I really need a conclusion on .info vs .com

[TheMatrix]

This is an old source (2008) and states:

http://www.seo.com/blog/conferences/matt-cutts-does-domain-roundtable/

There's nothing to say that they have started devaluing certain TLDs, at least not .info. Or do you have a credible source? Only really Google can answer this. (The only area where TLD really matters is local search.)

You forgot to bold this:

At the end of answering this question he did admit that they might have started to look at particularly cheap (and spammy) TLDs differently than other TLDs?or they might start considering TLD in their algorithm if they?re not already doing so.

That was 2008. And now, they are even more conscious of the spammy domains.

Taken from http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/domain

Top level domains (like .com) are the extensions associated with domain names. For best ranking results, avoid uncommon top-level domains (TLDs). Like hyphens, TLDs such as .info, .cc, .ws, and .name are spam indicators.

 

[total.load]

Go with com domain.

 

[lizmoz]

info LOOKS cheap. what do you want your site to look like?

 

[jacky2002r]

.info = cheap, good for very low competition KW's and MNS
.com = relatively costly (10 bucks, duhh).. good for any type of site if you know SEO.

There is no difference in .info and .com when it comes to seo.

you can read my full explanation in this post which I posted last year.

Thanks,
Jacky

 

[grav6]

You forgot to bold this:



That was 2008. And now, they are even more conscious of the spammy domains.

Taken from http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/domain

Yes (and I mentioned it's old). Anything since from Google to show it's considered in their algorithm? We all know .info are used by spammers a lot (it's still very cheap for the first year, throwaway domains), but so is .com (it looks more "credible"). That page is more discussing branding/credibility and not rankings.

 

[TheMatrix]

There is no difference in .info and .com when it comes to seo.

you can read my full explanation in http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/white-hat-seo/342669-why-info-domains-suck.html#post3149009 which I posted last year.

Thanks,
Jacky

Well, here's some thing now. I took the 2 keywords you had posted there, and ran analysis on them.

Here we go:

PR checker

Site #1 and #2 - Same domain .info. Site has 162995340 backlinks. PR of pages are 7 and 9.

Site #4 is .org and has a mere 1006 backlinks.

No other site in listing has PR >6.

Consider the last 4 columns as well.

Moral: .info's are hard to rank.

best free web hosting

See #6 and #10. Their backlinks and on-page SEO. See their extension.

Overall moral: Yup, you can rank .info, if you have some crazy SEO skills, and a lot of credibility associated with the domain. But does it really make sense to work more, when the same output can be received for much less input?

 

[grav6]

That doesn't mean harder to rank. You're just pointing out that the .info site is more popular, despite its TLD. The .info has been around since 2004, so it's not inconceivable that it has more backlinks, especially as you can use that site to embed code on your own to display the page rank. A good way to get backlinks easily for free and explains why it has so many more BLs.

 

[TheMatrix]

That doesn't mean harder to rank. You're just pointing out that the .info site is more popular, despite its TLD. The .info has been around since 2004, so it's not inconceivable that it has more backlinks, especially as you can use that site to embed code on your own to display the page rank. A good way to get backlinks easily for free and explains why it has so many more BLs.

Most people/bloggers put such kind of widgets in their sidebars, meaning sitewide links from a boat loads of sites. This acts like a mega network of authority links for the site/page. Meaning the site gets more links and higher rankings (mostly).

And you just proved my point, the site's been up since 2004, the site at #4 was created in 2008. So yes, .info requires more work, and better SEO, and much stronger signals.

 

[jimmyn]

.info vs .com = .com, walkover.

 

[goinviral]

I can't believe people ask this question still..
It is so easy to answer.
Do some searches
here are some I did
telephones - all .com's
cell phones - all .com and .orgs
dentist dallas - all .com's
wood working tools - all .com's

These are random searches that popped into my head, anyone seeing a pattern here?

Yes you can rank a .info if you try really really hard. However .com's .net's .org's are easier.
However if people feel that .info's are just as good who am I to change their minds.

 

[N1ckG2]

Its not about if you can aford to buy com. if you cant then IM is not for you.

Its about EMD.info vs. NON-EMD.com

EMD is always easier to rank.

But, if you are going to build big site, then you dont need EMD at all (reference GoDaddy - no kw in it, but bigger enough)

 

[grav6]

Most people/bloggers put such kind of widgets in their sidebars, meaning sitewide links from a boat loads of sites. This acts like a mega network of authority links for the site/page. Meaning the site gets more links and higher rankings (mostly).

And you just proved my point, the site's been up since 2004, the site at #4 was created in 2008. So yes, .info requires more work, and better SEO, and much stronger signals.

It doesn't prove your point. They were made at different times. You'd be better comparing the two .net, around since 2004 and 2005 And what's to compare? A lot of BLs are a result of people putting the page rank on their page, so people chose it. They could have chosen one of the other two. The .info has been popular despite its TLD, the .info is top ranked despite its competitors, which came about at the same time. But it's not down to domain extension, but the effort someone put in. The two .net or the .org could have been top, if the owners had put in the same level of effort. So no, domain extension won't help (or hinder) with ranking, but the work put in.