net, while slickdeals does..just weird to me. I feel like .io is the new .net in this confusing new world of extensions. If anything, they're great for apps, cdns, and addresses not reliant on type-in traffic?

 

[Kassey Lee]

It's all about convergence to a simple naming convention. Consumers demands simplicity.

I'm reminded of this little note I keep which is copied from an article written on February 12, 2015 by Andrew Allemann:

========
After 20 years of being known as Sonic.net, the California ISP and telecom rebranded as merely "Sonic" after acquiring Sonic.com.

When Dane Jasper started ISP company Sonic in 1994, Sonic.com was already taken by Sonic Solutions the year before. "We were a network service provider and every ISP was pretty much on a .net, like earthlink.net, so it wasn’t a big deal to not have the .com at that time."

Over the past couple decades, Jasper realized there were drawbacks to operating as Sonic.net. There was credibility, customer confusion and email accidentally sent to sonic.com. The opportunity came after Sonic Solutions was acquired by Rovi. Sonic.net officially rebranded as simply Sonic late last year.

Jasper sees a lot of companies starting up with trendy two letter domain names. "For an infrastructure company like ours that’s providing a critical service, we can’t be a little startup on a .ly. We need to be on a .com and to control that part of our identity."
========
Source: https://domainnamewire.com/2015/02/12/why-sonic-net-rebranded-as-sonic-and-how-it-got-sonic-com/

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[namerav]

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

 

[CrazyTech]

Seems like .net simply suffers for being in no man's land. It never took on equal status with .com.

Look, you can disparage history all you want, but the history of .com, .net, and .org are important for understanding their popularity. .Net is sort of the forgotten step child because of the original division of categories. .Com and .org both encompass a wide range of entities.

.Com became synonymous with the web, and that's engendered in terms and phrases like "the .com crash." These weren't necessarily all .coms crashing, but they were technology-centric businesses typically built around an internet presence. Use that term for anyone above 30 and they know what you're talking about. Heck, even later millennials and younger would be vaguely familiar with it or have likely heard it in use.

.Org had a wide market because back in the day, if you were a church or nonprofit, this was your .com. So quite naturally, these two were the face of what the mainstream saw of the internet. .Net was caught in the middle. Like any new industry, there are going to be startups and supporting businesses, but look at how narrow the plot was for .net. Consolidation further narrows the field, and now it's competing with innumerable hordes of gTLDs and ccTLDs.

This is why .net hasn't really caught on outside of tech/geek circles. It never had as broad of an audience, and given how the other extensions had better penetration into the mainstream zeitgeist, it just never took off.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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".

 

[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.

 

[E-Promote]

Why is .net looked upon unfavourably?

Why can't Pepsi ever seem to catch up with Coke?

 

[jmcc]

.Net has largely lost its way as an aftermarket play. It once had a life when search ranking algos assigned weight (ranking lift) to keywords in domain name. Most of that has evaporated. .Net was also meant to be a play on "network" ~for ISPs, etc. Ironically, most hosting companies, ISPs, etc. defaulted to .Com URLs.

The TLD was really meant to be for ISPs and network operations. As the .COM took over for the general public, the .NET began to slide. It has been declining for a few years now and the recent Chinese speculation gave it a bit of a boost. The danger with a highly speculative market like the Chinese one is that a lot of the registrations tend to be one year wonders.

Alrighty. Long time since I've posted (ever?) here and long time since I've bothered to read a post here.

Good to see you around.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Josytal]

And the oddest part is that among the new gTLD, you have .network extension. Not sure if the extension is still alive or any sane business using it. I still prefer .net to .network

 

[mpls]

At some extent, you also have to depend on search engines. I see .com secures better tanking than .net and .org.

Absolutely NOT TRUE.

Now I'll explain an end user POV.

I've recently started a new project on .net domain.

After 4 months of good SEO it ranks in 2nd page in google, in an ultra competitve niche. I've spent $700 / month for SEO.

I could spend $3k and buy a good .com.

But by now, the domain bought for $3k / $4k would not even be indexed in google, and it would not have earned me $ 0.0000001.

Moral of the story? No matter what extension you use (.com, .net, .org, .whatyouwant), without a good SEO sites will not rank in google (rank in google = MONEY, REAL money).

For those limited budget companies, if they have to choose between a premium .com domain or a good seo campaign, they necessarily choose the second option.

Extensions (.net in this case, and in 2018 even the domain name) does not matter for rank.

And end users want to rank.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[HotKey]

Over the past couple decades, Jasper realized there were drawbacks to operating as Sonic.net. There was credibility, customer confusion and email accidentally sent to sonic.com.

In my opinion, if you have to rebrand because of credibility, confusion and accidental loss of emails, the problem is not due to your site not being a dot-com, it is because:

1) There is a communication problem between you and your customers on to how to communicate with you

or

2) Your customers may need to be better versed into the .com/plexities of the Internet

 

[Haris]

It's all about convergence to a simple naming convention. Consumers demands simplicity.

I'm reminded of this little note I keep which is copied from an article written on February 12, 2015 by Andrew Allemann:

========
After 20 years of being known as Sonic.net, the California ISP and telecom rebranded as merely "Sonic" after acquiring Sonic.com.

When Dane Jasper started ISP company Sonic in 1994, Sonic.com was already taken by Sonic Solutions the year before. "We were a network service provider and every ISP was pretty much on a .net, like earthlink.net, so it wasn’t a big deal to not have the .com at that time."

Over the past couple decades, Jasper realized there were drawbacks to operating as Sonic.net. There was credibility, customer confusion and email accidentally sent to sonic.com. The opportunity came after Sonic Solutions was acquired by Rovi. Sonic.net officially rebranded as simply Sonic late last year.

Jasper sees a lot of companies starting up with trendy two letter domain names. "For an infrastructure company like ours that’s providing a critical service, we can’t be a little startup on a .ly. We need to be on a .com and to control that part of our identity."
========
Source: https://domainnamewire.com/2015/02/12/why-sonic-net-rebranded-as-sonic-and-how-it-got-sonic-com/

Hi Kassey, how can I contact you? at your coreile dotcom email?

Thanks!