|Should I develop a dot net when I donít own the dot com|
What would you do?
| 7:31 am on Dec 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
A little background:
I have a site that was hit hard by panda.
The site had a mixture of quality content and thin content. The thin content was wiped out by panda. The quality stuff was largely unaffected.
I have replaced some of the thin content with much higher quality content. Google has ignored the improved pages for the last three months. The improved pages use the same url as the old thin pages.
I have a significant number of new and improved articles that I can post at any time. I was lucky enough to find some talented writers that product very good articles.
I happen upon a much better domain name that is both keyword rich and brandable.
The only problem is that it is the dot net version.
The dot com is owned by someone else (he has 7,000 domains) and I have zero chance of getting it at a price I can afford.
The dot com version has a place holder site up but is nowhere to be found in Google. Interestingly the site doesnít have any ads. It is basically a mashup of rss feeds. He has a bunch of other sites that are templated exactly the same with different rss feeds. I have no idea how the sites are paying for themselves.
Would you develop the new domain knowing that you would probably never get the dot com version?
Or would you continue to improve the original domain and hope Google recognizes your efforts?
I am inclined to move to the new domain because of the better keywords and brandability. I also like the idea of starting over with a quality site from the start. However, I am concerned about type in traffic and the possibility of the dot com owner developing his site to funnel off some of my traffic.
| 8:43 am on Dec 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Creating a .net is not a bad idea, IMO, as I have done this for several clients with no adverse effect.
Another thing to consider is .co. Some of my clients have gotten domain names similar to branded names and have done as well if not better than the branded names in SERPs, though that could be an SEO issue also.
Third is simply create new pages to replace your thin ones, put the articles in them, and make a permanent 301 redirect to the new pages.
One thing I have noticed with Google is, since Panda, new sites and pages seem to be doing better than older ones, barring the big name sites, though I am sure there are people who would disagree.
| 9:43 pm on Dec 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
No problem, I've developed several successful .net sites, in fact I actually prefer the look of .net over .com, don't ask why, I just think it looks more original:-)
| 10:56 pm on Dec 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the responses. I think I will develop the new site. Iíll launch on 1 Jan and start the New Year fresh. Look out internet, here comes the new and improved me. Note to Google: Iíve cleaned up my act, show me some love.
I was thinking about it today, I canít remember the last time I typed in a full internet address. The search box always seems to know where I want to go before I finish typing.
| 1:19 am on Dec 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Note to Google: Iíve cleaned up my act, show me some love. |
Sounds like the title to a song.
| 4:05 pm on Dec 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Another thing to consider is .co. Some of my clients have gotten domain names similar to branded names and have done as well if not better than the branded names in SERPs, though that could be an SEO issue also. |
Given the OP was concerned about type in bleed to .com from a .net wouldn't that be some bad advice? Didn't Overstock find that out the hard way?
To minimize bleed make sure your branding includes the extension. We've found most bleed occurs within a TLD.