In July, it was announced that Google acquired G.CO to use as a url shortener for internal Google links. I just noticed that Google has begun using the G.CO url shortener for internal links on its Google Maps pages.
When you enter an address on the map and click on the link button, you’re presented the standard link, which can be VERY long depending on the address. There’s a “Short URL” check box above the standard url, and when it’s clicked, you’re given a url using G.CO.
I haven’t come across other uses of G.CO yet, but I am sure it will take some time for integration within all of Google’s products and brands. With a reported 7 figure price tag, I would hope Google plans to use G.CO more widely across its products and services.
I just came across Google’s LatLong Blog post discussing the url shortener back in August, but I just noticed it. According to the post, “We only use g.co to send you to Google web pages, and only Google Maps can generate a g.co/maps URL. This means that you can visit a a g.co/maps shortcut with confidence, and always know you will end up on a Google Maps page.”
Have you seen G.CO used elsewhere?
probably an seo trick so when they back-up mapquest to page ten there’s a logical algorithmic reason and now an abuse of power.
Thanks for the post! I think we will start to see more and more innovative uses of G.CO in the near future. Check out how Google is using the domain to market one of its cool new products –CloudPrint.
Lori Anne Wardi
Oh no…here comes the diarrhea loud mouth R.Cline.
Here lookin at you kid…Cline, this is your weekend.
Go ahead and tell the whole world how good dot co is.
I’ve been using g.co to access google.com…just click on the google banner
Would like to see a “news” link at the top of g.co to go directly to news.google.com/
Glad to see they have finally started using G.CO.
Their whois has been changed back to Google Inc. It was under their name before then it changed to .Co reserved and now it’s back to Google.
As correctly stated by Lori Anne, another use of G.CO is for Google CloudPrint:
Glad to see G.CO using…good step ahead.
This is the extract from Google Blog:
“…We’ll use g.co to send you only to webpages that are owned by Google, and only we can create g.co shortcuts. That means you can visit a g.co shortcut confident you will always end up at a page for a Google product or service…”
I am personally inviting you to rush over and join the Prelaunch Australia as this is going to be big for the elite ones such as yourself, go now and sign up after checking it out, go to:
basically a domain pyramid scheme.
its a shame that they are reverting ppl to .coms
hopefully they will find a service that sticks with the .co in the browser
This smacks squarely on the
importance of short domain name.
The fact that a large company is willing to
do away with its own branding and a few extra
key stokes and is willing to pay in excess of
$1,500,000.00 just so that you and I don’t
have to stoke a few extra keys is huge.
This should raise a huge flag on the importance of
L.co , LL.co or LLL.com domain names.
“The fact that a large company is willing to
do away with its own branding”
That makes no sense.
Google is the brand. Google is not being replaced by a URL shortener.
“willing to pay in excess of $1,500,000.00”
That has never been confirmed, yet the number is thrown around a lot.
The press release says “Today .CO Internet S.A.S. announced that Google has acquired the domain name”. For all we know the .CO registry gave it to Google.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been told that Google bought the domain name, although I have no idea what they paid. The figure that’s being thrown around is because of the Reuters article that came out a month before the Google deal in July:
“After Amazon and after a few of the other deals that we’ve done over the past few months, the price of one character is already north of $1.5 million,” he told Reuters by telephone.”
I have always seen the word “acquires” which can mean something else as well.
I am not saying they did not buy it, but it is not clear they did either. The only one who knows the actual deal is Google and the .CO registry.
People who report it as some type of fact are wrong.
Let’s not forget that $1,500,000 are basically crumbs for BigG, so it isn’t that unlikely that they actually spent that amount for the domain.
“People who report it as some type of fact are wrong.”
caustralia.com, australia.com and seeaustralia.com all resolve to the same website.
What is the logic with posting an outbound to that site with that url?
Am I missing something?
Let’s not mince words here.
If Calle says
L.Co ‘s are going for $1,500,000.00 and above.
ok, maybe google didn’t pay $1,500,000.00
maybe, they bought it for $1,499,999.00
and your local mom and pop store is the company
buying p.co for $1,500,000.00
but dang someone is buying it for $1,500,000.00
some idiots just can’t or don’t want to connect the dots and want to be spoon fed everything. You know we do have this grey thing that allows us to come to educated answers.
Co s spend $3,000,000.00 for a 30 sec. spot on superbowl, do you think $1.5mil for a domain that they are going to use forever, out of
$12,000,000,000.00 in profits is tip for the accountants.
Innitially, I had http://cAustralia.com going to http://www.prelaunchaustralia.net/caustralia where there is a program opportunity, but someone identified it as a pyramid scheme, after looking at it again, I thought it was best to pull cAustralia from there.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.