Why doesn't everyone just purchase a .org tld?
-
Hi,
I am new-ish to SEO, and something just dawned on me today. I have read in many places that .org domains rank higher (even if slightly) than .coms.
Then why doesn't everyone just purchase .org TLDs?
For example, in my industry, most good .com domain names are taken, but .orgs are almost all free. Why not purchase a .org and capitalize on exact match search results?
seomoz is .org and it's far from being a non-profit
-
vishalkhialani, a quick note that only higher education institutions can get a .edu extension, it's not available to just anyone who wants to pick one up.
-
Thank you for your detailed reply Ryan.
I see what you're saying. I was thinking of .org domains mainly for the exact search term match domain names. If .org had any other inherent advantages, it would be a small bonus.
Since on-page is a very strong factor for my target keywords, I think this might give me some advantages.
-
Hi Elad.
Alan's answer is 100% correct. A .org site has absolutely no inherit value greater or less then a .com site with respect to search engine ranking. In fact, all the domains ranging from .net, .info, .edu, .gov etc all have the same value, zero. The value they gain is by building your site, adding content and earning links.
Where a particular domain has increased value is in public perception. A .com is seen as the legitimate business domain, which is as the domain was intended. Think of any major business such as McDonalds, Walmart, Facebook, Google, ATT, etc. and simply add a .com to it, you will land on the company's site. That is not the case of any other domain.
In that sense, .org is seen as for non-profits, .edu for educational institutions, and so forth. This is the public perception and it is by design. If you attempt to run a .org as a commercial site, you are likely to lose some traffic due to people not willing to conduct normal commercial business (i.e. shop online) with a .org site. SEOmoz pulls it off nicely in large part because of all the free SEO offerings: blog articles, Q&A, tools, etc. The basic services are offered for free and users can pay for upgrades. This business model combined with an exceptionally friendly organization and customer service works, but most businesses would not be able to pull it off.
With respect to an exact match, an Exact Match Domain (EMD) has been devalued and it is ridiculously overvalued by people who do not understand SEO. The domain name is one of over 200 ranking factors. You will find all the best names such as "insurance.org" have been taken. If you find a name left, it is because no one else wants it. The bottom line, the amount of traffic you can obtain with the EMD is not worth the effort it takes to provide the content and backlinks to make it work. You will receive a ranking boost for the exact match search, but not the rest of the searches for your site.
You clearly have a firm belief a .org site is advantageous. I am certain it is not, but feel free to purchase the domain and prove us all wrong. You clearly will have a bargain as there are plenty of domains available.
-
another view point is why don't you thin about the end user ?
What is it that you are selling or service your are providing ?
Example : if you are selling your consultancy services then i wud go for .com educational .edu.
Why ? cause of linkbait. Other edu will link to another edu but .com or .org might not get it.
-
-
That's just not true, as sad as it may be. $6.99 on GoDaddy, not questions asked. Even cheaper than a .com.
-
I know, my question is why not use it anyway?
-
Well... if two sites have more or less the same level of trust in the eyes of Google, I am betting the .org will get a little nudge.
-
-
Even if that is true (and I'm not sure it is), I was thinking of getting .org for the exact search match, more than for the .org-ness of them.
-
-
cause you can't get .org tld easily.
-
What ever said and done .org is considered more for non profit .com is more for commercial. Even if seomoz.org has it the other way.
-
its not true that .org gets higher rankings.
-
-
.orgs and .edus do not rank higher just because they're .orgs. or .edus. They rank high when they are truly worthy sites that have content of tremendous value and earn trust signals on a large scale naturally as a result of the quality they offer.
.orgs rank when they're purely focused in a laser-focus type way on the topic central to their non-profit mission. They earn links simply by offering some significant positive contribution to the world. They earn social media mentions for the same reason. People who care about the topic the site focuses on naturally want to share that and point to it and discuss it.
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
-
Are you seeing 404's from utililab.mysearchguardian.com?
I've been noticing a lot of 404's popping up in my Google Webmaster accounts coming from utililab.mysearchguardian.com. Utililab itself seems to be some sort of malware, but why is Google indexing it and sending 404's?
Algorithm Updates | | EthanThompson0 -
URL in SERP: Google's stand
Months back, we can notice "keyword" will be bold and highlighted if its in the SERP URL. Now Google no more highlights any URLs even with exact match of keyword we search. Beside UI, Does this mean Google might devalued or reduced the importance of URL as ranking factor? We can see many search results match partially or completely in URL with search keywords.
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
What do you think of SearchMetrics' claim that there are no longer universal ranking factors?
I agree that Google's machine learning/AI means that Google is using a more dynamic set of factors to match searcher intent to content, but this claim feels like an overstatement: Let’s be quite clear: Except for important technical standards, there are no longer any specifc factors
Algorithm Updates | | AdamThompson
or benchmark values that are universally valid for all online marketers and SEOs. Instead, there
are different ranking factors for every single industry, or even every single search query. And these
now change continuously. Keyword-relevant content, backlinks, etc. still seem to be ranking factors across pretty much all queries/industries. For example, I can't think of a single industry where it would be a good idea to try to rank for [keyword] without including [keyword] in the visible text of the page. Also, websites that rank without any backlinks are incredibly rare (unheard of for competitive terms). Doubtless some factors change (eg Google may favor webpages with images for a query like "best hairstyle for men" but not for another query), but other factors still seem to apply to all queries (or at least 95%+). Thoughts?0 -
Does Google's Information Box Seem Shady to you?
So I just had this thought, Google returns information boxes for certain search terms. Recently I noticed one word searches usually return a definition. For example if you type in the word "occur" or "happenstance" or "frustration" you get a definition information box. But what I didn't see is a reference to where they are getting or have gotten this information. Now it could very well be they built their own database of definitions, and if they did great, but here is where it seems a bit grey to me... Did Google hire a team of people to populate the database, or did they just write an algorithm to comb a dictionary website and stick the information in their database. The latter seems more likely. If that is what happened then Google basically stole the information from somebody to claim it as their own, which makes me worry, if you coin a term, lets say "lumpy stumpy" and it goes mainstream which would entail a lot of marketing, and luck. Would Google just add it to its database and forgo giving you credit for its creation? From a user perspective I love these information boxes, but just like Google expects us webmasters to do, they should be giving credit where credit is due... don't you think? I'm not plugged in to the happenings of Google so maybe they bought the rights, or maybe they bought or hold a majority of shares in some definition type company (they have the cash) but it just struck me as odd not seeing a reference to a site. What are your thoughts?
Algorithm Updates | | donford1 -
Google's spell check recognize a keyword with volume
When the keyword "acls recertification" (an important keyword for our client) is typed into the Google search box, the word "recertification" is underlined in red. Note that you only need to type "acls rec" to make the red underline appear.BUT, Google does not underline the word "recertification" when it is typed into the search box alone, nor does Google underline the word "recertification" when the following keywords are searched: cpr recertification bls recertification pals recertification ^These are all closely related to the keyword "acls recertification," so this spell check behavior is very inconsistent.Why does this matter? Because no matter how close you come to typing "acls recertification," Google's autocomplete suggestions never include "acls recertification" (because of the perceived misspelling?).BUT, Google does suggest "acls recertification online" in the dropdown menu. If you select the "acls recertification online" suggestion then backspace until the word "online" is gone, the red underline disappears, and "acls recertification" becomes an autocomplete suggestion. VERY strange behavior...I have replicated this issue on various depersonalized browsers and devices, so I am confident that this is not related to my personal settings.This keyword contributes to a large portion of our client's business (they specialize in acls certification and recertification), so you can imagine how concerning this is for us. Note that until very recently (3-4 months ago), this keyword did NOT have any spell-check issues. This keyword averages 2400 searches per month according to AdWords which should be enough volume to allow Google to recognize the correct spellingI posted this issue in the Google product forums, where I was advised to submit feedback directly on the search results page via Google's "feedback" link. I have submitted this feedback to Google, but I thought I would bring this to the MOZ community as well to see if anyone has experienced a similar issue, or has any ideas as to what could be causing this issue.
Algorithm Updates | | RyanKent0 -
How Do I Optimize with Google's Video Search?
Hi everyone, I am looking here https://developers.google.com/webmasters/videosearch/schema and I don't fully understand. Could someone please explain, step by step, what I have to do to optimize for Google video search? I.e. Step 1 do this Step 2 do this. I don't fully understand Thank you!
Algorithm Updates | | jhinchcliffe0 -
Dropped off cliff for a partic keyword & can't find out why
At the beginning of Dec we ranked consistently in the top 3 for the keyword 'Suffolk' for the site www.suffolktouristguide.com (apge rank 4, thousands of quality inboud links, site age 5 years +). Since then we've been falling off a cliff and today aren't even in the top 50 for this search term, but most of our othr search terms are unaffected. Our SEOMoz grade remains A for 'Suffolk' and we haven't changed anything in that time that could have had such a material effect (knowingly at least). A similar issue happened to my other site www.suffolkhotelsguide.com back in April and it hasn't recovered despite grade A's on the homepage and key pages. We've checked internal broken links, page download times, external links (used the disavow tool and reconsideration request and got back 'We reviewed your site and found no manual actions by the webspam team that might affect your site's ranking in Google'); etc etc Any thoughts on what I can try next? All suggestions appreciated as I am completely stuck (& have spent a fortune on 'SEO experts' to no effect).
Algorithm Updates | | SarahinSuffolk0 -
Let's talk about link networks
With the recent deindexing of blog/link networks, I was hoping to get the Q&A's take on what defines a link network. Are all link building services using link networks? Would you consider something like: submitedge.com thehoth.com To use link networks? They generate links for you, but most of the time they will do it with "decent" content, on sites like Wordpress, Blogger, Squidoo and other similar sites. I don't think that most of their link sources are owned internally, but I could be wrong. Some of them use profile links to send links to their articles, which is garbage. Would you suggest staying away from services like this all together? I'd say that 90% of the services offered on submitedge might be junk, but a few look useful. I've seen a few people at my company have success with them, but fully understand that it could be short term, and potentially inevitable that those links get deindexed. I'd like to potentially find a good link building service that could bridge the gaps between when I have time to write content and do link building, as I know the engines like to see a steady stream of both. Any thoughts? Any other services you guys have used with some success? I am not looking for sites like fiverr or anything quick/cheap. I'd be willing to spend the appropriate money occasionally when I think I could use a few extra links, but don't think I need a regular link builder (as that's something I like to do). I also don't want to go the route of outright buying links from other websites. Cheers, Vinnie
Algorithm Updates | | vforvinnie2