.info are the new .com in the directory biz?

well it`s because .info cost less than 1$.....

 

But if it looks the same and costs less? What difference would it make?

 

It's hard to find good directories today. Most of those .info's are some PR 0 dirs with no links or traffic just made because the webmaster was bored.

 

Ironically, the watch stops working after a year.

 

And in the end, you get what you paid for. Good point!

 

I own a .info for a gift site... I couldn't care less about the extension because it was the domain keywords I was after. It does just as well as any other site I have. The 99 cents I paid for it was a bonus but I will have to pay full price to renew it... And of course I will renew it after all of the promotion I did with it.

 

i am so that they will be immediately employable LOL...

 

- I think it is better to use .com instead of .info domains for directories (especially if you are planning on keeping the directory for a while).

 

google doesnt pay almost any attention to .info domains! So it is exact opposite of your idea

 

Could you elaborate? Any proof?

I have .info website that is on page 1 of Google for main keyword. It's quality of your website and quality of backlinks you have what matters not your domain extension.

 

I tend to agree. Google is interested in sites that are useful to people. If they have .info as a factor it is only one of a thousand and wouldn't have much weight.

 

My blog is a .info domain. I owned a .org domain previously and I see no difference.

I bought my .info domain for 5 years, and plan to renew it when it comes time...it will always be my domain if I can help it.

however my blog is an "informational" site.

most sites with .com, .net, and org extensions are actually not follwing the ICANN guidelines

.com = commerical private business sites and business selling goods or services.

.net = ISP, DNS providers, web hosts, and other network infrastructure providors.

.org = non-profit organizations and charity organizations

.info = sites that provide information

technically..ALL news sites like CBS, NBC, fox, etc should ALL be listed under the .info TLD

unfortunately .info did not exist when these new stations went online, however if it did..thats where they would belong

I think it depends solely on what your web site is about.

Snopes for example should NOT be snopes.com

it should be snopes.info...snopes is NOT selling any products or services, its is an informational site and should be listed under the .info extension

 

Wow, someone finally gets it. You probably own the first edition of Oreilly and Associates "DNS and BIND" too right?

Back when we started our business we had to use .net
That is what was required. All that existed was .net, .com, and .org oh and .edu, but you had to be a 4 year degree granting accredited university to achieve that, and we know no one follows that rule anymore.

Hence we ended up with mia.net not mia.com. Incidentally some BBS down in Miami used Mia.Com and some years later tried to extort a million bucks out of us to buy it. In reality under the old guidelines they simply were not allowed to have it in the first place based on their organizational structure.

Anyway, I see no logical reason for one TLD to be any more or less valuable or popular in the eyes of an SE.

 

Matt Cutts review on webpronews but i dont have direct link

 

It'll be better for you to use .COM domains for directories rather than .INFO domains. You won't have to worry about a lot of SEO work if you use a .com domain compared to doing a lot of SEO for an .info domain.

Yugo,