The .uk domains spotted in the wild thread

[Jeff]

The thread seems to have shifted from lost traffic to ranking, which are related but separate issues.

Returning to lost traffic, @ben said in post #71 that he "had people emailing the company inbox all the time mistaking it for .co.uk". Can you give us any numbers, specifically when compared to the number of correctly addressed emails you received in the same period?

And does anyone have any numbers relating to this happening the other way round - ie having an active site on the .co.uk and receiving email intended for an unrelated site on the .uk? I think this is a much more likely scenario.

 

[username]

In my opinion it was always going to be grass root businesses using .uk that would eventually lead to a big player moving

I'm just seeing more and more examples of people using them. I'm actually surprised every time, cause I expect things not to be on a .UK. Like in the case of that TV channel, I just saw it was called something that ended in UK and checked Google and viola, there it was!

Regarding emails going to the wrong place, you could make sure that your main contact is via your website via a form instead of an email address and then you wont have the problem of mail landing in the wrong place.

It's like the Google Vs domain argument. If it's mail received, 99% of people will just hit reply and press send, without being a clever dick by trying to change it to .co.uk. Most people will just click an email address and start writing their email. You should increase the chances of mail getting to the right places by employing the correct tactics... Links in emails instead of email addresses verbatim, links to forms to collect information.

There are simple but not sexy solutions - You could start putting "(NOT .co.uk)" after your email address in emails too. Sure, it's not sexy, but if you're actually worried about it, want to mitigate it and want to make sure it's seared into the consciousness of the reader, then that would work in most cases. There's no need to get all hung up on what extension your site is on if you're building something that's actually useful to people and people actually want to get in contact with YOU.

 

[AlistairH]

You only need to be on the first page to be seen. Searching for macleans brings up the toothpaste on .co.uk, because it's been there for decades and has a lot of SEO. Underneath it is a Canadian magazine. Now, I am willing to bet money on it, that if you invest enough time into macleans.uk you could rank second above macleans.ca, because they next one after that is a bakery in Scotland ...

In fact, I will go a step further and say that you could probably rank above macleans.co.uk with enough effort, it's just a landing page. Probably gets thin content warnings all day long.

Exactly Ben, the site has only been active for around 2 weeks and had literally zero SEO thrown at it and I'm getting criticism thrown at me for it not ranking number 1 in Google!

 

[AlistairH]

The thread seems to have shifted from lost traffic to ranking, which are related but separate issues.

The thread was about .uk domains being spotted in use and I posted about my partners domain / site as a contribution to that, I wasn't asking for an analysis on it but there's always going to be a few people that just want to find the negative in everything.

 

[Jeff]

The thread was about .uk domains being spotted in use and I posted about my partners domain / site as a contribution to that, I wasn't asking for an analysis on it but there's always going to be a few people that just want to find the negative in everything.

I'm sorry if anything I've said comes across as critical or negative about your partner's website. That certainly wasn't my intention and I wish her every success with it.

The only (hopefully constructive) suggestion I would make is that you lose the email address from the contact page and just rely on the webform - with the option of having a copy of the enquiry sent to the enquirer's email. I hate it when webforms don't offer that.

 

[Marek]

The thread was about .uk domains being spotted in use and I posted about my partners domain / site as a contribution to that, I wasn't asking for an analysis on it but there's always going to be a few people that just want to find the negative in everything.

I guess the points people are making are directly tied to seeing them out in the wild or not. If they're garbage for branding/seo people are going to use them less.

 

[AlistairH]

I'm sorry if anything I've said comes across as critical or negative about your partner's website. That certainly wasn't my intention and I wish her every success with it.

No need to apologise. I wasn't referring to your comments.. just you mentioned the direction of the thread change.

The only (hopefully constructive) suggestion I would make is that you lose the email address from the contact page and just rely on the webform - with the option of having a copy of the enquiry sent to the enquirer's email. I hate it when webforms don't offer that.

^^^ Thankyou, this is how you can offer constructive suggestions without the rude and insulting posts based on wild speculation.

I'll mention this to her and offer your suggestion as it makes sense.

 

[Backyard5562]

Exactly Ben, the site has only been active for around 2 weeks and had literally zero SEO thrown at it and I'm getting criticism thrown at me for it not ranking number 1 in Google!

Nope, you're getting criticism because it is highly unlikely that you will ever rank #1 in Google for Macleans or even in the top 3.

As I said, it doesn't matter, as this business's website is relatively insignificant. The people recommended to use the service will be willing to try the required 3, 4 or 5 search variations to eventually find it. And I suppose you could turn it off tomorrow, and there'd be no actual loss in clientele.

However, it's a good example of why you wouldn't want to do it with a more internet-focused business that relies on traffic from search/type-in. And is why you see nobody really using .UK domains.

 

[Jeff]

No need to apologise. I wasn't referring to your comments.. just you mentioned the direction of the thread change.



^^^ Thankyou, this is how you can offer constructive suggestions without the rude and insulting posts based on wild speculation.

I'll mention this to her and offer your suggestion as it makes sense.

In addition to reducing lost traffic, another benefit of driving first contact to the webform is that your partner can find out more about the enquirer. For example, where they first heard of your partner's firm, and whether they live in Scotland.

Given the different legal systems I imagine the latter is an important consideration.

 

[ben]

The thread seems to have shifted from lost traffic to ranking, which are related but separate issues.

Returning to lost traffic, @ben said in post #71 that he "had people emailing the company inbox all the time mistaking it for .co.uk". Can you give us any numbers, specifically when compared to the number of correctly addressed emails you received in the same period?

And does anyone have any numbers relating to this happening the other way round - ie having an active site on the .co.uk and receiving email intended for an unrelated site on the .uk? I think this is a much more likely scenario.

I’m quite sure zero people mistakenly emailed .co.uk looking for me, but I had maybe 6/7 emails across the period it was happening. I’m not sure if when I notified them on .co.uk that they changed something, but I haven’t had any since about 2021, if that helps?

 

[ben]

Nope, you're getting criticism because it is highly unlikely that you will ever rank #1 in Google for Macleans or even in the top 3.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and I don’t mean to say that to offend you.

 

[username]

Nope, you're getting criticism because it is highly unlikely that you will ever rank #1 in Google for Macleans or even in the top 3.

Not because it's a .UK though

 

[Jeff]

I’m quite sure zero people mistakenly emailed .co.uk looking for me

But how do you know that? If the recruitment agency on the .co.uk blanked you even when you offered them the .uk, they're hardly likely to have let you know if they received email intended for you.

I had maybe 6/7 emails across the period it was happening

Thanks for the info, but was that 6/7 out of 60, 600, 6000...? I'm just trying to get a rough idea of the proportion.

This would make for a very interesting survey - if only we could find someone objective to carry it out! At the moment views on both sides seem to be very entrenched.

 

[Marek]

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and I don’t mean to say that to offend you.

Here's what happens next if you do manage to outrank a national company for their own name. They simply throw a random 5 figure sum at a random seo agency and you never see top 3 ever again.

 

[AlistairH]

Here's what happens next if you do manage to outrank a national company for their own name. They simply throw a random 5 figure sum at a random seo agency and you never see top 3 ever again.

Have you looked at the .co.uk site? It doesn't even look like they've thrown a 3 figure sum at it.

You could say the same if it was a .co.uk site outranking it so your point is moot.

 

[Marek]

Have you looked at the one in 2nd place? the .ca one with 20,000 linking domains

You can't beat their link profile and you can't beat the fact Google clearly understands macleans.co.uk is a national brand. But I'll leave it at that, its obvious you don't want to discuss it and its obvious you don't understand what you're doing with it, so good luck this is my last comment on that specific site

 

[rb5]

And does anyone have any numbers relating to this happening the other way round - ie having an active site on the .co.uk and receiving email intended for an unrelated site on the .uk? I think this is a much more likely scenario.

I've had many for some of the domains where I have the .co.uk and others registered the .UK, I've seen various emails around HR, solicitors and even one scenario where their own accountants emailed tax queries with attached documents.

 

[ben]

Here's what happens next if you do manage to outrank a national company for their own name. They simply throw a random 5 figure sum at a random seo agency and you never see top 3 ever again.

Marek, respectfully, macleans.co.uk looks like it gives no fucks about it's website. It's got a DR of 2.1, which is pitiful, you could get a higher DR rating by just posting one blog post and leaving it for a month, and it has a handful of spammy backlinks. I'm confident it's only at the number one position because it's been there since god knows when. I guarantee it gets thin content warnings non stop, there is nothing there. Maclean don't need a website, they have multi million pound contracts with every major retailer and supermarket this side of the equator. Nobody is on Google searching for toothpaste, really. If they are, it's to find it to buy online on Amazon or whatever. Even a monkey could outrank this piece of shit landing page. The .ca domain is probably not useful for UK searches, so perhaps wouldn't be so hard to move over either. The next domain, macleansbakery, has a DR of 24. You could outrank DR 24 with your eyes closed.

If macleans.co.uk wanted to "throw a random 5 figure sum at a random seo agency", don't you think they'd have done so by now? What is there to do SEO on? Their backlink profile is non-existent so they haven't done it ever in the history of their existence, why would they do it now?

EDIT: Added site audit. Shite.

 

[AlistairH]

Have you looked at the one in 2nd place? the .ca one with 20,000 linking domains

You can't beat their link profile and you can't beat the fact Google clearly understands macleans.co.uk is a national brand. But I'll leave it at that, its obvious you don't want to discuss it and its obvious you don't understand what you're doing with it, so good luck this is my last comment on that specific site

Marek, Google do not have such a thing as a "national brand" algorithm whatever that is.

If everyone had your mindset nobody would bother starting up in business for fear of the "national brands" retaliating by throwing a 5 figure sum at an SEO company as you suggested.

They do not own the word Macleans, anyone can start a business with the Macleans name so long as it does not step on their toes and offer a similar product / service.

Thanks again for your feedback, it seems no matter what I say you're just digging for something else negative to say about it and you always have to know better.

 

[Marek]

If macleans.co.uk wanted to "throw a random 5 figure sum at a random seo agency", don't you think they'd have done so by now? What is there to do SEO on? Their backlink profile is non-existent so they haven't done it ever in the history of their existence, why would they do it now?

Try reading my post back that you're quoting from first. Hint: it's in the very sentence before the quoted one.