value of a .name extension
pixiemo...@hotmail.com
Hi I have a new online business selling astrology reports.I have
identified the keyword terms "astrology reports" as the number 1
keyword focus for me.I have found that the I can purchase the domain
name: www.astrologyreports.name for very cheap. What is the value of
a .name url on Google vs. a .com ?
Also, I am considering the domain name www.astrologyreports.net for a
fair sum of money. What is the value of of .net extension vs. a .com?
mogga
wrote:
Aren't .name for names?
I think anything outside the normal range of endings (.com and .co.uk
for UK) looks bizarre.
In fact they should have .madeup and .silly
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk
Andrew Heenan
astrologyreports and astrology reports are not quite the same thing.
'name' is for personal sites, and there may be some disadvantages in
misusing that domain.
In general, .com trumps all - so don't buy a domain if you cannot get
the .com
I'm sure there's plenty of other possibilities for your site; brainstorm
with a friend or two and bottle of wine, then - the following day -
arrange the names you came up with in order of preference and start
trying to buy.
You'll be amazed - I've never got beyond three searches.
Good Luck, and "Cheers!"
Andrew
Big Bill
wrote:
>
People are more likely to assume .com if they can't remember what it
actually is. I never heard of .name. It may well exist though, just to
make money for registrars. They'll be introducing .wonga extensions
next. In .net vs .com .com is better. Values are things you need to be
enquiring after on a domaining forum, not here. If you want us to
answer from an SEO POV, you can SEO a .name just as well as a .com.
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/
SEOwebMarket.com
> Hi I have a new online business selling astrology reports.I have
> identified the keyword terms "astrology reports" as the number 1
> keyword focus for me.I have found that the I can purchase the domain
> a .name url on Google vs. a .com ?
>
> fair sum of money. What is the value of of .net extension vs. a .com?
It seems that a lot of people get confused by domain name extensions.
Most TLDNE are logical and self-explanatory.
A chart describing what the top-level domain name extensions (TLDNE)
mean:
http://seowebmarket.com/domain-name-extensions.shtml
I use a .name for personal use ...
http://brettsyverson.name/music/kings-of-rock.shtml
but I sure wouldn't waste my time marketing a .name
Andrew was right on when he wrote "there may be some disadvantages in
misusing that domain (.name for commercial use)" - but Glenlivet on
ice will produce much better results than the wine.
SEO Dave
> Hi I have a new online business selling astrology reports.I have
> identified the keyword terms "astrology reports" as the number 1
> keyword focus for me.I have found that the I can purchase the domain
> a .name url on Google vs. a .com ?
>
> Also, I am considering the domain name www.astrologyreports.net for a
> fair sum of money. What is the value of of .net extension vs. a .com?
.name not a good idea for a business, they are for personal names.
Nothing wrong with a .net domain (not the one above, but generally),
but from an SEO perspective the above is a poor choice because as
Andrew said (but didn't explain in enough detail for the OP to
understand) astrologyreports is not the same as astrology reports to a
search engine.
When Google parses www.astrologyreports.net it sees-
www astrologyreports net
Do people wanting to buy yor product mostly search for the word
astrologyreports because that's what that domain says to Google, it
can't see the words you want it to see (does not see "astrology
reports").
If you use a hyphen (-) as a word separator Google can parse the words
you want it to 'see' in the domain name. This means you want a domain
along the lines of-
www.astrology-reports.tld Since Google sees this as-
www astrology reports tld
See http://www.seo-gold.com/seo-tutorial/domain-name-choice for more
details.
Fortunately there are quite a few options available (.biz for example)
without having to spend a small fortune on a worthless domain like the
one you considered buying above (not worth the registration fee I'm
afraid).
If your UK based even better as the .co.uk is available. Being UK
based I tend to go for .co.uk if I can, they tend to do well in
google.co.uk for me.
SEOwebMarket.com
services.co.uk> wrote:
> When Google parseswww.astrologyreports.netit sees-
>
> www astrologyreports net
>
> Do people wanting to buy yor product mostly search for the word
> astrologyreports because that's what that domain says to Google, it
> can't see the words you want it to see (does not see "astrology
> reports").
>
> If you use a hyphen (-) as a word separator Google can parse the words
> you want it to 'see' in the domain name. This means you want a domain
> along the lines of-
That is generally correct - WHEN pertaining to text content - NOT
domains ANYMORE.
The recent black-hat tactic of using hyphenated domain names recently
flopped. Those of us that read SEO forums know that many hyphenated
domains recently lost ranks after algorithm updates near the end of
2007.
> www.astrology-reports.tld Since Google sees this as-
>
> www astrology reports tld
Either way, "astrology-reports" or "astrologyreports" will be BOLDED
in Google SERPs - proving this black-hat technique to be nothing more
than a waste of time and productivity.
By HYPHEN the HYPHEN way HYPHEN, what HYPHEN is HYPHEN your HYPHEN
website?
> google-adsense-templates.co.uk/
Don't count on black-hat techniques,
if you care about your company's future.
SEO Dave
wrote:
> On Apr 27, 8:04 pm, SEO Dave <seo-d...@search-engine-optimization-
>
> services.co.uk> wrote:
> > When Google parseswww.astrologyreports.netitsees-
>
> > www astrologyreports net
>
> > Do people wanting to buy yor product mostly search for the word
> > astrologyreports because that's what that domain says to Google, it
> > can't see the words you want it to see (does not see "astrology
> > reports").
>
> > If you use a hyphen (-) as a word separator Google can parse the words
> > you want it to 'see' in the domain name. This means you want a domain
> > along the lines of-
>
> That is generally correct - WHEN pertaining to text content - NOT
> domains ANYMORE.
>
> The recent black-hat tactic of using hyphenated domain names recently
> flopped. Those of us that read SEO forums know that many hyphenated
> domains recently lost ranks after algorithm updates near the end of
> 2007.
>
>
> > www astrology reports tld
>
> Either way, "astrology-reports" or "astrologyreports" will be BOLDED
> in Google SERPs - proving this black-hat technique to be nothing more
> than a waste of time and productivity.
>
So your evidence is Google bolds the words in a Google search right?
That's not proof, show me some SERPs that could have ONLY been gained
through non-hyphenated words within a domain name. You have to rule
out those words found within the content and from the anchor text of
incomming links.
You also have to rule out misspellings like
musicR ed
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=musicR+ed&btnG=Search
Which Google treats as Music Ed (ignored the R)
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=music+ed&spell=1
So you have to find a non hyphenated domain name which is made of
multiple words like
bestrockband.tld
which lacks those words in the content (best rock band) and lacks
links using those words as anchor text and Google doesn't treat the
search (best rock band) as a mis spelling.
If you can find that domain listed for a search like this you have
some evidence. I've not seen a search like that yet, though not looked
for a few months so you never know.
Have fun with that little task.
> By HYPHEN the HYPHEN way HYPHEN, what HYPHEN is HYPHEN your HYPHEN
> website?
>
> > google-adsense-templates.co.uk/
>
> Don't count on black-hat techniques,
> if you care about your company's future.
OMG using a hyphen is blackhat, what next adding content isn't
whitehat, the content should grow all by itself after a liberal
sprinkling of pixie dust :-)
Care to explain-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Google+Adsense+Templates
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=Adsense+Templates&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=Google+templates
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=AdSense+themes&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=WordPress+Adsense+Templates
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=WordPress+Adsense+Themes
David
--
More blackhat Tom foolery http://www.free-recipes.co.uk/ (over 10K
visitors a day)
Andrew Heenan
> That is generally correct - WHEN pertaining to text content - NOT
> domains ANYMORE.
>
> The recent black-hat tactic of using hyphenated domain names recently
> flopped. Those of us that read SEO forums know that many hyphenated
> domains recently lost ranks after algorithm updates near the end of
> 2007.
>
>> www.astrology-reports.tld Since Google sees this as-
>>
>> www astrology reports tld
Not true.
Google can parse nonhyphenated domain names, but can also see the
*difference* between nonhyphenated and hyphenated.
So there's a good chance that the hyphenated will do better, as it is
*exactly* the term that is searched for, so will tend to feature above a
secondary match.
Also there is absolutely nothing black hat, dihonest or cheating about
hyphens; that's fear talking.
But all things in moderation:
Remember Quadrille's Oft-Quoted 14th Law
"More than one hyphen is international shorthand for idiot webmaster;
More than two hyphens is Galaxy-wide shorthand for 'I'd be a spammer if
only I knew how' "
Who's counting? Not me. But it's the look of the thing; would you really
spend money at
http://my-wonderful-domain.info/my-supa-folda/And-anotherfolda/boring-file.com?
- http://www.seo2seo.com/articles/quadrilles-law.shtml
Good Luck
Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/*
*And idiot webmaster ;o)
Andrew Heenan
> OMG using a hyphen is blackhat, what next adding content isn't
> whitehat, the content should grow all by itself after a liberal
> sprinkling of pixie dust :-)
Don't worry, he's alone in his urban myth.
There's no doubt that the .info brigade have given it a bad name, but
that'ss not quite the same thing.
Remember the days when it was 'cool' to use under_score.com?
As we cannot use spaces%20yet, a hyphen is much more 'natural' - and
readable - thanrunningitallintogether
Tragically, that's still 'kewl' to some folk.
Andrew
SEOwebMarket.com
> SEO Dave wrote:
> > OMG using a hyphen is blackhat
>
or maybe I'm just getting my information from articles written in
2008.
http://news.google.com/news?q=hyphenated+domain+names
Adding complications to your website in an attempt to get more traffic
is futile. The hyphenated domain names were just a blackhat fad that
Google now sees as equal (since late 2007) - yet more complicated
versions of the same-HYPHEN-exact-HYPHEN-thing.
Based on many reports of falling ranks for hyphenated domain names
around Christmas 2007: stay the HYPHEN away from them and denounce
anyone who advises the use of hyphens in a domain name.
The underscore _ was also recently rendered equal to a hyphen or space
in file names; it used to be removed, leaving no space.
Andrew Heenan
> or maybe I'm just getting my information from articles written in
> 2008.
> http://news.google.com/news?q=hyphenated+domain+names
Three cr*p articles, quoting one statement from one man who doesn't know
his arse from his elbow.
Whoopy-do (apologies for the hyphen).
> Based on many reports of falling ranks for hyphenated domain names
> around Christmas 2007: stay the HYPHEN away from them and denounce
> anyone who advises the use of hyphens in a domain name.
You are making this up as you go along, aren't you?
There's no doubt that idiot spammers do use hyphens. But they also use
links.
But even you wouldn't conclude that 'links are black hat'. Probably.
There is NOTHING black hat about hyphens, and I defy you to find just
one source with any nouse whatsover, to support your ignorance. Just one.
Remember, you are losing potential business the longer this goes on:
If you want to continue to look stupid, that's fine by me.
Over to you.
Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
Big Bill
wrote:
>SEOwebMarket.com wrote:
>> That is generally correct - WHEN pertaining to text content - NOT
>> domains ANYMORE.
>>
>> The recent black-hat tactic of using hyphenated domain names recently
>> flopped. Those of us that read SEO forums know that many hyphenated
>> domains recently lost ranks after algorithm updates near the end of
>> 2007.
>>
>>> www.astrology-reports.tld Since Google sees this as-
>>>
>>> www astrology reports tld
>
>Not true.
>Google can parse nonhyphenated domain names,
It can? Since when? This may be true but I didn't hear of it anywhere
else.
Big Bill
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>On Apr 28, 1:54 am, Andrew Heenan <andr...@heenan.net> wrote:
>> SEO Dave wrote:
>> > OMG using a hyphen is blackhat
>>
>> Don't worry, he's alone in his urban myth.
>
>or maybe I'm just getting my information from articles written in
>2008.
>
>http://news.google.com/news?q=hyphenated+domain+names
>
>Adding complications to your website in an attempt to get more traffic
>is futile. The hyphenated domain names were just a blackhat fad that
>Google now sees as equal (since late 2007) - yet more complicated
>versions of the same-HYPHEN-exact-HYPHEN-thing.
I think a little further research might indicate that
too-many-hyphens-in-a-domain-name.com is seen as spamming, but
domain-name.com would be ok.
>Based on many reports of falling ranks for hyphenated domain names
>around Christmas 2007: stay the HYPHEN away from them and denounce
>anyone who advises the use of hyphens in a domain name.
Nah, a couple is ok.
>The underscore _ was also recently rendered equal to a hyphen or space
>in file names; it used to be removed, leaving no space.
I think you'll find that while there was a lot of talk about
intentions, there's little evidence to suggest that this actually
happened. My advice would be to stick with hyphens in file names,
directory names, and one or two in a domain name also.
Bleeding hell, 6.40 pm and major thunder where I am here in Surrey -
Jez, you hear that?
Anyhoo, getting back; if you've got a domain name yadayada.com what
I'd do is get yada-yada.com too and make the one redirect to the
other. When folk link to you using yada-yada.com you'll get some
anchor text juice that way.
Big Bill
wrote:
>SEOwebMarket.com wrote:
>> or maybe I'm just getting my information from articles written in
>> 2008.
>> http://news.google.com/news?q=hyphenated+domain+names
>
>Three cr*p articles, quoting one statement from one man who doesn't know
>his arse from his elbow.
>
>Whoopy-do (apologies for the hyphen).
>
>> Based on many reports of falling ranks for hyphenated domain names
>> around Christmas 2007: stay the HYPHEN away from them and denounce
>> anyone who advises the use of hyphens in a domain name.
>
>You are making this up as you go along, aren't you?
>
>There's no doubt that idiot spammers do use hyphens. But they also use
>links.
>But even you wouldn't conclude that 'links are black hat'. Probably.
>
>There is NOTHING black hat about hyphens, and I defy you to find just
>one source with any nouse whatsover, to support your ignorance. Just one.
Too many hyphens has been called blackhat.
SEOwebMarket.com
> SEOwebMarket.com wrote:
> >http://news.google.com/news?q=hyphenated+domain+names
>
> Three cr*p articles, quoting one statement from one man who doesn't know
> his arse from his elbow.
Thats the CURRENT Google News on that topic. All of which negate your
advice.
> If you want to continue to look stupid, that's fine by me.
I'm not the one advising hyphenated domain names in a conversation
about TLDN EXTENSIONS.
On Apr 28, 12:43 pm, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
> <webm...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
> >The underscore _ was also recently rendered equal to a hyphen or space
> >in file names; it used to be removed, leaving no space.
>
> I think you'll find that while there was a lot of talk about
> intentions, there's little evidence to suggest that this actually
> happened.
"One key development that Matt shared with the audience was that
underscores in URLs are now (or at least very soon to be) treated as
word separators by Google." - June 2007
Underscores currently (2008) work only with FILE names & domains.
On Apr 28, 12:43 pm, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
> Too many hyphens has been called blackhat.
It's simpler than that. Complicating your site for humans, in an
attempt to manipulate SERPs is blackhat + foolishly decreasing
conversions. Build it for human conversions; optimize for traffic.
Regardless, adding hyphens to a domain name is typically foolish AND
definitely off-topic (AND was a blackhat fad in recent years).
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aastrology-reports.com+astrology+reports
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aastrologyreports.com+astrology+reports
BOTH domains bolded in Google SERPs.
Big Bill
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>On Apr 28, 3:05 am, Andrew Heenan <andr...@heenan.net> wrote:
>> SEOwebMarket.com wrote:
>> >http://news.google.com/news?q=hyphenated+domain+names
>>
>> Three cr*p articles, quoting one statement from one man who doesn't know
>> his arse from his elbow.
>
>Thats the CURRENT Google News on that topic. All of which negate your
>advice.
>
>> If you want to continue to look stupid, that's fine by me.
>
>I'm not the one advising hyphenated domain names in a conversation
>about TLDN EXTENSIONS.
>
>On Apr 28, 12:43 pm, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>> <webm...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>> >The underscore _ was also recently rendered equal to a hyphen or space
>> >in file names; it used to be removed, leaving no space.
>>
>> I think you'll find that while there was a lot of talk about
>> intentions, there's little evidence to suggest that this actually
>> happened.
>
>"One key development that Matt shared with the audience was that
>underscores in URLs are now (or at least very soon to be) treated as
>word separators by Google." - June 2007
I remember that bit.
>Underscores currently (2008) work only with FILE names & domains.
Says who? Source?
>On Apr 28, 12:43 pm, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>> Too many hyphens has been called blackhat.
>
>It's simpler than that. Complicating your site for humans, in an
>attempt to manipulate SERPs is blackhat + foolishly decreasing
>conversions. Build it for human conversions; optimize for traffic.
>
>Regardless, adding hyphens to a domain name is typically foolish AND
>definitely off-topic (AND was a blackhat fad in recent years).
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aastrology-reports.com+astrology+reports
>http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aastrologyreports.com+astrology+reports
>
>BOTH domains bolded in Google SERPs.
Bolded in Google SERPS may well mean just that, bolded. I don't see
firm evidence to the contrary yet.
Andrew Heenan
> Regardless, adding hyphens to a domain name is typically foolish AND
> definitely off-topic (AND was a blackhat fad in recent years).
Ah, the retreat begins.
You stated - more than once - that hyphenated domain names was black hat.
Now it's a black hat fad.
That's rather different, and exactly waht *I* said; it was favoured by
idiot spammers; but that in itself does not (and never did) make it
black hat.
Reality always wins; I guess the apology got lost in that post.
And I wholly agree that Google has changed the rules on how it sees
runningin and under_scores (in fact, I already stated that a couple of
posts back).
But Google STILL looks first for the *exact* term specified, and there
IS difference between the results, so it DOES matter.
Search for [SEOwebMarket], [SEO-web-Market], [SEO_web_Market],
[SEO.web.Market]
The results are NOT identical. This has implications for webmasters when
selecting domain names, and for SEOs.
In my view, there are circumstances where hyphens look better and read
better than runningon, though I freely accept (and have repeated ad
nauseam), that this has been abused, especially by the .info
get-rich-quick-by-buying-my-stupid-ebook-brigade.
Lest I start sounding as fixated as you, I'm now going to opt out of
this thread. You will, of course, have the last word ... try not waste
it by looking silly ;o)
--
Andrew
John Bokma
> "One key development that Matt shared with the audience was that
> underscores in URLs are now (or at least very soon to be) treated as
> word separators by Google." - June 2007
>
> Underscores currently (2008) work only with FILE names & domains.
AFAIK, you can't use an _ in a domain name.
As for FILE names, there is no way that Google or any other SE can see
what baz is in:
/foo/bar/baz
> BOTH domains bolded in Google SERPs.
Has been discussed a gazillion times: the bolding is just a highlighting
technique.
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/
Big Bill
Looks like there was only us paying attention :-(
SEOwebMarket.com
> "SEOwebMarket.com" <webm...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
> > "One key development that Matt shared with the audience was that
> > underscores in URLs are now (or at least very soon to be) treated as
> > word separators by Google." - June 2007
>
Clarification: if you search for an underscore = exact results from
page content. if you search for a multiword phrase with spaces = you
can now find that phrase in an URL with underscored "word separators"
in addition to dashes (only since late 2007).
http://searchengineland.com/070802-125851.php
> > BOTH domains bolded in Google SERPs.
>
> Has been discussed a gazillion times: the bolding is just a highlighting
> technique.
It's "highlighted" BECAUSE it IS a "match".
SEOwebMarket.com
> On 29 Apr 2008 14:24:09 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
> Looks like there was only us paying attention :-(
"I never heard of .name. It may well exist though," - Big Bill
I'm here to help the OP, not to tutor amateurs.
dk_sz
There is nothing black-hat (oops sorry) about hyphens.
Blackhat is used when trying to "cheat" a search engine.
There is nothing cheatish about splitting words to help
search engines read words in a domain and/or file name.
Thus hyphens aren't blackhat. It is at most unnecessary.
(Thus possibly infinitely minutely negative for ranking. )
I can just as easily say it is black-hat not to hyphen.
Afterall, hyphens can ease readability in some cases.
See the point? Hyphens are neither white or black.
Ofcourse, if you overdo it insanely, then sure, it may
count negative. But still not black-hat in and by itself.
--
best regards
Thomas Schulz :: A1 Sitemap Generator now
http://www.micro-sys.dk/products/sitemap-generator/
Big Bill
Is that you Bret?
Big Bill
>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:02:45 -0700 (PDT), "SEOwebMarket.com"
><web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 29 Apr 2008 14:24:09 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like there was only us paying attention :-(
>>
>>"I never heard of .name. It may well exist though," - Big Bill
>>
>>I'm here to help the OP, not to tutor amateurs.
>
>Is that you Bret?
>
>BB
It's Bret! He's back! The abusive personal emails have begun!
SEOwebMarket.com
> He's back! The abusive personal emails have begun!
asking you privately to ACT RIGHT is hardly abusive. your ad hominem
attack, slander, libel and lies don't make you any more qualified to
help the OP OF THIS THREAD (not to mention your "abusive" publishing
of my personal information in an intentional attempt to harm me). this
tool would be much more valuable if immature people like yourself
weren't diluting informational posts with your royal worthlessness.
try to stay on topic please - if you remember what it was...
Don't insult me when you have yet to post a single fiber of
intelligence in this entire thread.
>"I never heard of .name. It may well exist though," - Big Bill
If you don't have anything intelligent to say, you're worthless here.
try alt.big.bully
Jez
>
> If you don't have anything intelligent to say, you're worthless here.
> try alt.big.bully
Nah, you'd never catch Bill in there - he's often at alt.big.billy though :)
Jez.
Big Bill
We miss you when you aren't around, Bret :-)
SEOwebMarket.com
> We miss you when you aren't around, Bret :-)
I sincerely wish I could say the same about you.
Big Bill
Because I'm always around :-) :-) ?
SEOwebMarket.com
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:38:51 -0700 (PDT), "SEOwebMarket.com"
> >> We miss you when you aren't around, Bret :-)
>
> >I sincerely wish I could say the same about you.
>
> Because I'm always around :-) :-) ?
I'm always around, too. The difference is that I only post INTELLIGENT
ANSWERS for good questions by good people on topics that I am
QUALIFIED to discuss - unlike a few trolls who decrease productivity
by treating this forum as their personal chatroom playground while
diluting INTELLIGENT DISCUSSIONS with mindless IRRELEVANT fluff.
If you don't even know what a .name is - do you honestly think the OP
(or anyone else reading this thread) cares about your input? Those who
CAN offer decent advice about "internet-search-engines" at least have
a vague idea of what the TLDN's are.
Big Bill
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>On May 2, 7:46 am, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:38:51 -0700 (PDT), "SEOwebMarket.com"
>
>> >> We miss you when you aren't around, Bret :-)
>>
>> >I sincerely wish I could say the same about you.
>>
>> Because I'm always around :-) :-) ?
>
>I'm always around, too. The difference is that I only post INTELLIGENT
>ANSWERS for good questions by good people on topics that I am
>QUALIFIED to discuss - unlike a few trolls who decrease productivity
>by treating this forum as their personal chatroom playground while
>diluting INTELLIGENT DISCUSSIONS with mindless IRRELEVANT fluff.
>
>If you don't even know what a .name is - do you honestly think the OP
>(or anyone else reading this thread) cares about your input?
Yup.
> Those who
>CAN offer decent advice about "internet-search-engines" at least have
>a vague idea of what the TLDN's are.
As do I. I have a vague idea, couldn't name them myself I don't think.
I optimise, Bret, I take pages apart and I rebuild them. I take sites
apart and I rebuild them too. You think I couldn't do better with a
.name that had good content and was well-optimised than an irrelevant
and badly-optimised .com? You're missing the point again :-)
SEOwebMarket.com
> > Those who
> > CAN offer decent advice about "internet-search-engines" at least have
> > a vague idea of what the TLDN's are.
>
> You're missing the point again :-)
The "point" is advising the OP about HIS .name extension.
Who's missing it?