> On 2 Dec 2015, at 10:07, Mike Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Any opinions / further knowledge about using non-standard domain suffixes for websites?
>
> I've read quite a lot which says these "low value suffixes" don't perform well from a SEO pov because they're often marked as spam and also aren't memorable for users.
>
> The particular one I've been asked to look at is .pictures
I think they benefit ‘only’ the registrar…
But I couldn’t resist buying http://bold.fish
A downside, if you want one, is that lots of websites refuse to accept NSD suffixes as genuine email addresses - so [log in to unmask] doesn’t always get accepted when I fill in forms!
google boldfish finds the bold.fish domain on page two, so I don’t see a particular SEO negative there
:o)
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|