<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Internet Engine Upgrades Its Domain</title>
	<atom:link href="http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/13/internet-engine-upgrades-its-domain/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/13/internet-engine-upgrades-its-domain/</link>
	<description>Domain Name Industry News and Views</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 20:25:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Internet Business</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/13/internet-engine-upgrades-its-domain/comment-page-1/#comment-483365</link>
		<dc:creator>Internet Business</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=7749#comment-483365</guid>
		<description>I work on this stuff full time.  I couldn&#039;t agree more.  Great post!  Good stuff!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I work on this stuff full time.  I couldn&#8217;t agree more.  Great post!  Good stuff!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Allemann</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/13/internet-engine-upgrades-its-domain/comment-page-1/#comment-460005</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Allemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:17:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=7749#comment-460005</guid>
		<description>Marg - doing a 301 is an acceptable way to do this (although a lot more work).  In this case I think they made a smart move.  They have the domain for protection and email purposes...it really won&#039;t matter much that the site people ultimately visit is the old .net.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marg &#8211; doing a 301 is an acceptable way to do this (although a lot more work).  In this case I think they made a smart move.  They have the domain for protection and email purposes&#8230;it really won&#8217;t matter much that the site people ultimately visit is the old .net.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marg</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/13/internet-engine-upgrades-its-domain/comment-page-1/#comment-460001</link>
		<dc:creator>Marg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=7749#comment-460001</guid>
		<description>Hi Drew, I did think (after I posted) maybe that&#039;s why they did this. Our company had to change URLs last year for re-branding and we did a lot of planning and a 301 redirect. Within a short time we were back where we had been in the SERPs, with the benefit of the better name.On the other hand they are the SEO folks, so they must know what they&#039;re doing...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Drew, I did think (after I posted) maybe that&#8217;s why they did this. Our company had to change URLs last year for re-branding and we did a lot of planning and a 301 redirect. Within a short time we were back where we had been in the SERPs, with the benefit of the better name.On the other hand they are the SEO folks, so they must know what they&#8217;re doing&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drew</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/13/internet-engine-upgrades-its-domain/comment-page-1/#comment-459981</link>
		<dc:creator>Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:26:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=7749#comment-459981</guid>
		<description>Marg,
If they did it the other way around, they would be throwing away all of the SEO power of the aged website internet-engine.net. Internet-Engine.net has a PR of 4/10, which is something not to be discarded. Being an SEO firm, they are taking the correct approach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marg,<br />
If they did it the other way around, they would be throwing away all of the SEO power of the aged website internet-engine.net. Internet-Engine.net has a PR of 4/10, which is something not to be discarded. Being an SEO firm, they are taking the correct approach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marg</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/13/internet-engine-upgrades-its-domain/comment-page-1/#comment-459978</link>
		<dc:creator>Marg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:16:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=7749#comment-459978</guid>
		<description>Interestingly if you enter InternetEngine.com, it resolves to Internet-Engine.net. I would have thought they would have done this the other way around now, and have the &quot;old&quot; dot net domain forward to InternetEngine.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interestingly if you enter InternetEngine.com, it resolves to Internet-Engine.net. I would have thought they would have done this the other way around now, and have the &#8220;old&#8221; dot net domain forward to InternetEngine.com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Allemann</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/13/internet-engine-upgrades-its-domain/comment-page-1/#comment-459967</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Allemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:57:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=7749#comment-459967</guid>
		<description>@ JP - yes.  It&#039;s a design trademark, but that doesn&#039;t stop many people...

@ Rob - agree, although it&#039;s a shame people have so much trouble getting in touch with domain owners.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ JP &#8211; yes.  It&#8217;s a design trademark, but that doesn&#8217;t stop many people&#8230;</p>
<p>@ Rob &#8211; agree, although it&#8217;s a shame people have so much trouble getting in touch with domain owners.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Sequin</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/13/internet-engine-upgrades-its-domain/comment-page-1/#comment-459951</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Sequin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:36:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=7749#comment-459951</guid>
		<description>1. Great to see end users chasing a domain that they want and willing to pay a good price. 

2. Great to see that the owner is willing to sell at a price that most likely had a lot of profit built into it. 

That&#039;s a sign healthy industry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1. Great to see end users chasing a domain that they want and willing to pay a good price. </p>
<p>2. Great to see that the owner is willing to sell at a price that most likely had a lot of profit built into it. </p>
<p>That&#8217;s a sign healthy industry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

