What domain suffix should you use for your new website?

[burlington]

This is some advice I gave to a Pal recently which I copy here for your information.

<start>

.com and .co.uk (in the UK) suffixes are the most common because for the simple reason that most of the websites in the world have some form of commercial or industrial base.

It is your choice of course but really if you are not a commercial organisation why would you want to use a commercial type suffix?

I have worked on websites with all the common suffixes and, frankly, I would not register a non-commercial site with a .co.uk or .com suffix. It also might not do you any favours either if you use a commercial suffix. The canny visitor might ask what you are about and whether you are in to make money out of the site.

Have a look at the following listing website that you might find helpful HERE . Strictly, I think that you would be breaking the rules if you used .co.uk or .com for a non-commercial site.

</start>

Regards

Martin

[Ken Lees]

I don't think it makes a huge difference, personally. Public perception, in my view, is probably that a .com or .co.uk domain are not charities whilst .org are.

People will probably be more interested in the conent of the site than what they have to type to find it - and even then, how often do we actually type the URL? Mostly links or favourites in my experience, so the domain name prior to the suffix is far more important as that tells us far more than a suffix.

Ken

[Pighills]

Quote: 'Strictly, I think that you would be breaking the rules if you used .co.uk or .com for a non-commercial site.' End Quote

Sorry, but I've never heard of such rules.

There are no hard and fast rules about chosing domains, which is why you are offered a choice when you first set up.

People choose according to their needs and what they want to portray, but no-one will 'break the rules'.

I have a few websites up and running and always go for co.uk, simply because it lets people know it's a uk based website (supposedly!!) but only one of them is a commercial site - one is a charity and one for a local cricket team, the others are just 'fun' websites.

May I ask, apart from your own personal opinion, where are you getting this information from about the 'rules'?

[saberhagen427]

The only restrictions that I know of are on .gov and .ac domains and similar which are for official websites of qualifying organisations. Apart from that you can buy pretty much anything you want and use it for whatever you want. .co.uk is very widely used for non-commercial sites, not least because it tends to be cheaper than .org

[stevem49]

Happily used my co.uk for years with no problem, no threats and no one thinking I am commercial.

sm

[burlington]

I don't really disagree with what has been written so far.

HOWEVER, if you want to delineate your site as being a UK site, why not use .org.uk? Same price! It also delineates 'not for profit'- not quite the same as charities of course.

I suppose I am a bit of a purist in these matters. The borders between the various suffixes have been blurred over the years as the number of site in the world increase beyond reasonable control.

The TLD (Top Level Domains) are admnistered by ICANN worldwide. As for the 'rules' may I suggest you delve in to their website and see what you can find. I did so some time ago; can't find the relevant item now of course

Seriously, all I was doing was passing on some professional advice, given in good faith. Take it or leave it!

Martin

[Chris_Baker]

Martin is strictly correct in that .co and .com domains were originally intended only for commercial organisations. .org was for non-commercial ones, .net for web/internet things, etc. I don't believe there is any legal basis for making anyone adhere to it, though.

[John W]

The only thinkg I can add to this is a year or so ago, there was talk that people registering a .org (rather than .org.uk) would have to prove ther not for profit credentials. I'm not sure if this actually happend in the end

[burlington]

I have just found THIS site that you might find interesting.

Martin

[Tom Morgan]

The only thinkg I can add to this is a year or so ago, there was talk that people registering a .org (rather than .org.uk) would have to prove ther not for profit credentials. I'm not sure if this actually happend in the end

Don't think it did, John. At least I assume not, as you can still visit these .org sites which are certainly "very much for profit".

www.harrods.org

www.royalmail.org

www.bt.org

Tom

[Pighills]

Well, you learn something new every day (thankfully).

It just shows how things have become muddied over the years though doesn't it?

Thanks for the interesting info!!

[burlington]

Don't think it did, John. At least I assume not, as you can still visit these .org sites which are certainly "very much for profit".

www.harrods.org

www.royalmail.org

www.bt.org

Tom

Tom

Looking at the article I posted this morning, their advice is for companies, who have charitable activities, to register.

I quote:

<start>

In addition, corporations should consider using .ORG for their charitable activities and to protect their name; the site then can be redirected to the .COM or .NET extension

</start>

and this is precisely what these three companies have done. The Royal Mail domain redirects to postoffice.co.uk, and the other two to what is a clone of their normal trading site, but using the .org suffix.

I don't think that this detracts from the main thrust of my argument.

Martin

[Tom Morgan]

Point taken, Martin. Please be assured that I wasn't trying to deflect the thrust of your argument. My comment was only intended as a follow-up to John's understanding that "there was talk that people registering a .org (rather than .org.uk) would have to prove their not for profit credentials". I pointed out that there are some .org domain-namesbeing used by concerns which are cleary commercial. Reading your latest post, I'm sure they do this to protect their names, as you say.

Tom