Google’s John Mueller chimes in (again) on claims about new TLDs helping search engine rankings.
New top level domain company Rightside has been promoting the apparent search engine benefits of new top level domain names lately. It is promoting a case study it commissioned with GlobeRunner about an attorney who switched from ErickBlockLaw.com to Jacksonville.Attorney and saw a nice uptick in traffic.
After Rightside did a sponsored post about SEO benefits on Search Engine Land last week, Google’s John Mueller felt the need to comment. (Mueller is quickly becoming the new Matt Cutts when it comes to SEO claims.)
If you take a look at Rightside’s full report (pdf) about Jacksonville.attorney, you’ll see that the domain name change was only part of the big update made to the attorney’s site. In fact, the lawyer got an entirely new website and started adding good content to the site.
With so many variables at play, it’s hard to say the domain name had much of an impact.
I can see how the domain name would result in more clicks when a searcher sees the domain in search results, but the SEO claims are highly suspect.
Another notable part of Mueller’s post is the mention about how it’s hard to switch domain names. This is indeed the case. You can listen to a case study about the work involved in DNW Podcast #70. I keep wondering if Google is going to make the process more seamless. Doing so could be a huge boon to new domain name choices.
Hudson says
Yet another nail in the new gtld coffin.
Jeff Schneider says
The truth of the matter is new TLDs boost The search engine usage population, within the Google Traffic stealing Maze. The new TLDs require being Google Ad supported and are a win win for Google( NOT true for Investors in new TLDs. )Google acquires vast swarms of new Google ad subscribers by all these new Spam advertisers and enlarges their Traffic to be easily manipulated, while growing their ad base. The new TLD investors are actually helping GOOGLE cement more companies into their already vast and unmanageable network. This strategy feeds their vast armies of SEO advocates jobs by locking their Google Ads base into their Garden Maze of numerous businesses who are lost in their digital coding system. this Google inspired TRAP funnels or steers traffic away from them and channels this traffic to their ads customers most feared competitors. This Shell Game Google Wins and you the investor in new TLDS lose. So if you want to help Google destabilize the DNSs Stability buy new TLDs. If you want to control all traffic that comes to your .COM site ,keeping your traffic safe from the Google traffic stealing Matrix you need to create .COM sub-domains with the new TLDs generic equivalent without the risks of new TLDs. This is what the really smart money is buying .COMs. NOT NEW TLDs Big winners in new TLD adoption are Google Ads, GOOGLE AD Salesmen , Advertising Companies,SEO suppliers ICANN, Registrars, Registrys, and the BIG losers are Domainers. Getting the picture? Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger) (Former Rockefeller IBEC Marketing Analyst/Strategist) (Licensed CBOE Commodity Hedge Strategist) (Domain Master ) https://www.UseBiz.com
John says
Translation : He called Rightside and GlobeRunner liars.
New TLDs remind many of a medicine bottle sitting on my shelf called California Medicated Root Beer from the late 1800s.
It cures arthritis, stops cavities, stops heart attacks, cures emphysema, helps with pregnancy, and purifies the blood of all ailments.
I personally think literally almost everyone involved with new TLD’s are liars and scumbags because they know what they are doing to the public. It’s all about making themselves rich.
Anonymous says
I’m curious…in what capacity are you involved in domaining?
Joseph Peterson says
You paint with a very broad brush:
“… almost everyone involved with new TLD’s are liars and scumbags …”
John says
Yes, and sometimes I paint like Jackson Pollock when it’s called for. 😉
Matt says
Hey, at least it’s a step up from the previous version of the study implying SEO benefits based on a Google AdWords experiment with a sample size of 1. It’s unfortunately quite common in the SEO industry to speculate based upon a small number of anecdotal examples, or very limited statistical analysis. Sometimes it’s even useful. (Or at least as useful as listening to Google’s official line — which is not saying much…)
Being more accurate requires much more complexity and nuance, which makes your communications less effective if your primary goal is to convince SMBs to adopt new TLDs. I know because I’ve tried 🙂
bhartzer says
Matt, I’m sure you know, but there are no SEO benefits from a Search Engine Marketing (PPC) Google AdWords study.
John says
BUT WAIT – THERE’S MORE!
“Did Google Manipulate Search for Hillary?”
https : // www . youtube . com /watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg
Andrew Allemann says
and the answer is…no
bhartzer says
Andrew, just for clarification:
“If you take a look at Rightside’s full report (pdf) about Jacksonville.attorney”.
Actually, it’s Globe Runner’s full report, not Rightside’s report. I know, because I wrote it.
I really suggest that before one makes a comment about this cases study that they actually read the PDF and make their own conclusions after seeing the actual data.
The whole point here is that moving to a New gTLD domain (a better domain, in many cases) won’t HURT search engine rankings. You can successfully move to a better domain (even if it’s a better .COM domain). If you do it properly you won’t lose rankings or any visibility.
Andrew Allemann says
But Rightside commissioned it, correct?
Your conclusion is not how it’s being spun, nor what the report states:
“Our research has led us to the conclusion that the uptick in organic search traffic on the firm’s rebranded website (www.jacksonville.
attorney) was driven, at least in part, by Eric’s firm choosing to use a new, .ATTORNEY, domain name.”
bhartzer says
Andrew, yes, it was commissioned by Rightside. They asked us (me) to review what had happened when the site moved from EricBlockLaw.com to Jacksonville.Attorney.
I did come to the conclusion that the move to a more keyword rich domain name helped. My theory is that it’s not JUST the domain name that helps. Google is technically correct that all domains are treated equal at the beginning.
But when you have use a keyword rich domain, other sites are going to link to you using your URL or keywords as the anchor text. And, links are still a huge part of Google’s organic search algorithm. So, it’s my opinion that the domain indirectly did help rankings because of the anchor text that the site got when the moved.
John says
Bill, you say, “The whole point here is that moving to a New gTLD domain (a better domain, in many cases) ……”
How do you know it’s a better domain? What proof you have of this? That’s a very subjective way of looking at domains.
So far, there is absolutely ZERO proof that a new TLD is better than a .com, even if it looks better on paper it might still receive all kinds of typos of people going to the .com because of memory retention problems when dealing with thousands of new extensions.
Better is defined how? Like this….a registry that charged you $20 to initially register a domain and then raises that price to $200, $800, or $2500 like many registries are starting to do to domain owners once renewals come up and they have already invested thousands of dollars in their sites?
Again, I’m calling out most these registries as scumbag snake oil salesmen.
Pssst? Wanna’ buy a .biz, .mobi, .info ? I didn’t think so. That’s where all these new TLDs will be in a few years. History repeats itself every time on these new extensions.
Loser extensions equal loser results.
Most people in the know have known about this for close to 15 years now, but techies, who are usually extremely ignorant when it comes to naming decisions still think they are going to be cute and grab some funny name in an alternative extension but really they end up having to come to terms later on down the line and usually in the end up paying a crap-load more for a good domain than they would have at the beginning of development.
bhartzer says
John,
In regards to a “better name”….. there are cases where I wouldn’t recommended moving to a “better”, more brand able domain. I base my recommendations on having done organic SEO (and domaining) since 1996. Sure, there are new gTLD names that are not better, but if a business can get a better name then they should pull the trigger on it if they can.
Jacksonville.Attorney is just a better, more brandable name than EricBlockLaw.com. And, JacksonvilleAttorney.com is better, also. He probably would have had the same results if he had moved to JacksonvilleAttorney.com, but that doesn’t make for a good “story”.
You said this:
>> So far, there is absolutely ZERO proof that a new TLD is better than a .com, even if it looks better on paper it might still receive all kinds of typos of people going to the .com because of memory retention problems when dealing with thousands of new extensions.
Well, when it comes to branding, and getting real people to CLICK on a website listing, and click on an ad, those New gTLDs, stuff like Jacksonville.Attorney, DOES look good on paper, and that’s why people are clicking on the ads and clicking on the sites and visiting them. They simply look good. Did I mention that click-thru rate in the search results is, in fact, a search engine ranking factor?
Also, you mentioned the fact that “it might still receive all kinds of typos”. While that “might” be the case, we actually have NO PROOF that there are even any typos. I haven’t see ANY studies or proof anywhere that shows how often people (real people) are adding “.com” to the end of something like jacksonville.attorney, like if you told them in person to go to jacksonville.attorney they would type in jacksonville.attorney.com. I’d like to see some data around that. I totally get what you’re saying, but we just don’t know that that’s a valid argument.
I’m not sure where you get come up with the fact that registries are just scumbag snake oil salesmen. Granted there may be some out there, but I’m not aware of any.
In 2014 when I started to look into the New gTLDs, I did it from a marketing perspective and wanted proof that they’re better for marketing purposes. Like whether or not people click on them if it’s in an ad or if they will actually rank. I only became a “believer” when I saw the proof that they work.
.Biz, .mobi,, and .info are not even in the same league as some of the topical, niche, keyword rich new TLDs. You can’t compare a .biz to a .ATTORNEY if an attorney is going to use one or the other. There are good TLDs and there are ones I wouldn’t use. But you shouldn’t put all TLDs into the same bucket as being “loser extensions”.
John says
Bill, literally anyone in the domain business knows for a fact if they have been doing this for any number of years knows that people make the mistake of putting a .com at the end of a URL. If you have been doing this since 1996 as you say and have any notion whatsoever otherwise then that shows how uninformed you are about how domain traffic works. Sorry, just being realistic here. I mean, literally everyone knows this as a fact that carries a domain portfolio. It’s not debatable in a room of pros. I have seen example after example after example of alternate domain extensions losing traffic to my .coms for decades now.
Remember the case of O.CO how they were losing something like 62% of their traffic to O.COM. You or anyone can go read about it. There’s an example as good as any new TLD even if it’s a country code. They still function identically.
You selected .BIZ to compare to .ATTORNEY. They both are horrible. I challenge you to show me one winner extension of any old school extension other than .ORG. Even .Net has been a loser. This is the fate of the new extensions and it is becoming clearer every month that passes with the bad news surrounding new TLDs.
John says
Bill, how about .TRAVEL or .PRO? Are they in the same league as the new, niche TLDs as you say, like .ATTORNEY? I’d argue they are better than your example because there is or most likely will be .ATTORNEYS, .LAWYER, .LAWYERS coming also. How’s that for watering down anybody’s domain name and losing traffic to competitors because of the confusion? Are you going to say that nobody would get confused with those four extensions? ICANN as shown no reservations about not releasing singular or plurals or similar sounding extensions.
.TRAVEL and .PRO have proven to be loser extensions.