Here is some new Top Level Domain (TLD) Research that nobody has seen before.

A Top Level Domain is the suffix that appears after the last dot in a domain name. So “.com”, “.Net”, and now “.shop” and “.travel” are examples of TLDs. Every few days Majestic recalculates the list of TLDs and prepares a table internally ranking them in order by number of domains.

At the start of the 2016, Majestic had 173 million domains in the Fresh Index, representing 1213 TLDs. By the middle of the year this had gone up to 790 Million domains and 1418 TLDs. At the time of writing, there are now 1.25 Billion domains and 1591 TLDs. The dramatic increase in the number of domains in the Index may be the subject of a post in January – but for the end of year, we wanted to provide some TLD insights.

The Top 10 TLDs for 2016

The most popular TLD by far is “.com” (of course) which, at 570 million domains, represents nearly half of all the domains we have crawled. The second most popular, .net, is only 6% of domains. Looking at the top 10 TLDs between January and now, most of this list is relatively unchanged since the start of the year. The two big changes are “.ws” and “.nl”, which both increase their domain count but not enough to retain their ranking and have been replaced by “.cc” and “.fr”.

Rank TLD Domain Count in January Domain Count in December
↔ 1 (1) com 83877901 570214242
↔ 2 (2) net 10276021 76922482
↑ 5 (3) de 8445529 45904843
↓ 3 (4) org 7951270 55069846
↓ 4 (5) uk 5596340 52124390
 ↓ 7 (6) info 4626163 27963446
↓ 9 (7) ru 4177688 16696527
↔ 8 (8) cn 4021199 24047005
↓ 39 (9) ws 2512418 2697280
↓ 15 (10) nl 2365427 10934163
↑ 6 (49) cc 255260 27,979,105
↑ 10 (14) fr 1635181 13,903,722

(Caveat: The increase in domains is at least in poart due to technology improvements and should not be used as a measure of Internet growth overall. The relative counts, however, can be used to extrapolate relative share.)

Biggest Gains

There were a lot of new TLDs which we hadn’t crawled at the start of the year but which had grown to a respectable size during 2016. These are shown in the table below.

TLD First Seen Number of Domains Rank
nba August 628062 89
you April 625266 92
shop June 270113 174
nike July 213166 190
open August 195389 206

 

There were also some TLDs which increased their domain counts significantly, pushing them higher up the list.

  January December
TLD Rank Number of Domains Rank Number of Domains
zip 251 9987 13 12331097
cc 49 255260 6 27979105
gdn 1167 1 250 155318
mov 610 1176 131 402290
buy 925 30 202 197891

 

Comparing TLDs

We can compare some of these rapid-growers with more established TLDs of a similar size by creating a plot showing how many domains have each Trust Flow and Citation Flow value. This shows us whether there are any high Trust or Citation Flow domains, and also if there are more domains with high Citation than Trust, which may indicate a relatively low quality TLD.

First we’ll take “.nba” and “.you” from the list of new TLDs. These are both around 100 when we rank the TLDs by size, so we can compare them with the same selection of domains either side of those two. The two in between and the two either side are “id”, “.su”, “.science”, “.lv”, “.az & “.xxx”. The domain counts for these can be combined to give us the average profile for that region of the table.

nba
Figure 1: Plot of Trust and Citation Flow counts for “.nba”

 

Dot you TLD
Figure 2: Plot of Trust and Citation Flow counts for “.you”

 

 

image-3
Figure 3: Trust and Citation Flow counts for TLDs with similar sizes to “.nba” and “.you”

 

As we can see, the number of domains drops off very rapidly,there are no domains with high Trust Flow for the two TLDs, and very few with Citation Flow higher than 10. The domain counts decrease more steadily for the combined plot, which is more like the profile for the Internet as a whole (which we will see later).

Next, we can look at “.zip” and “.cc”, which leapt into the top 10 from the lower reaches of the TLD table.

image-4
Figure 4: “.zip” is similar to “.nba” and “.you”, with few high flow domains.

 

image-5
Figure 5: flow distribution for ‘.cc’

 

There are more domains under “.cc” with higher Trust Flow and Citation Flow values, compared to the previous TLDs, but it is still lagging behind the neighbouring TLDs (the lone outlier with the high Trust Flow value is arduino.cc, the website of a company which manufactures microcontrollers).

 

image-6
image-6 Figure 6: Plot of Trust and Citation Flow counts for the “.zip” and “.cc” neighbouring TLDs.

 

Finally, as promised, here is the plot for the Whole Internet. The numbers of domains decreases steadily instead of being mostly bunched up at the low flow end.

image-7
Figure 7: Flow Histogram for the whole Internet

Why are there so many sites with zero Trust and Citation Flow?

Although it isn’t obvious from the charts, the majority of the domains under these fast-growing TLDs have both Trust Flow and Citation Flow of zero: greater than 99% of domains in most cases. This is higher than the full set of domains, which has 97% with zero Trust Flow and 91% with zero Citation Flow. We get a very big clue if we count how many domains have resolved IP addresses.

TLD resolved unresolved total % unresolved
you 4517 622255 626772 99.28%
nba 6696 621568 628264 98.93%
zip 1782 12420561 12422343 99.99%
cc 3537506 24476178 28013684 87.37%
Whole Internet 314853703 950439266 1265292969 75.12%

 

The overwhelming majority of the domains don’t have an IP address. There are three main reasons for a lack of IP address: temporary failure to resolve, a bought domain which was never assigned one, or a lapsed domain where the DNS record has been removed. Since these are mostly new domains, the middle option seems most likely.

Conclusions

We have only sampled a small number of TLDs here but one thing we noticed is that the rapidly growing TLDs are failing to provide high Trust Flow sites. Since most of the sites failed to resolve an IP address, it appears that most of these domains are not being bought to host web sites (or indeed any kind of server), or if they are, no site has appeared on them yet. The exception is “.cc” which appears to have grown more ‘organically’ where the Trust and Citation Flow profile more closely resembles a typical TLD.


Latest posts by Mike Downey (see all)

Comments

  • Emil Bonkesi

    Very interesting stuff.

    How are this masses of new TLDs influencing your webcrawling capacity ?

    December 28, 2016 at 1:13 pm
  • Kirod

    Please Give some details about .review and .Reviews TLD in terms of Seo and Popularity. One More Question .. Why Some TLDs Price are so high that make them uneconomical?

    Best Wishes for New Year.
    (Link Removed)

    December 29, 2016 at 6:41 pm
  • thomas jones

    I would assume this is due to .cc being a global tld which looks more natural in organic search.

    December 30, 2016 at 5:24 pm
  • Josh

    How is Majestic dealing with crawler blockers, such as <a href="https://wordpress.org/plugins/spiderblocker">Spider Blocker</a>? Or is this an issue that cannot be overcome.

    January 10, 2017 at 2:22 pm

Comments are closed.

ALL IT TAKES IS 30 MINUTES...
Do you need some extra help using Majestic? Sign up for a free demo and let a Majestic Expert take you on a tour.
THANK YOU!
If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact help@majestic.com
You have successfully registered for a Majestic Demo. A Customer Advisor will contact you shortly to schedule a suitable time to connect.