hehe I just entered www.bbc.com and it popped up with...
I like that, you should do that to.
The Register started out as a UK operation with a UK addressed web site, but accidentally and against our expectations became a pretty successful international operation. In deference to marketing we should point out that in recent years the international success has been both planned and deliberate, but that certainly isn't …
hehe I just entered www.bbc.com and it popped up with...
I like that, you should do that to.
What happened to the reg? You haven't hired some sort of marketing team have you? Cos i'm with Bill Hicks on that topic, they are all evil! (just like your Logowatch feature suggests)
I also CAN'T BELIEVE you suggested that this would reduce your management overhead either. Are you some sort of noob that does any of this stuff manually? If you had a properly scripted system to run the lot it would surely be a one off cost?
You really have dis-appointed me with this amatuer approach to a simple issue that many hobyists have solved by them selves years ago. Surely behind the scenes there is nothing more than some templates, database of articles with atributes which shows on which template on which domain?
Can't you alias both names to same site so that the name would make no difference? Then you could register theregister.net and some others too and have a really wide presence, theregister-wise.
I don't mean a simple site forward but true aliasing of the same content to different domains, this should be doable. Or just having two different frontend websites with same layouts pulling content from the same backend database.
Or simply revising the way you update your content and have it saved into two sites instead of just one.
Automate, that's what computers are for!
The Register is a uk news site. It may serve the whole world via the internet, but that is no reason to give the site an American address (even if a lot of the world doesn't know any better).
Keep British spelling! PLEASE!
Having us.theregister.co.uk sounds fine to me - perhaps it would make other companies think about their address (yes, I know it's not likely!).
The brief attempt at a us-only brand failed a few years back as I recall. Even when it was available, I preferred the .co.uk version.
Don't screw with success -- remember "New Coke"
IMHO, el reg would lose a little something if it dropped the .co.uk. And that would be a shame.
Its your name, and its just fine the way it is.
Just like Post boxes should be red, and that you should be able to still sleep in Phone Boxes if caught without your keys on a drunken evening thats a British thing and should be retained!
theregister.co.uk all the way ;O)
Yeah, I know that people mindlessly type .com. Hell, I do. Mind you, that's probably not the best statistical sampling. No matter...
The point has been well-made that, by reinforcing The Register's Britishness, people get a heads-up that British expressions and humour are going to be here, so brace yourselves! Even though I'm a Canuck, I've still had to look up a few Reg terms, but that's a small price to pay for the unique perspective with which The Reg blesses us.
I'm not real fond of my name. Sure, I could change it, but it is who people know me as, and it is a part of me. In the immortal words of Popeye, "I yam what I yam..."
I would definately prefer that you stick with .co.uk, although I have to confess that I find it hard to justify why...
.co.uk for me
Is this just another US conspiracy to get rid of the letter U from everyday use.
(but of course that would result in a new .co.k domain which looks a bit too rude!)
Keep .co.uk and be proud of your letter U !
I would never have started reading the Reg if it had a .com as I would have assumed another bland US pseudo-news publication regurgitating manufacturers blurb as real news.
.co.uk isn't an absolute indicator of anything but .com is almost guaranteed to be focused on sales.
What is it with brands this week? First the olympic debarcle, then you lot...
As a faithful US reader, I tried the .com version when you first fired it up a few years ago. Frankly, I thought the US-specific articles were, well, boring. I switched back to the .co.uk version and never looked back. I join the majority of the comment=posters and say leave it well enough alone. Heck, it even makes me feel more l33t when I bring it up in front of other people. Guess that's kindof sad, really...
innit. Or are you suffering burger envy?
The Register is a British publication that just happens to have a global readership. Keep the .co.uk, I'd be sad to see it change.
Oh, and keep to british spelling... I'm still contemplating sueing microsoft for the spelling of colour in QBasic... took me ages to relearn the correct spelling of colour.
(I'm dyslexic and find remembering programming keywords easyer than words to go in a sentence)
definitely go for the .co.uk but redirect the .com
I have always been confused about what the difference is between the .com and .co.uk sites was so it might be worth clarifying if there is any difference between the content. (I also had issues understanding why channelregister.com has such a different look about it & if I should be reading it as well or if all the stories appear on the main reg page.).
Can you imagine what BOFH would say......
.com? fuck off!
Stick with .co.uk - vive le difference
It has to be .co.uk, because anything else means you can't refer to "us" and "them" anymore.
Keep it as .co.uk i recon. Keep it british. .com does seem more american, despite it being a 'global' domain
The Reg is funny, irreverent, teasing, hilarious... and inherently british, from the puns to the jokes to the content.
I know that IT is really international, but in this case The Reg truly has a passport from Her Majesty's Service. Don't ditch it. It worked for Bond, dinnit?
You're a British firm offering an international service. There is no truly international domain suffix, whereas there is a truly British one. So use it!
Been reading the site for years - keep the co.uk - it's just wouldn't be the same!
At times it exhibits a dry sense of humour and irony that seems uniquely British. I dont think the rest of the world would really care which you chose, but a number of Brits would object to it being .com.
So on balance - leave it at .co.uk
Because in the end no-one will really care. Simple forwarding .co.uk to .com will ensure no-one suffers any inconvenience
Can anyone else hear whalesong?
But seriously, its awfully nice of you chaps to be garnering public opinion in this way.
If only LOCOG had done the same for the 2012 abomination.
Somebody should send your bloody 'internationale' marketing department up the bomb!
Next thing you know we'll be reading about a tech company going out of "business" instead of going titsup!
This Texan prefers that you stay as British in URL as you are in attitude.
Why change it? It works fine the way it is.
If it must be changed, I'd be looking at redirecting everything to www.theregister.co.uk. You're a UK based operation, which is part of your USP. Be proud of that.
If you change it to uk.theregister.com, then you're almost hiding that USP. A mistake, I think
As a UK Citizen, I'm proud that the register is British. You should keep the .co.uk, your British heritage is surely one of the foundations of the unique Register editorial style.
I've been visiting ElReg for years now, first was hooked on the BoFH series, but now I depend on this site for tech news and other fun bits that make my day bearable at work.
This is one of the finest and funniest IT publications around and provides a refreshing non-U.S. centric POV. Please maintain your identity.
Joel Spolsky said "that American businesses had NO problem dealing with British providers" did he? Well that's cobblers. In fact a number of British high-tech companies have ended up establishing a "Global Headquarters" somewhere in the US, whilst all the R&D and 90% of everything else goes on in the UK, so that they can overcome NIH syndrome.
Oh, and keep it .co.uk.
I have always preferred locational domain names; it puts things into context. You present tech news from a uniquely British perspective, and without the .co.uk, it may be confusing to some of the...lesser intellectuals with whom I associate.
I have occasionally sent links to some of my friends, who were confused by the use of slang, or by the fact that the US was presented in third person (aren't all web sites in the US? after all everyone else is just an underdeveloped country, right?). I have been able to clear up their confusion just by pointing out the URL.
"See, no, it's from the UK....yes, the UK has internet....Yes, the UK has computers..."
Honestly, it's enough to get me depressed...
It's a UK web site. It should have a .co.uk URL.
Have you put the text 'theregister.com' through the Harding FPA epilepsy machine test?
It is triggering all sorts, best stay with .co.uk.
.COM for 2 reasons:
.COM is seen as international, not just American. The sun never sets on .COM
.COM is 2 letters shorter, you could save hundreds of bytes of disk space by going .com
Do you trust ICAAN and their cousin from the netherworld Verisign? I don't; neither should you. And I am an American.
The ambiance is better drinking a pint while reading theregister.co.uk
Seriously, noone cares. You're not channel four, don't be worried about offending anyone.
Not too sure why you're agonising (with an 's') over this one. For a start, why does .com become, de facto, from the USA? But more importantly, the .co.uk signifies where you come from, not necessarily the target audience you seek. Of course, if you want to bow down to the pressures of pleasing any narrow-minded reader from the States who will only read it "coz it's home-grown" (1. do you really want to pander to these when there are so many who are rational and open minded and 2. we're back to the .com == USA argument above). Get over your vanity, get over the identity pressures, take pride in your heritage and go forward as you are, not how you think you ought to be in other people's eyes.
it gives an international flavour.
Besides... dot com is for sissies.
el reg is a British site, British humour, british spelling (or it damn well ought to be), british sniping at politics rather than fawning over US assholes in the white house.
Besides which the BOFH is london based... if you shift to .com he's going to have to blow up most of homeland security in order to manage to smuggle his loot into the states for his new job, (hmm...now that sounds good, bunch of paranoid officious airport assholes), and probably end up hacking the budweiser factory computer controlled brewing system to get a good lager.
.com would make my life easier: not when I'm using my own pc, but I would be happier on any other machine... And who cares about the UK angle anyway? (As long as you keep the British humour...)
dEaR tHeReGistER !
i h4Ve kiDnappED a11 oV yR p3tS, bWaHAHAHAHaaaHHA !
iF yoU iS nOt r3ta4inG teh .co.uk d0m41N, THE PUPPIES WILL DIE!!!!!!!!
a1s0, i wi11 be to DoS yR 3VIL .com SICKNESS w1v mY b4d4ss KiLLer 4rmY of z0mBieeeez!!!!!
Re: By Steve ".co.uk or the puppy gets it."
Posted Friday 8th June 2007 10:07 GMT
Are the puppies in a nice black-bean sauce?
Its late, dinner's on my mind...
For the rest, my opinion was best put by the person who wrote -
"The Register is a British publication that just happens to have a global readership."
Why tamper with perfection?
Whether "uk" or "com", as long as the vulture flies high I don't care where my news is coming from...
Another me too! I wasn't going to bother posting since I agree with nearly everyone else in voting for .co.uk, but decided to just in case you do a Blair.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017