SEOMoz advice on only buying domain if .com version is available
-
RE: "In order to maximize the direct traffic to a domain, it is advised that webmasters should only buy a domain if the .com version is available. "
http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/domain
- I am working for a client who's had a domain live for 5 years or so without a .com version of the domain (just .co.uk) - the domain is also hyphenated (which doesn't look like a great idea).
So, just wondering what research has been done into probs caused by lack of .com domain and by using hyphenated domain. I'm trying to figure out whether it would be worth advising client to switch to a new domain.
Your thoughts would be welcome
-
Thanks guys, much appreciated and very useful. I just found Rand's whiteboard on domains and found it quite useful too - see 3: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-choose-the-right-domain-name
and this on hyphenated domains: http://www.highposition.com/blog/hyphenated-domains-google/ - but it's hard to know. Might set up some of my own tests.
-
It literally depends upon many things! Like if you client’s target market is within UK then I would recommend you to stick up to .co.uk domain as this way you will be able to get better visibility in Google UK plus visitors who are directly coming to your website will tend to trust you!
In my opinion single hyphen is fine if it fits the brand name as well but if you have a domain available that contain no hyphen and at the same time if you can afford a bit of a dip in traffic then you cna go for the new domain and redirect 301 the older domain to the new one but if you are not ready for the traffic and ranking dip then it won’t be a good idea!
Just my 2 cents!
-
I agree with the guys above, it less to do with seo (if any) and more about human error.
I used to help with a uk gaming website that had a lot of american visitors, and I notice over the years people (the old time) would link to "sitename".com instead of .co.uk, which was held by a domain shark, so lost back links.
But I think this is because of an American audience used to everything being .com
Note: ultimately we bought the .com off the domain shark, I contacted him and originally he wanted $1000s for the domain, I said $300 would be the most I would page for it and said good bye. 2 month later he came back to me and sold it for $300. So if you have a domain shark with the .com play the long game with them.
-
I don't think that is is much of an SEO problem as long as you are targeting business in the UK.
We have lots of high ranking .co.uk sites that are unaffected by the .com alternative. We have American suppliers of products who own the .com addresses and therefore we are not in direct competition.
The only time that it could be a problem is if you are physically competing the the .com version and they sell the same product and are targeting the same keywords as you.
Your potential customers may end up buying from the wrong company.
So in my opinion this is a branding issue rather than a Search Engine ranking issue.
-
It really depends which markets your client is trying to target. If their target market is UK only then the .co.uk is perfectly fine. If the .com is available then it would do no harm to purchase it to save a competitor getting hold of it and outranking for the domain/brand name. You could simply redirect the .com to your .co.uk site.
Alternatively if the target is wider than the UK then it becomes increasingly difficult (though not impossible) to rank with a .co.uk in other countries. Hope this helps.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Any recent updates from Google or community on sub domains vs sub directories?
Hi all, This has been a debate for years and I have noticed most of the SEOs suggest to go or switch to sub directories instead of sub domains. Still is this the same or any new updates from Google or SEO community? We have moved a sub domain to sub directory last year. The result was sub directory content started ranking good; but no change in website rankings. Because of moving sub domains to sub directories, will the linkjuice/PR of the website gets diluted as the number of pages increases which will takeaway soe authority? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Is it bad from an SEO perspective that cached AMP pages are hosted on domains other than the original publisher's?
Hello Moz, I am thinking about starting to utilize AMP for some of my website. I've been researching this AMP situation for the better part of a year and I am still unclear on a few things. What I am primarily concerned with in terms of AMP and SEO is whether or not the original publisher gets credit for the traffic to a cached AMP page that is hosted elsewhere. I can see the possible issues with this from an SEO perspective and I am pretty sure I have read about how SEOs are unhappy about this particular aspect of AMP in other places. On the AMP project FAQ page you can find this, but there is very little explanation: "Do publishers receive credit for the traffic from a measurement perspective?
Algorithm Updates | | Brian_Dowd
Yes, an AMP file is the same as the rest of your site – this space is the publisher’s canvas." So, let's say you have an AMP page on your website example.com:
example.com/amp_document.html And a cached copy is served with a URL format similar to this: https://google.com/amp/example.com/amp_document.html Then how does the original publisher get the credit for the traffic? Is it because there is a canonical tag from the AMP version to the original HTML version? Also, while I am at it, how does an AMP page actually get into Google's AMP Cache (or any other cache)? Does Google crawl the original HTML page, find the AMP version and then just decide to cache it from there? Are there any other issues with this that I should be aware of? Thanks0 -
301 from one domain to another. Possible?
Hi all, I'm looking to re-direct one domain to another so that the content can be edited more easily under one CMS. Is this possible or will search engines penalise you for such a move? Not overly worried about losing link juice by implementing a 301 because the website we're hoping to re-direct from is a new page. Cheers
Algorithm Updates | | SwanseaMedicine0 -
Domain Extensions
I wanted to get everyone's thoughts on the new domain extensions that are now available. I'm considering buying a couple .lawyer and .attorney domains for clients. I noticed when I tried to buy these I was asked for verification if we're going to be offering legal services through the site. That led me to think that it may be possible in the future that with this verification, if it's required, that means that not just anybody can have these domain names. That leads me to think that it's possible that these domains may benefit from users searching for terms with "lawyer" or "attorney" in their search term. I haven't seen anything in terms of these domain extensions and SEO yet, but I'd like to know your thoughts as to how these will be treated in the future. I can imagine these will be more valuable than the old .net, .us, .info, etc., domains.
Algorithm Updates | | Millermore0 -
Traffic drop only affecting google country domains
Hello, I have noticed that our our traffic is down by 15% (last 30 days to the 30 days before it) and I dug deeper to figure out whats going on and I am not sure I understand what is happening. Traffic from google country domains( for example google.com.sa) dropped by 90% on the 18th of September, same applies to other country specific domains. Now my other stats (visits organic keywords, search queries in WMT) seem to be normal and have seem some decrease (~5%) but nothing as drastic as the traffic drop from the google country domains. Is this an https thing that is masking the source of the traffic that came into effect on that date? Is the traffic that is now missing from google country domains being reported from other sources? Can anyone shed some light on what is going on? qk0CS7X
Algorithm Updates | | omarfk0 -
Sub-domains and keyword rich domains
Hello All I'm hoping for some opinions as i am confused as to the best action for me to take. The problem:
Algorithm Updates | | jonny512379
Although i say the below, we have never been penalised by Google, not taken part in any bad link building and don't do too bad with SERP. but i worry Google may not like what i do these days. We have one main site that is broken down into areas/cities (i,e London, Manchester, etc) so the domain looks like www.domain.co.uk/London But in addition to this we also use Sub-domains to target popular areas (i,e. http://London.domain.co.uk).
These sub-domains take the content from the main site but of course only display results relevant to London and are optimised for "London + Keyword"
Any page that gets duplicated (i.e London.domain.co.uk/profile123 and www.domain.co.uk/profile123 are ALMOST the same content) we add a rel="canonical" link that points to the main domain+page on www.
All these sites have a large amount of links back to www.domain.co.uk/?Page so the user can also search in other areas other then London, etc. This method has worked well for us and is popular with both users and Google search results. All sites/sub-domains are added to GWT under the same account and all sites have unique sitemaps. I do however worry that Google may class this as link manipulation owing to the amount of links pointing back to the main domain and its pages (this is not the reason we use the sub-domains though) In addition to the above sub-domains we have a few domain names (5/6) that are keyword rich that we also place the same content on (i,e www.manchester-keyword.co.uk would show only content relevant to Manchester), and again these sites have links back to the main domain, so users can navigate other areas of the UK. I worry that these additional domains may also not be liked by Google What do people think? I have started to reduce/replace some of the additional keyword rich domains with sub-domains from the main site and then 301 the keyword rich domain (i.e. www.manchester-Keyword.co.uk now goes to http://Manchester.domain.co.uk) as i feel sub-domains may not be penalised as much as unique domains are.
There are domains that i dont really want to 301 as they bring in good amounts of traffic and users have bookmarked them, etc. Any opinions or what you think i should do would be great, as i really worry that if Google stops giving us good results, i'm in real trouble. Although im not sure if what we do is wrong with Google or not.0 -
Google changing the casing in SERPs of our domain name in Title tag!
I've added NOODP and NOYDIR metas to our pages... but Google is still somehow showing the correct title tag that is on the page, but is changing the CASING of the | Domain.com portion. In some instances, they are still showing a different title tag all together. Why would they be ignoring the <title>tag on the page and placing an uncased version of our domain name at the end?</p> <p> </p> <a download="MxQjo" class="imported-anchor-tag" href="http://imgur.com/MxQjo" target="_blank">MxQjo</a></title>
Algorithm Updates | | CareerBliss0 -
Local SEO url format & structure: ".com/albany-tummy-tuck" vs ".com/tummy-tuck" vs ".com/procedures/tummy-tuck-albany-ny" etc."
We have a relatively new site (re: August '10) for a plastic surgeon who opened his own solo practice after 25+ years with a large group. Our current url structure goes 3 folders deep to arrive at our tummy tuck procedure landing page. The site architecture is solid and each plastic surgery procedure page (e.g. rhinoplasty, liposuction, facelift, etc.) is no more than a couple clicks away. So far, so good - but given all that is known about local seo (which is a very different beast than national seo) quite a bit of on-page/architecture work can still be done to further improve our local rank. So here a a couple big questions facing us at present: First, regarding format, is it a given that using geo keywords within the url indispustibly and dramatically impacts a site's local rank for the better (e.g. the #2 result for "tummy tuck" and its SHENANIGANS level use of "NYC", "Manhattan", "newyorkcity" etc.)? Assuming that it is, would we be better off updating our cosmetic procedure landing page urls to "/albany-tummy-tuck" or "/albany-ny-tummy-tuck" or "/tummy-tuck-albany" etc.? Second, regarding structure, would we be better off locating every procedure page within the root directory (re: "/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/") or within each procedure's proper parent category (re: "/facial-rejuvenation/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/")? From what I've read within the SEOmoz Q&A, adding that parent category (e.g. "/breast-enhancement/breast-lift") is better than having every link in the root (i.e. completely flat). Third, how long before google updates their algorithm so that geo-optimized urls like http://www.kolkermd.com/newyorkplasticsurgeon/tummytucknewyorkcity.htm don't beat other sites who do not optimize so aggressively or local? Fourth, assuming that each cosmetic procedure page will eventually have strong link profiles (via diligent, long term link building efforts), is it possible that geo-targeted urls will negatively impact our ability to rank for regional or less geo-specific searches? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | WDeLuca0