This is something I'm quite interested in, as I often get calls from units
within the University asking for advice on registering domain names.

Oft-asked questions include "in which domain should I register?", and
"should I register in multiple domains?".  To which I reply "the most
appropriate one" (either .co.uk or .org.uk depending on what they are
registering), and "no, stick to one".

The response I get is that if they register with just one then "people
trying to guess their web site won't have as much chance of finding them".
I've never really had much truck with the idea that people "guess"
websites, and given the numerous variations of spelling (and underscores,
hyphens, and all that malarky), I can't imagine that people spend that
much time guessing, before falling back to looking for offline material
(printed or TV ads, whatever), or using a search engine (which is really
the best way, IMHO).

Another argument I get is "I want to register a .com and a .org and a
.co.uk domain".  I say, "unless your company is working in an
international field, you should stick to the country version... why deny
another company with international interests the chance to register a
domain appropriate to them", or indeed, a non-profit org in the UK with a
similar name.

This, of course, is where the domain name model fails, because there is no
(commonly used) separate zone for purely "US" interests, and why .com is
so valuable.

But I'll freely admit (to them and to you) that I'm a domain name purist,
and I'm truly shocked at the abuse of the system that companies (usually)
employ, and the fact that they have abused it so leads those of lesser
understanding of these issues think that it is 'standard practice' or 'a
good idea'.

One appropriate formal domain per company is how it should be, and no
multiple registrations allowed unless they can demonstrate a particular
specific interest as intended by the domain (country office, non-profit,
whatever).  But if they really feel like they want to register those silly
vanity ones ("www.whichcomputerdoyouwanttocrashtoday.com") they can do
that too!

Unfortunately, we don't live in a dreamworld, and the abuse of the system
is too deeply entrenched and endemic.  It is also why introducing .info
and .biz domains to "ease the pressure" and "provide more choice" (ie,
make registrars more money conning naive companies) is doomed to fail, as
we've seen from the disastrous 'roll-outs' of them in recent weeks.

And as for Universities registering multiple domains, it's a waste of time
and resources IMO :).  We have one (bought by some 'enlightened' member of
staff who thought it was a good idea and then offered it on to us at
cost), but it isn't something I am particularly delighted about.  We have
lawyers to deal with people who really want to register a University
domain and pass themselves off as us.  Since the likelihood of this is
minimal to non-existent, we save money by not going to the expense of
buying and managing the domains ourselves in the first place.

This:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22460.html

shows another reason why registering multiple domains can be a dumb idea.

Friday rant over, time to go home!

Jethro.


On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Nicola Rogers wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Andrew Aird wrote:
>
> > We are considering registering more and more variants of our name (although
> > many are taken including http://www.kingscollegelondon.com/ which
> > mysteriously goes to an Escort Agency!). However, I think the key to this is
> > getting more and better inward links and better results on search engines.
>
> We are looking into the same kind of issues here ... as far as I can tell,
> there's only one UK university that has really gone into mass domain
> registering, and the rest of us have one or two variants, if that.
>
> Looking elsewhere, corporates like Microsoft and the BBC have very few
> variants registered. Which leads me to wonder why. Possible reason could
> be down to marketing / branding and not wanting to weaken the main
> publicised url, or perhaps they think that people are likely to source
> them via search engines, in which case the need for registering
> alternatives becomes redundant.
>
> > As far as figures go, I for one always try to 'guess' a URL when I'm looking
> > for something new, before going off to Google or whatever. Perhaps you could
> > do a quick survey on this list.
>
> Perhaps I will ... can I ask why you try to guess. Spirit of adversity,
> adventure, or Something Else ...???
>
> Nicola
>


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jethro R Binks                                   Computing Officer, IT Services
Mailmaster, Listmaster, Webmaster,       University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Cachemaster                                           [log in to unmask]