URL name extensions

URL name extensions

The obvious standard is *.com

If your desired *.com is unavailable, is there any downside to going with *.net? Only downside I can think of is that many people's minds default to *.com, which isn't a small downside, to be fair.

How about the newer option of *.photo? It's more expensive, and also possible to confuse people, I suppose.

I have no interest in *photography. Keep it short and simple, as much as possible, IMO.

Try as much as you can to get the dot com. I think .net's are acceptable, but i'd avoid things like .co . I think .photo would be ok, but i'd try to get a .com or .net as well.

johnsonjpj wrote in post #18312386
Try as much as you can to get the dot com. I think .net's are acceptable, but i'd avoid things like .co . I think .photo would be ok, but i'd try to get a .com or .net as well.

*.photo is descriptive and all, and in a way I kind of like it, but my big fear is that it's still out of most people's default mindset. For good or for bad, people think *com primarily.

If i were to go with a *.photo I'd make the primary URL very, very short, maybe just your initials or something. www.sk.photo or something.

I think .photo TLDs are fine as more and more companies are buying their own TLDs.

But I also think it may confuse some people so definitely use it with either http:// or www. on business cards or something so people know it's a URL.

Get over your distain of *photography .... be as descriptive of your name as possble.

Also don't forget about country codes as an option in place of the typical '.com'.

(And please remember that .ca addresses are NOT supposed to be for California!)

Usage of these of course vary from place to place, but their usage is strongly encouraged for regional services, as they (in theory) will naturally show what nation the site is focused on. Sadly some people have taken to abusing them to make 'neat' addresses.

kjonnnn wrote in post #18346156
Get over your distain of *photography .... be as descriptive of your name as possble.

I have to disagree. Spelling out photography is unnecessarily cumbersome. Average non-photo people don't like cumbersome, and those are most of my customers. I spelled it out in my URL name... iowalandscapephotograh​y.com... many years ago on the advice of many here and I have regretted it ever since. Had I known then what I know now, I'd have some variation of <name>photo.com

I'm in the UK so .co.uk was my choice. Out of curiosity, why was .com unavailable. If another photographer already has it, then wouldn't that cause confusion among potential clients? Maybe a totally different .com url be better. The last thing you want is to be drawn into an argument with another photographer. I have another photographer using the same name as me, but not in my area so no clash. I did get the .co.uk url though.

I used .net for years with no problem, just switched over to .photography for SEO and branding reasons.

I own

.com
.com.au
.net
.net.au
.photo
.photos
.photography