If you have the .COM do you need the .NET?

[havlock]

Hi Folks,
Curious on your thoughts, in today's domaining & development world...

If you own the .COM of a domain, do you think you necessarily need or would want the .NET version of the same said domain? How about other extensions as well?

If you owned both, .COM and .NET, would you keep the .NET just to prevent someone else from taking it, or just drop it?

And, if you are only developing the .COM, what would you do with the .NET if you owned/kept it?

 

[silentg]

I would grab the .net and .org if .com is a developed website. For selling I would only grab the .net or .org if it's a good keyword.

 

[stock_post]

won't hurt to have it.

if your site is big, just get it.

 

[foundrstack]

Yes! Protect your brand.

 

[grcorp]

It's a <$20 insurance policy that sure beats paying $x,xxx+ in legal fees if you end up needing such names.

 

[cbk]

If it is something you intend to develop into a brand business get all the major extentions. What you would do with the .net and others is 301 redirect or turn them into mini sites that eventually lead to the .com for indexing purposes.

Something overlooked and to me better than having the .info or .us is the social networking user names for Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, LinkedIn, Skype etc if possible.

 

[BostonDomainer]

Something overlooked and to me better than having the .info or .us is the social networking user names for Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, LinkedIn, Skype etc if possible.

Personally I target the .org and not .net for projects being worked on. For big projects I target the .org, .co.uk, and .de before I even consider .net. But I like what cbk mentioned. The social networking names. Owning the Twitter name has proved to be increasingly valuable for me.

 

[urlurl]

if its a great name (High $x,xxx+) i would also grab the .net and .org

if i was going to develop it into a major site i would grab almost all extensions.

 

[grcorp]

Something overlooked and to me better than having the .info or .us is the social networking user names for Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, LinkedIn, Skype etc if possible.

I concur with this. Especially because there is no UDRP for such usernames, therefore making them much more difficult to get if they are taken and you have a TM on your brand name.

---------- Post added at 08:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 AM ----------

if its a great name (High $x,xxx+) i would also grab the .net and .org

if i was going to develop it into a major site i would grab almost all extensions.

We've seen where the reverse applies in Rick Schwartz's battle for saveme.com!

 

[draggar]

Like others have said - if this is for a project it is best to get the .net and .org as well as a ccTLD if it is popular and for that country (like .ca). It's best to protect your identity and if this project is going to be long term it is even more important to keep others from trying to profit off of your work.

If it's for reselling, unless it is a good keyword just stick with the .com unless you think you can get away with a package deal for a much better price.

 

[Adam DickerAdam Dicker is verified member.]

Only if it's available, don't go out and pay high $ for it. .com is all you need.

ADam

 

[Anthony Ng]

.com is all you need.

#agree In a world where Facebook and Twitter are clearly more critical than domain names, the only global TLD that still matters is .com. Ask a random person on the street about "dot net" or "dot org", and expect to get a weird face.