Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
joined:July 19, 2001
If you are looking to develop .org is fine, if you are looking to invest or for type in traffic then as Brett says its .com or die.
Have people outside the USA at least heard of CraigsList.org? Probably a fair number. It's a phenomena. It's the wrecker of newspaper empires. Note that the .com version of CraigsList resolves to the .Org.
Have you heard or read about Wikipedia.ORG? Internet users are aware of it and "its .Org".
Do internet users "Know what it's (.Org) intended to represent?"
I'll venture a guess that folks have some notion that .Org is best known as a gTLD employed by NPOs, organizations other than NPOs, quasi-government sites, educational sites, etc.
Is CraigsList.org commercial or charitable? Some of both, which might be an ideal "other use" of .Org, that is, build a .Org site primarily concerned with educational/social/public good and weave into the site a means or method to generate enough income to make the operation of the website self-sufficent and sustainable.
Somewhat like CraigsList.org does. Most everything is free. A relatively small amount of "commerce" generates enough income to keep the site "mostly free".
"Dot com or die" IS the battle cry or mentality of domainers looking for the best commercial bang for their buck. .Org works nicely for web development with a somewhat different mindset, and usually as a far less costly entry price.
Craig Newmark, of CraigsList, likely lives a comfortable life, employs a few dozen people, and has some money in the bank. I don't know that anyone - other than newspaper magnates - begrudges him that since, at the end of the day, what he created has likely saved people billions of dollars they would otherwise have had to spend to list their used stuff for sale in printed newspapers.
[edited by: Webwork at 2:58 pm (utc) on July 23, 2009]
Familiar like "Do most NPOs / non-profit organizations, especially ones that have a global reach (Examples: RedCross.org, Oxfam.org, Unicef.org, etc.), operate under the .Org gTLD"?
I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes", and therefore I suspect quite a few internet users has some degree of awareness of .Org.
I can attest that some are indeed interested in .org domains - one of the world's largest relief organizations recently bought a .org domain name from me. They weren't willing to pay very much though :) Only $300
It could have been good to have .org's, but in the domain boon, everything was flogged to whoever paid for it first.
What is more recognizable then .org...even .com? www
What are the arguments against having www in a domain's URL? Pit that against www's recognizably...really the only thing I can see as being an issue (I always redirect non-www to www personally).
I don't see any issues with www.example.org though I think there is a reasonably percentage of people who won't know it's a website if you exclude the www, even when they attempt to type it in to the address bar with auto-complete.
I say go with .org if you're using it for an organization and keep the www to be safe. :)
As for www., I personally redirect the other way. I think people can tell that example.com is a website, but they sometimes add www. People are getting used to not using it because so many websites now use multiple subdomains.
The objection to www. is that it makes urls longer for no good reason.
For non IT content, i'd only go for dotcom. I've met a lot of people having problems with wwwdot, and i don't expect they're better at dotorg.
joined:June 3, 2007
Surely Org or organisation is a word that is known by nearly all Latin speakers?
I'm in Europe and I find in general that most people are generally au fait/at ease with the Net these days and that many people, in fact I would go as far as to say 51+% of people, understand the various domain extensions and especially so for their own countries.
Go to the Netherlands or Germany and see how many .coms you see v .nl and .de and the same is happening in the UK with .co.uk and as for .fr, hardly a French company would be seen without one etc.
If you treat people as being stupid then they will be stupid however my experience is that many casual users know exactly what they are doing...I'm not saying they do it perfectly nor necessarily understand fully what it is they are doing but at least they can make sense of what it is they want to do.
A very BIG YMMV :-)
org = #*$! (in India)
.com possibly means nothing in hindi and many different cultures too, but people are familiar with it.
I met a lot of people who thought that URL must be:
"http://" + "www. " + $name + ".com ".
Did you ever see a friend who shout at you when you type 'gmail.com' or 'm.gmail.com'? They believe it's a wrong address. Instead, they type in 'http://www.m.gmail.com".
So, i'd always go for .com .
facebook, youtube are great examples to show that even after the bubble in late 90s, there's still lot of good .com names available for creative brains. I've recently made three new websites and all of them go for .com with quite easy-to-remember names.
...even after the bubble in late 90s, there's still lot of good .com names available for creative brains. I've recently made three new websites and all of them go for .com with quite easy-to-remember names.
I absolutely positively agree with you on this. Sure, all the one-word-hot-topic domain names are probably taken. But if you think about it you can still come up with some good ones. Two months ago I came up with a new, 3-word slogan for my site. I was shocked to find out that the phrase was available in .com, .net, .org and .us. The whole phrase is only ten characters long, so the names are short and it's not an awkward phrase. Apropos to this topic, I only purchased the .com and the .us, because I don't care so much for the others.
Another good place to check for decent available names is in the auctions. Among those million-dollar names that make you ask, "what are these people thinking?" you can also find some pretty good deals. I've seen for under $100, 3-letter .net names that would be really hot for Twitter/SMS applications. I've seen 3-letter .us names for under $20 that would be even better.
Not always correct, IMO. I have a number of dot-org sites which get good amounts of typein traffic, especially in some categories such as health and disease conditions (and others) where org works especially well.
joined:June 3, 2007
.COM is king, always has been and always will be.
I don't really want to raise this again however it depends where you are located. Possibly in the USA it is King just as .de is in Germany, .nl in Holland etc...we do not all live in the USA.
When I construct a UK-focussed website I do not even consider the .com as a recommendation. Of course if it is available it is purchased and pointed AT the .co.uk.
Sure my main B&M site is a .com since I've had it since 1994 however I also have the .asia, .cn, .co.uk, .in, .us and a few others which rank equally as well as the .com.
some categories such as health and disease conditions (and others) where org works especially well.
This is very true at a subliminal level, I know when I have researched health that I DO notice the .org and tend to go to those sites since they give the air of "impartiality" and not-for-profit.
Crazy, but true...maybe it's just me!