.com or .uk

[Flying Hippy]

Hi,

I currently use a .co.uk for my domain but also have the .com as well

I am thinking of expanding my website and wanted to know if I should use the .com instead as this may do better in search engines ect.

I think the servers are currenlty located in the uk via EKM

which do you think is better to use ?

[luckyg]

I really dont thunk there is a difference between these two tld's if they are both hosted in the uk.

What you could do for better search engine exposure (assuming the domain name containes your keywords) is put the other domain on a cheap hosting package and build up two sites.

If you have two websites on page 1 of google you will have much more exposure.

[GlasgowBob]

My preference would be

If your product\service is UK based I would go for the .co.uk and forward the .com to it.

If you are expanding outside the UK then the opposite from above

I think UK people will feel more confident with a .co.uk but thats just my opinion. I know a lot of people think a .com is more professional.

Robert

[darren atkinson]

I really dont thunk there is a difference between these two tld's if they are both hosted in the uk.

What you could do for better search engine exposure (assuming the domain name containes your keywords) is put the other domain on a cheap hosting package and build up two sites.

If you have two websites on page 1 of google you will have much more exposure.

Hmmm, don't agree with this advice totally.

A .com on UK servers is fine for UK rankings, but has no advantage or disadvantage over a .co.uk domain, I agree.

Deciding to build 2 sites instead of one is almost always a mistake in my opinion that many people make. In even fairly competitive markets getting one site to the top end of the results is a time consuming task, choosing to split your link building and general online marketing efforts between 2 seperate sites makes the difficult job even harder.

Sure, having 2 sites under your control on the serps for targetted keywords would be great, but having one really strong site is many times better than having 2 or more lesser performing ones.

Only consider 2 sites if you have the time and know how to fully promote both or have a 'decent' budget to get someone else to do it for you.

That's what my experience has shown me anyway.

Thanks

Darren

[FluxServices]

Hi,

I got told my a frient of mine to use both .com and .co.uk because it helps market your company getter :d

[bohc]

Hi,

I got told my a frient of mine to use both .com and .co.uk because it helps market your company getter :d

Hmm... Yup! I agreed with EliteServices-UK. You may try both... but to save your budget, possibly try .com first! then .co.uk :)

.com is more widely for more present standardize of commercial or ecommerce site

[PrettyPaws]

If you are aiming for the UK IMHO .co.uk with UK hosting seems the best way forward. I've seem too many .com sites not ranking on google.co.uk

[edmondscommerce]

Here's my opinion based on real experience

a .co.uk is best for targetting UK traffic and specifically getting onto Google.co.uk

Hosting in the UK as well is a plus

a .com is generally regarded as USA / World
even if hosted in the UK, it is still the above
you can go to google webmaster central and select that you want to target UK traffic if you want

You might struggle to get Google to acknowledge a .com as being UK based and it might bring you unwanted World/USA traffic at the expense of UK traffic that you need.

If you own a .co.uk, make sure you own the .com as well as this will stop some unscrupulous person buying it and then trying to hold you to ransom. It also means that anyone who types the .com by accident can be gracefully redirected to the .co.uk

So in a nutshell - get both, but promote the .co.uk and simply redirect the .com to the .co.uk

and I agree with Darren, concentrate all your efforts into promoting one site - its enough of a job as it is - promote the .co.uk

[luckyg]

Only consider 2 sites if you have the time and know how to fully promote both or have a 'decent' budget to get someone else to do it for you.


Darren


that was a given, in my comments above. no point splitting your efforts and being a jack of all trades and king of none.

[luckyg]

Here's my opinion based on real experience

a .co.uk is best for targetting UK traffic and specifically getting onto Google.co.uk

I think a .com hosted in the UK and targeted to UK has equal chance. I am no2 on google for my keywords and the NO 1 is a .com, i am a .co.uk. I obviously wouldn't base my opinion on this alone but I have done a lot of research on this over the years.

Hosting in the UK as well is a plus

Surely it is a must?

[khalid1]

As a domainer and webmaster, I would strongly suggest using the .co.uk to rank well in Google.co.uk

I have trialled both the .com and .co.uk options of keyword domain names and the latter work better for UK exposure.

I hope this helps,

Khalid.

[edmondscommerce]

Surely it is a must?

I wouldn't say so if you have a .co.uk domain

that isn't to say i wouldn't recommend it, but i wouldn't regard it as essential

[ThriftySoftware]

My take on this is as follows

a .co.uk is preferable if your customers are primarily based in the uk.

Why?
I have several sites in various page one positions on google, when i search for them in the uk they appear well up the rankings

When i visit America and do the same searches, the rankings are very much lower indeed.

I believe that Google gives geographical preference - it knows your IP and I think it has a bias and will display the .co.uk in preference to a .com if you are searching from a UK IP address - Its just my experience

(and of course you have to discount a whole bunch of AOL users who appear to use US IP addresses, despite searching rom here in the UK :)

To sum up I think the question has more to do with where your target market is, rather than the hosting location.

And of course your customers may feel happier with a uk web address too

- But Hey! who Really knows anything about Google anyways!! :)

Steve

[Brightpearl]

Wotcha Hippy!

Stick with either .com or .co.uk.

Businesses launch e-commerce sites using Pearl weekly - we advise to buy both .com & .co.uk. If neither are available, choose another name and steer clear of other extensions (except .uk.com .net .org).

Good luck & peace:)

[BusinessIdeas]

My hosting is not in the UK and I use the dot com for briteways, I do pretty well for the search terms "start a loan company" "how to start a loan company" high on page one. Make of that what you will.

[BusinessIdeas]

What about .net? does it disadvantage you? compared to .co.uk or .com?

[su66]

Regarding having two domains hosted for the same business - I just want to remind you about the 'duplicate content' rules of the Search engines (whoops i can't post a URL yet - just do a search for 'multiple domains, duplicate content rules' or something!). Having two domains would be fine though, if one of them is an alias, or if you have them both hosted, but only one with the content, the other serving a 301 redirect to the primary site.
I thought I'd just throw that in!

[BusinessIdeas]

Wotcha Hippy!

Stick with either .com or .co.uk.

Businesses launch e-commerce sites using Pearl weekly - we advise to buy both .com & .co.uk. If neither are available, choose another name and steer clear of other extensions (except .uk.com .net .org).

Good luck & peace:)
What about .biz?

[An Oasis]

What an embarrassing thread this piece of advice is good, the rest
...:eek:

Hmmm, don't agree with this advice totally.

A .com on UK servers is fine for UK rankings, but has no advantage or disadvantage over a .co.uk domain, I agree.

Deciding to build 2 sites instead of one is almost always a mistake in my opinion that many people make. In even fairly competitive markets getting one site to the top end of the results is a time consuming task, choosing to split your link building and general online marketing efforts between 2 seperate sites makes the difficult job even harder.

Sure, having 2 sites under your control on the serps for targetted keywords would be great, but having one really strong site is many times better than having 2 or more lesser performing ones.

Only consider 2 sites if you have the time and know how to fully promote both or have a 'decent' budget to get someone else to do it for you.

That's what my experience has shown me anyway.

Thanks

Darren

We use a .com because our at least 50% of our TM expect us to have one, enough said. Not sure about what I have said spend some time thinking about it...the penny will drop.

[darren atkinson]

Just rereading the thread and got to agree with 'An Oasis' and not just because of his comment about my advice.

The rules everyone should follow in regards to domain extensions and hosting for UK targeted businesses should be:

1. If possible buy both the .com & .co.uk version of your desired domain name.

2. Decide which one to use as your primary one and stick with it. This desicion should not really be based on search engines, more on things like target markets, branding, etc...

3. Host your site in the UK! The only reason I can possibly see for using non UK hosting is to cut costs a little, seeing as hosting is relatively cheap as a business expense it makes no sense going abroad for it. Despite anything else, servers located in a different country to your customers have a much greater chance of serving pages slower. (This is not always the case though...)

4. 301 redirect the non primary domain extension (if you have it) to your main site. This helps catch both users who type in the incorrect domain extension, and possible incorrect links to your site.

As previously mentioned, a .com extension on UK hosting will have the exact same chance of getting good search enginge rankings as a .co.uk one. Don't believe it? Just try searching for 'credit cards' or 'online casino' on Google and see how many .com sites are listed... There seems no weighting to .co.uk's at all.

It's harsh but sometimes you have gotta ask yourself, how many years experience of SEO do some of the people happily answering questions on this forum actually have?

I would never really attempt to hand out legal or financial advice, and if I did I'd make sure I clearly stated I had no working knowledge of the field outside of reading the odd blog post... It seems though many feel they are qualified to hand out SEO advice without the actual knowledge gained from working on a variety of sites in different sectors.

This isn't just a UKBF problem, however it does happen here a lot. If I spent time in the SEO forum I'd go mad correcting all the wrong advice which is dished out, and it would be almost a full time job!. Not everyone is wrong, just most of them... ;-)

Darren

[Minuteman Press]

What about .eu? Worth purchasing?