In a blog post today Adrian Kinderis of ARI Registry Services makes the argument that new gTLD’s will rank higher .com domain names on Google.
In full disclosure Mr. Kinderis company ARI is providing backend services for new gTLD’s, but that doesn’t mean his comments are wrong or his argument is flawed
Here are some of his comments from his post:
“”Will a new TLD web address automatically be favored by Google over a .com equivalent”
“Quite simply, yes it will.”
“The more I research, the more I have no doubt that a new TLD address will trump its .com equivalent. And here’s why.”
Why will Google prefer .anything over .com?
“We can partly answer this question by observing the way search engines like Google handle information contained right of the dot (.com, .info, .biz, etc.).”
“The basis of good search results is having the ability to present the most useful and relevant information in ascending order. An easy first step in this process is an assessment of the TLD the website is located within. We know this currently occurs because you can see search engine preferences to .edu websites for educational search topics, likewise with .gov websites for government related search topics.”
“Google bases its results on what it believes the intent was behind a search. For example if you type in ‘Nike’, Google assumes it’s more likely that you’re looking for the Nike website versus a shop that sells Nike runners (it’s a clever machine). So for searches where intent is clear, brands that own a .brand will have extra weighting behind them and are likely to rank higher.”
“Where I actually believe new top-level domains will have the biggest impact is with what the search industry calls ‘domain name bias’ (aka website credibility). This is when a web user chooses to click on one domain name in the search results over another because it looks more trustworthy.”
“In Australia, internet users have become biased towards .com.au domain names because they’ve learnt they’ll end up on a site that belongs to an Australian business. The same applies with .co.uk, so I’m sure users will become biased towards other TLDs if they’re taught it contains trustworthy and relevant content.”
“A research report by Microsoft found end users have learned to trust some domains over others. The report states that, “Viewing content on the internet as products, domains have emerged as brands. And users have developed such fierce brand loyalty that their clicks are tainted by domains.”
“Ultimately, the big question is: will car.insurance rank higher than carinsurance.com (for example)? All the evidence suggest the answer is yes, provided that the .insurance namespace builds value and perhaps verification into its space to ensure it is a signpost for good, trusted and authoritative content. That is where the real winners will come from in the new TLD program.”
:It’s here I remind marketers that buying a new TLD isn’t just about buying a key word to the right of the dot – it is about buying an entire slice of the internet. So whilst a new TLD provides clear Google ranking benefits and domain name bias, a first class content strategy to underpin a new TLD will help even more.”
“Define a target market, create credible content for your new TLD community and the Google results will follow.”
“More importantly though, it seems the credibility and trust that comes with a TLD is invaluable. Whilst behavior change takes time, internet users do learn to acknowledge the credible content under TLDs and this can only be of advantage to new TLD applicants.”
Its an interesting post and you should read the entire post
There are other GTlds and Cctlds that rank higher than .com. Adrian Kinderis is stating the obvious.
Agree completely with the above comment.
That said, the concept could do with some formalising. I refer to these new types of domains as “vtlds”,ie tlds relating to vertical markets.
A lot of that blog post is a joke, I understand they’re trying to sell to those who don’t know any better. The reality is Google doesn’t really care about the extension, it’s at the bottom of consideration when it comes to ranking. Just type in various keywords into Google, and see the different sites in many different extensions ranking well. The problem with these new ones are they happen to be in some of the most competitive fields, law, travel, insurance, etc. New sites with those new tlds, aren’t touching those established ones. But it’s good to sell the dream.
.de ranks better in germany, nl performs better in netherlands etc etc.
With Search becoming more personalised, local and granular, it’s a safe assumption that .nyc domain names will be the best option for seo for businesses located in and specifically targeting a nyc audience, especially if registration policies reinforce any nexus requirements.
Same for all other citytlds.
Every CCTLD ranks higher than .com in their local search engine.
yes, ofcourse, because i provide gtld services, i will make that statement.
Thats just nonsense. Coulda, woulda shoulda, come on.
This argument is only relevant to pay-per-click bullshit. Content always has been, and always will be, KING – regardless of TLD, ccTLD, or gTLD.
DBO Use www. —– .com ! will soar & will override gTLD’ search engines prominent dominance will start to fade with social sites & DBOStrategies ————
try to google “that is me” because the exact match works, so far, so good.
Ohhhhhhhhh Dreamweaaaaaver……
I believe you can get me through the night…
Ohhhhhhhhh Dreamweaaaaaver…
I believe we can reach the morning light.
Fly me high through the starry skies…
Maybe to an astral plane…
Cross the highways of fantasy…
Help me to forget today’s pain…
Is it really search engine ranking issues that companies will be facing with new gTLDs? The REAL problem at hand is BRANDING, as it is difficult to shift away from what people have been used to (.com) for the past 15 or so years. Dot-CO is paying top dollar for marketing campaigns to get mainstream to embrace the extension, yet, branding issues remains the main issue. O.CO was brave enough to show us all an example of how branding (or rebranding) with a non-dotCom is NOT EASY.
“”Will a new TLD web address automatically be favored by Google over a .com equivalent”
“Quite simply, yes it will.”
Does he work for Google?
Is this an official Google position?
Otherwise it is a load of BS and hype from some random person almost no one has ever heard of.
Brad
“but that doesn’t mean his comments are wrong or his argument is flawed”
No, but it means his argument is biased.
Brad
“The folks who know the truth aren’t talking. The ones who don’t have a clue, you can’t shut them up”
You know who you are.
“The basis of good search results is having the ability to present the most useful and relevant information in ascending order. ”
Um, no, actually it’s descending order.
“Ultimately, the big question is: will car.insurance rank higher than carinsurance.com (for example)? All the evidence suggest the answer is yes, provided ….”
“All the evidence suggests yes,” What? Sounds like a fortune from one of those magic eight ball things.
Oh yeah then there’s all this other stuff that has to happen. Ok, so it can rank higher provided that that all these other things happen. All these other things would need to happen regardless of the domain you’re trying to rank. The extension is mostly irrelevant. Why not get CarInsurance.com or better yet Allstate.com or Progressive.com because the brand dot coms are in the top spots. No need to run a whole registry, just build a strong brand on a dot com.
Lots of Robert Clines of gTLDs out there these days.
People who apparently don’t understand much about search shouldn’t write detailed articles about how new gTLDs will relate to search.
We’ll see what happens. Frankly the realIty is I doubt google has actually made any decisionS regarding this either. They are probably waiting to see what haopens too.
Wonder if this guy is willing to guarantee those $185k fees or whatever he is selling based on these statements. If so then you know he really believes it.
@Tom G Agree on the city gTLDs. Many of them will have a big enough population to make them effectively micro ccTLDs.
There’s something of a Cult of the Generic Domain going on with new gTLD thinking. The problem for new gTLDs is similar to that for ccTLDs – they have to clearly identify their target market and give registrants a reason to develop sites and users a reason to use the gTLD. Between that theory and the reality of Search Engines, there is a massive gulf. As for Adrian’s idea that Google will rank new gTLDs higher than .com – he misses a critical factor: the influence of search engine algorithms on search engine results. If a TLD becomes a problem as in having too much malware, spam etc, then search engines can and will apply a TLD penalty to the TLD or a major part of it. The people promoting the new gTLDs don’t control the search engine algorithms. One of the big reasons for the non-core TLDs not doing so well as .com and the ccTLDs is simply because people don’t identify with the TLD in the same way that people identify with their local ccTLD. Without that sense of identity and community, a new gTLD will just be yet another generic TLD.
“provided that the .insurance namespace builds value”
And heres the problem.
The people who get their hands on .Whatever will sell a boat load to domainer X for 6-7 figures. Then the rest of you vultures will come in and pick the carcass bare.
It always makes me laugh when I read in Techcrunch etc in the comments when someone says “We will be able to get our hands on the domain we always wanted that wasnt available in .Com” Hahahahahaha, yeah right. Little do they know the hyenas that are waiting to take anything of value in every extension.
I doff my hat to all of you.
Taking Adrian’s example of car insurance in Google here in the UK
moneysupermarket.com
tescobank.com
co-operativeinsurance.co.uk
comparethemarket.com
swiftcover.com
confused.com
admiral.com
elephant.co.uk
churchill.com
moneysavingexpert.com
I wonder how long it will be before car.insurance dominates?
Of course could try a real world test like “somekeyword travel” and see how many .travel sites are dominating search, after all they’ve had 6 years of so to sort out the teething issues….
One of the big problems with new gTLDs is there is lots of spin & wishful thinking around new gTLDs, like the would-be new gTLD operator who was going around telling everyone they were going to be the next Bill Gates!
So if I search “domain names for sale” doe’s that mean buydomains.mann and domainnamesales.schilling will rank higher than their dot com counter parts? 😉
For local searches CCTLD’s will rank higher than .com’s. Few of my developed .co domains ranks better than .coms globally. Its all about quality content.
The problem with logic, is that sometimes its a individuals perception
and not something which is one size fits all
for the number of alternative tld`s that are indexed sites out there against listed on page 1 of G
hmm would be interesting to see the %
my gut feeling is , just another marketing ploy
like the one for middle east war
its just about money
and he wants yours end off
I know I am just repeating what a lot of the folks have said but it bears repeating. Content, drives credibility, drives traffic, drives ranking…period.
If the extension registry works hard at promoting the extension and building value to both their domain buyers and end-users, AND ALL the domain buyers build credible, valuable sites with relevant and topical content, end-users and Google will find that extension attractive. That is a very high hurdle. Just ask .mobi. In the meantime, customers will be well suited to click on the TLD they are comfortable and familiar with, supported by the fact that all the relevant companies in the space use that same .com extension. (or local ccTLD)
Like I always say, .com is a cesspool. What makes anyone think they could do better in another gTLD?
.com is the best the world has been able to do so far. Trying to beat it is like trying to fight a Federal judge in Texas. 😉
These new gTLDs will be wastelands of crap, undeveloped, and partially developed sites.
Good luck, underdogs!!!
Well said Chip. I agree with you 100%
Put simply, Google’s job is to find the best result for your search. There’s absolutely no way they’ll ignore the new gTLD’s and if the new extension identifies a website to its subject matter and Google matches it to your search then it will be near the top.
Yes, Google will rank the new gtlds higher than .com’s, just like it ranks .info higher for information sites, .biz higher for business sites, .travel higher for travel sites, and .co higher for company sites. I’m sure it will be exactly the same.
What matters the most for Google is having quality content regularly updated, lots of quality incoming links, and lots of traffic. The domain name plays a part in search but the items in the former sentence are more important.
@jayjay
“So if I search “domain names for sale” doe’s that mean buydomains.mann and domainnamesales.schilling will rank higher than their dot com counter parts?”
yes, if mann & schilling were as useful as insurance, they would 🙂
A: money? 😐
One thing the .com does is it shows you have been in business much longer then someone with a .whatever and not everyone depends on Google, many local businesses use their domain in print advertising and .whatever is just going to bleed out to the .com. When they start putting a .co or whatever button on my computer I’ll start to believe in the new extensions.
Obviously some domainers need to spend more time learning and understanding how Google actually works. Most of the arguments offered are farcical given how factually incorrect they are.
The original poster needs to learn that correlation does not equal causation:
Or perhaps educational content tends to be found on .edu TLD? Same goes for government content living on .GOV.
So how will Google know that .brand is the brand? One of the signals is likely authority, and if the .com has all the authority you can pretty much rule out the .brand beating it to #1.
Some of the “expert opinion” cited is equally bizarre. I’ve never seen anything to indicate that Google uses the TLD for anything other than geotargeting, so the idea that keyword in TLD will impact ranking is far-fetched in the extreme.
Bottom line is that Google is built to deliver relevance. If .brand is more relevant than .TLD then Google will show .brand higher. When both are equally relevant then authority will likely determine which one wins.
Google is also likely to sit on the sidelines for a while until they see how .gTLD will be used. Only when things settle and they’re happy to change how they handle gTLD are we likely to see much change.
Here is another post that is a counter to Mr. Kinderis post
http://domainate.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/new-tlds-will-not-easily-outrank-com-domains/
We can break our heads arguing over how well the Internet will receive new gTLDs. However time will tell the truth. I would rather have flexible opinions at the moment. As far as search engine algorithms are concerned, they are not written on stone. Google changes its algorithms based on new findings and the ever changing Internet landscape. So long as a new gTLD is not spammed, Internet users and search engines will eventually sit up and take notice. Spamming may lead to what happened to the .info extension.
.com can no longer rest on its laurels and will not get any special treatment. so if the content is not there don’t expect it to rank higher than others.
.Co is on a superb start as most people registering in the .Co space are entrepreneurs using their site.
This post (AKA sales pitch) by Mr. Kinderis has been refuted by Matt Cutts of Google, who said –
“I read a post by someone offering new top-level domain (TLDs). They made this claim: “Will a new TLD web address automatically be favoured by Google over a .com equivalent? Quite simply, yes it will.”
Sorry, but that’s just not true, and as an engineer in the search quality team at Google, I feel the need to debunk this misconception. Google has a lot of experience in returning relevant web pages, regardless of the top-level domain (TLD). Google will attempt to rank new TLDs appropriately, but I don’t expect a new TLD to get any kind of initial preference over .com, and I wouldn’t bet on that happening in the long-term either. If you want to register an entirely new TLD for other reasons, that’s your choice, but you shouldn’t register a TLD in the mistaken belief that you’ll get some sort of boost in search engine rankings.”
Enough said…
I just read the same thing Brad as I follow Matt on Google +, its what I thought he would say.
the thing is, postel and others tried to organise a geographical scheme for domains that included cities. a logical way to organise information using the dns. there are still remnants of it in the .us registry. but look what has happened.
the focus with tld’s has been on money, not on organising information.
however, like it or not, we are inevitably headed toward greater organisation. because a continuing state of disorganisation, chaos and confusion does not promote progress, including the progress of “e-commerce”. chaos and confusion might be a quick cash scheme for some, though. criminal and shady practices by various web companies. we’re seeing that front and center.
cctlds were warped into fast money schemes. so many examples. it’s comical. non-resident nerds taking over extensions for far away places and repurposing them in ploys to make a quick buck. the extension laos being sold as a symbol for “los angeles”. tuvalu for “television”. niue. the list goes on and on. eventually, if we really believe the internet is useful to all people in all countries, and localisation is useful, these places will need their own extensions. so we’ll have com full circle.
for years icann refused to let others run new gtld’s. that might have been wise in retrospect. what do you think people would have done with those new gtld’s? organise information? or try to make a quick buck in a sea of chaos and confusion?
so now icann says yes to new gtld’s. but it’s still not about organising information. one wonders if postel would be rolling in his grave at this whole scam. it’s about quick cash. you can have new gtld’s but it will cost you. you have to line icann’s pockets before they’ll add an extension to their coveted zone, which enjoys wide use only due to tradition and ignorance of the potential for alternatives.
can we really take .nyc seriously?
it’s not about organising information about businesses, geographically. it’s about making a quick buck at the expense of local businesses.
no one should have to pay to have their information listed on the web. way back when, in the 90’s, freely compiled directories of websites based on user-submitted information tried to charge people for adding listings to “their” directory. essentially, they took bribes. it seems silly now. today, few people would be so gullible.
the absurdity of that has largely been replaced by seo. “pay us and we’ll rig a site for you that will rank high in a google search.” sure that might work today, when one search engine is so dominant, but given its capabilities for organisation and dissemination of information long-term that is a braindead way to use the web. every user funneling through one or a few websites. how long can this nonsense persist? as long as the consumer stays naive and the money keeps coming in.
it’s likely that more and more people every day are realising that by using the internet dissemination of information is free for anyone who is connected; that’s the whole purpose and design of it. it is simply a matter of learning how to use the technology. once connected, there is no gatekeeper one has to pay to list information. but these registries are going to try to shake businesses down one last time. some businesses might fall for it. others won’t.
if businesses want to be found on the internet, then it is better organisation that will enable us to find them, not paying bribes, using seo tricks or paying “application fees” to a fake authority (icann) that wants to take the money and run.
google says it’s mission is to organise the world’s information. well, then let’s do it. forget the payola.
@ __a points very well made…. It’s a pity ICANN doesn’t have more people thinking along these lines. ICANN had a unique chance to create a more vibrant DNS but those leading discussions it seems couldn’t see any further than their executive packages and share options.
Good to see some of this new gTLD hype and spin refuted from a definitive source.
But this nonsense doesn’t stand alone…
People relying on at least one new gTLD promotional video should be very careful because it makes claims that are impossible given the design of the DNS.
Also people relying on at least one of the cough “white” papers should question whether it is marketing material/hype/spin rather than credible academic research.
no need for the thinkers to be at icann for change to proceed. in fact, more can be accomplished by working on new ideas outside of icann.
as history is our evidence, change for the benefit of the public, where is it sorely needed, will not come from within icann.
whatever voice for the public there is suppopsed to be the icann “stakeholder” model, it is consistently drowned out in the presence of so many other self-interested working groups with members each pursuing a self-serving commercial agenda.
as a result, we get brilliant ideas like .xxx and other “new gtld’s” at a cost of $5,000+$185,000+??? just to be considered.
one can’t help but laugh when one reads their prerequisites that aim to avoid “fly-by-night” registries or ones run “from someone’s kitchen”, yet icann itself could indeed run from someone’s kitchen given how little they actually do, and their “new gtld” program could literally be shut down tomorrow and no applicant would see a penny of their funds returned. all gone. overnight.
but icann is “non-profit” so not to worry. no shareholders would profit from your fees (originally intended for the litigation slush fund). only the board members and executive staff would be enriched. if the whole plan goes belly up.
they are praying that at least one new registry might “succeed”. this would validate, ex post facto, the feasibility studies they were required to do but never did.
Google is really a very popular search engine of today’s time and it’s not always clear where they are basing their algorithm but one thing is for sure that we should abide with their guidelines in order to rank higher on SERP’s.
Regards,
John
Either this guy knows squat or is the begining of another “Pump and Dump” attempt from Promoters and similar Varmint …
from the horses’ mouth (aka M Cutts):
“Sorry, but that’s just not true, and as an engineer in the search quality team at Google, I feel the need to debunk this misconception. Google has a lot of experience in returning relevant web pages, regardless of the top-level domain (TLD). Google will attempt to rank new TLDs appropriately, but I don’t expect a new TLD to get any kind of initial preference over .com, and I wouldn’t bet on that happening in the long-term either. If you want to register an entirely new TLD for other reasons, that’s your choice, but you shouldn’t register a TLD in the mistaken belief that you’ll get some sort of boost in search engine rankings.”
https://plus.google.com/109412257237874861202/posts/4VaWg4TMM5F
and yes, no preference shown for the dot com either…
.mobi, 3d domains , .tv, .co , ho hum!
and yes overstock.com pretty much gave up on o.co …(see Alexa if in doubt)
was it worth spending all those Millions on tv commercials.?
They couldn’t overcome the .com Mantra..
what a surprise!.
Sounds like a bit of ‘spin’ to me, intended to help promote the
new gTLD and negate the very damaging PR that its already
had…
Yes, just a lame attempt to generate some buzz around this failed program.
Google should penalize new TLDs for this type of confusing marketing that seems to have been an attempt to make people believe that they need one to rise to the top of rankings.
The headline is very misleading.
March 20, 2012
Mr. Jon Leibowitz
Chairman
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Room H-338A ORG 0101 Drop H-342
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Dear Chairman Leibowitz:
I am writing in regard to your letter dated December 16, 2011 to ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). The letter was sent to Dr. Stephen D. Crocker and Rod Beckstrom and copied to various members of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. NTIA.
Your letter does not seem to address one key question:
How does ICANN sell Franchises given the U.S. FTC Franchise Test ?
As you are probably aware, the U.S. FTC Franchise Test has THREE main points:
1. Does the Franchisor (ICANN) allow the Franchisee to use their LOGO or Brand ?
2. Does the Franchisor (ICANN) charge the Franchisee Fees ?
3. Does the Franchisor (ICANN) control the Franchisee ?
In all three cases, the answers are clearly yes. ICANN is very protective of their Logo and Brand. When ICANN Franchisees are stripped of their franchise one of the first requests is to discontinue use of the ICANN branding. ICANN clearly charges the franchisees substantial fees. Some people question whether ICANN controls their franchisees. Your letter to ICANN points out some of their shortcomings. They still meet the third part of the FTC Franchise Test and control their franchisees.
ICANN claims and has claimed in sworn testimony that “they do not sell anything”. When asked about the U.S. FTC Franchise Test and the various Federal and State laws required for registering and selling franchises, ICANN simply ignores the questions.
As one of the major protectors of consumer’s trust and their online safety using the Internet, I request that you enforce the U.S. Franchise Laws as they pertain to ICANN.
Signed – A Concerned U.S. Citizen*
*Note: Most Americans will not speak out about ICANN or the various members of their cartel (eco.system)
Now I could see this being correct for sites that are in their proper domains. E.g. an information site being a .info or a school being a .edu but would nike.com rate lower than nike.info ? I think it depends on what data the .info has and if its actually information based.
This could actually mean the internet starting to function better and getting less spammy if this does happen mind.
Actually, I think there should be only one TLD for all those people who want to target worldwide and that is .world
And for rest the ccTLDs of respective nations.
no .com no .net no .org no .site no .travel and no any new gTLD.
One uniform .TLD for worldwide/brand name use was actually sufficient.
Google algorithm is way more complex, the domain name doesn´t really make big impact
Is it really this true. I don’t think anyone can ever understand what is cooking inside.
Well TLD is almost always more focus on region, therefore more relevant…I guess
What are the new TLD’s? I saw the example for .nyc and maybe .brand. Is the TLD just to more specifically label whatever the particular domain is?
.com can no longer rest on its laurels and will not get any special treatment. so if the content is not there don’t expect it to rank higher than others.
i think domain name impact the home targeted keyword.