.us VS .com
-
In general from what I have experienced a location specific extension such as .co.uk geo-targeted to the same location gives the best results when ranking BUT when I look at results from the US, page after page shows results of .com, surely if my above statement is true then a .us domain extension should rank better then a .com.
-
mmm I do agree to disagree from the testing I have done, I have seen better rankings for (emd).co.uk against (emd).org.uk from index.
To the point where .co.uk would rank page 1-3 and .org.uk would rank page 5+
But everyone does things differently, I tend to take .co.uk over anything else when im taking ranking factors into account.
-
I agree with SEOConsult all the way. It's all correlation. In my experience, .us domains tend to be worse (bad content, more ads, less well put together, bad user experience, etc) than .com domains, so I would expect those sites to do worse in the SERPs. It's not the .us domain that's making the sites worse in general. If you put together a terrific .us site, it would do fine.
The main issue I have with .us vs .com and .org.uk vs .co.uk is that people have to remember to enter those extensions. If you have the yourbrand.us domain, a lot of people are going to put yourbrand.com in when trying to get to your site. They may give up there.
Also, I am more likely to trust a .com domain over a .us domain, and I'm more likely to click a .com in the SERPs over a .us domain. Do you have many .us domains you ever visit? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Even del.icio.us migrated to delicious.com.
-
We all have our own views on certain aspects of SEO I guess, however I strongly view all extensions as equal value (unless of-course you're using a .us when targeting a UK audience).
-
What im saying though is if I had a choice between a EMD that was .org.uk or .co.uk I would take the .co.uk every time purely on the bases the extension's 'power' is a lot strong then a .org.uk.
For example if I had 3 new websites with the same template, same content, same title tag with the domain extension (.co.uk, .com, .org.uk) being the only difference, in a UK search im 99% sure the rankings would be as follows:
.co.uk then .com then .org.uk
-
There will be more factors than simply the extension, have you got an example you could send over where you're seeing the EMD .co.uk outranking the .org.uk?
That's correct what you said regarding how Google looks for a GEO within WMT's and then if there's nothing set within WMT's it'll look for other clues, such as the domain extension.
If you have a ccTLD though, Google will set a default location within WMT's that you can't change (there are some ccTLD's that are excempt from this rule, .co.uk and .org.uk aren't excempt though).
-
Thanks,
I understand what your saying that a .com and a .us domain are equal and other factors will determine rankings...
But argument against your statement is how comes a EMD that is .co.uk out ranks a .org.uk 10 fold?
This info sheet from Google imply's geo-targeting in webmaster tools will improve your rankings for the chosen location but also says if no location is specified then the domain extension will be the indicator.
https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=62399
Cheers
-
Basically, you're focusing on the main correlation (the domain extension) that you can see between all of the points and assuming that's the main factor.
It's nothing to do with the extension that when you're conducting a search, you're only seeing .com's in the results. A .com domain has just as much chance as a .us domain as ranking when targeting in the US.
There are other reason why there's not a .us ranking within the results for the queries that you're searching for, it's just a correlation that you're seeing.
-
Thanks for reply,
Can you put the above in layman terms! Finding it a little hard to decipher (my fault).
-
Correlation not causation - sorry Rand, I stole that phrase from you!
When targeting for the US, a .us domain has just as much chance of ranking as a .com domain has, it's simply a correlation that the results you're seeing down have a .us ranking - not a causation.
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
-
Embedded twitter post is good for https://www.fitness-china.com/hip-thrust-machine seo
We have short video posts on twitter. Embedded twitter post is good for https://www.fitness-china.com/hip-thrust-machine SEO?
On-Page Optimization | | ahislop5740 -
Responsive site.com vs m.site.com
Hi All, My client's website have two urls like: site.com/a.html and **m.site.com/a.html. ** Will it hurt google rankings for this website because there are version of a website? Please help!
On-Page Optimization | | binhlai1 -
Long-tail with few searches vs. Generic with many
Our business is a contract packager/manufacturer of products sold to very prominent brands who sell through retail. For example, we make the sunscreen under a brand’s name, which you might then find on the shelf in Target or CVS. As I’ve optimized our pages, I’ve attempted to go long-tail, which has been simply to add “…contract packaging” or a variation after the particular product. So, instead of trying to compete in “sunscreen”, which would pit me against big-box distributors and prominent brands and sellers of sunscreen, I’ve optimized for “sunscreen manufacturers.” “Sunscreen” has 31K – 72K searches, with an 81 Difficulty and 67 Potential. “Sunscreen manufacturers” has a low 13 Difficulty and a decent 54 Potential, but only 51 – 100 searches. Some of my terms have only 0 – 10 searches, but I’ve been thinking that it’s better to compete for fewer but more qualified / buyer-intent searches and have generally lower Difficulty. Can you please tell me if this is a smart strategy, or if I should instead try to compete in higher-volume terms but much greater Difficulty? Thanks a lot for everyone's help.
On-Page Optimization | | Beau_W0 -
Separate URL vs iFrame
Hi Everyone, I'm not a designer/developer and am an not extremely knowledgeable in SEO, but I'll try to be as clear as I can. One of the designers here is creating a recipe section on our website. He created it so that it's a container (or iFrame?) on the page. Basically, no matter what you click (different sections and recipes) the URL stays the same. I was told to find out from an SEO perspective if it's better to do things this way or have a separate URL for each section and recipe. It's been brought up that from a social/sharing standpoint separate URLs would be better so people can send a link directly to the specific recipe they want to share. Any thoughts/comments are appreciated! Thanks for the help!
On-Page Optimization | | AliMac260 -
Title Tag: Phrases vs. Keywords Separated by "|"
Hello, One of my client's old sites has all category titles of the form (for example) running shoes | running shoe | walking shoes | walking shoe including many that perform well with over 60 characters. I'm in the process of rewriting the titles into something like Running and Walking Shoes, A quality shoe at OurShoes.com The reason I'm rewriting them is for future google penalties, and to look better to possible guest post opportunities. Also to look better in the SERPS But the old style is performing very well. What are the real pros and cons of each? Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | BobGW0 -
Dealing with thin content/95% duplicate content - canonical vs 301 vs noindex
My client's got 14 physical locations around the country but has a webpage for each "service area" they operate in. They have a Croydon location. But a separate page for London, Croydon, Essex, Luton, Stevenage and many other places (areas near Croydon) that the Croydon location serves. Each of these pages is a near duplicate of the Croydon page with the word Croydon swapped for the area. I'm told this was a SEO tactic circa 2001. Obviously this is an issue. So the question - should I 301 redirect each of the links to the Croydon page? Or (what I believe to be the best answer) set a rel=canonical tag on the duplicate pages). Creating "real and meaningful content" on each page isn't quite an option, sorry!
On-Page Optimization | | JamesFx0 -
The crawl diagnosis indicated that my domain www.mydomain.com is duplicate with www.mydomain.com/index.php. How can I correct this issue?
How can I fix this issue when crawl diagnosis indicated that my www.mydomain.com is duplicate with www.mydomain.com/index.php? That suppose to be the same page and not duplicate, right?
On-Page Optimization | | jsevilla0 -
Schema.org vs data-vocabulary.org
Hi, I am implementing the rich snippets on an e coomerce site. Should we implement schema.org or data-vocabulary.org? As i feel data vocabulary is more used by google in showing rich snippets.
On-Page Optimization | | rahijain0