back to article So what's in a URL? The Reg URL?

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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

theregister.co.uk

You are a U.K. publication so you should use theregister.co.uk and if you want to have targeted content simply do as the BBC do at news.bbc.co.uk and allow users to choose between a U.K. or International edition.

I think you are big enough and have enough readers now that it doesn't matter. The BBC don't have a .com address and they have millions of readers from all around the world. Why do you need a .com address? Are you just worried that our American cousins will think less of a .co.uk domain than a .com domain? That's just silly and the BBC is proof that if your content is good and something that people want to read then the domain doesn't really matter.

/Steve (from U.K. but currently residing in Västerås, Sweden)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Keep it .co.uk

I have a bit of a patriotic soft spot for .co.uk addresses I have to admit, but in this case I feel it does actually serve some additional "branding" purpose if you like: although The Reg is now an internationally read website, it does still slant it's editorial, and it's outlook on the world if you like, with a definitely British angle on things. I'd like it to stay that way.

Not to say I won't read it ever again if it did switch to a .com (spit!) of course...

0
0

At the risk of a "me too"

I'd say definitely stick with the .co.uk.

Part of the charm of El Reg is the fact that it's mainly UK based, covers news items of interest to UK techies and has a definite British sense of humour.

The .co.uk emphasises that.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Consult with your Logo Watch dept.

All this worry about branding sounds perilously close to the navel-gazing, tree-hugging hippy rubbish that your esteemed publication is first in line to shoot down as the pointless and costly exercise it is.

However, assuming you do want to offer different content depending on whether the audience is US or UK/European - and there is a good argument for doing so - then why not serve .co.uk to the UK and .com to the US?

On the flip side, you've already described how to achieve the desired effect without having to force users to make the choice of which domain they type in, or click through to. Like many other UK newspapers (both online and in print) that have a UK edition and a global edition, the choice is made by the user on the site itself, perhaps with a cookie set to remember their preference next visit.

When it boils down to it, if you do choose to offer content tailored to the audience, then a choice will have to made at some point, whether it's in the URL, or by clicking a link (or by auto-magic detection of location).

Personally, I say keep .co.uk - it reflects the writing style better!

Jock

0
0
Anonymous Coward

theregsiter?

How about buying theregsiter.co.uk, I must make that typo 2 or 3 times a week :)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Show some pride

If .co.uk is good enough for the BBC, it ought to be good enough for you.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

It's part of the character of the site

You've always been a British site - it's obvious in the humour and sarcasm.

Keep it that way!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Keep it!

The .co.uk is part and parcel of what The Register is. Keep it!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Dot co dot UK - Of course!

WHat are you thinking! Next it will be an attempt to water down the humour "to widen your international appeal"?

The Register is a little bit of Britain on an international stage. Keep the .co.uk .

- Paddy3118

0
0
Anonymous Coward

us.theregister.co.uk

Silly? Isn't that all the more reason? The web is silly and Britain celebrates silliness.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Title

As an American: Keep the .co.uk.

It's who you are and who you have been for the last eight or nine years that I've been reading the site.

Scott O.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Idea

How about you drop them both and redirect everything to theregister.uk.com. That way everyone would be equally confused. Perfect.

0
0

.COM

The one that generates the most revenue.

As long as I don't have to change my bookmarks I don't mind. Sure it would be nice to keep it .co.uk but the more money you can make the better.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I don't think it matters

...as long as the quality of the stories remains the same.

Do whatever makes it easier on yourselves.

0
0

Keep your indentity....

Well, as an expatriate living in the glorious totalitarian state previously known as the leader of the free world I have to say keep the .co.uk.

.com may not be a 'US' domain, but it operates as a defacto US domain. The Register is profoundly British, from the sense of humor to the point of view, the uniquely pragmatic and cynical British attitude shines through.

I personally like .co.uk, but in this modern world of sheep-like web users with IQs that match their sheep-like status, having a '.com' domain is a far more successful strategy. Few if any web-sheep even know how to type anything other than '.com' when entering a domain name.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Who cares?

Just don't make me change my bookmark and I truly don't care.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Keep .co.uk

For all the good reasons already mentioned.

It's true, "us.theregister.co.uk" for the US version does look a bit silly, but why not make it "yank.theregister.co.uk"? :-)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Should be...

...theregister.co.uk should show news with popular UK news at the top; theregister.com.us should show news with popular US news at the top; theregister.com should show new with the overall most popular at the top.

I would use .co.uk and flick to .com for a different take on things when bored.

0
0

Keep both and point them at one place?

If i'm right in the thinking that you need two seperate sites to serve locally relavent content and probably most importantly sell advertising space to advertisers who want to sell into a particular market then why not just have one single site where the users IP is parsed and you then send them to the relevent edition? (clearly, undetermined IP's get sent to the UK version)

Then have something in the topbar which allows the user to select which edition they view should they not wish to view the version for their locality.

Not only does this mean you only need one site, without the need for endless subdomains blah blah, it means it scales - should you add say a Brazilian edition you just add a new edition for the locality and set up the IP parsing.

That way you can have as many domain endings as you like, just all pointing at the same place. And if you feel the need to have the site stored in several localities to minimise international transit just use a CDN platform.

0
0

UK all the way

El Reg has always been (in my eyes) a UK IT News website, that covers both national and international geographical area. Unless El Reg is planning on have IT Public Sector news for the US then why pretend to be global?

IT News from around the world but based from the UK. Written by a UK team (mainly), by a UK company for what must be generally the UK market.

Why drop the UK domain?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Just drop dot-com

Just drop the whole dot-com thing, and stick to the proud www.theregister.co.uk tradition everywhere.

-Jan from Czech rep.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Don't bland the brand!

I note that the beeb and the graun have just won two webbies - and generally, .uk is no disadvantage in branding terms for a news website of any description.

I think it is part of your brand and none the worse for that.

Don't bland the brand!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

.co.uk

Why not just have the .com site forward to the .co.uk. That way if you type in the .com you get the .co.uk

http://www.motorcyclenews.com does this but the wrong way around. If you enter .co.uk you end up with the .com.

The Register site is UK based so the address you see should be .co.uk

Boomer (in da UK)

0
0
Bronze badge

...where once was a horse...

(Old UseNet folks will get the reference)

Anyway, late to the party but just _have_ to join the pile-on. I've been a Reg reader (in the U.S.) too long to remember, and dabbled with the "U.S. local" edition for under a week. Of course, I also subscribe to The Economist, but by the look of the above I'm not atypical. As long as you don't just give up the .com to be one of those nasty web-graveyards, _please_ keep .co.uk as the main address.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

.co.uk

.co.uk is the way to go.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I wouldn't trust .com

I'm in the US. I stopped reading the .com site back when you served an Americanized feed to it that removed some of the salt. Keep the .co.uk and just make the .com DNS record point to the same IP address.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

.COM = US

I agree that .com generally implies (at least to a majority of people) a location in the United States. While that may or may not be so terrible, The Register is in the UK and people ought not be mistaken about that.

Plus the .co.uk explains all the British slang and nonsense words that liberally cover the site. If people thought for an instant that such terms were coming from a US site the game would be up and people would think you were a wack Web 2.0 or SMS company.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

www.isaidmobe.co.uk

No more meetings about this issue, or you'll start redesigning the logo. Is that whalesong I hear?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

.co.uk

You're a British publication, be proud of it.

If I want US-based news I'll go somewhere else.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Keep the co.uk!

Says it all - keep the co.uk - british and proud of it.

0
0

A no brainer, as our American cousins would say

As a long time reader, and recent contributor, methinks .co.uk is all that is needed!

0
0

El Reg is rebranding madness!!

Watch out - whale song at 12 O Clock!!

Severe danger of incense burning may also occur!!

Please be serious!!

Most self respecting UK companies go for the .co.uk - then to avoid cyber squaters and typo's grab the .com - but then alias it to the same site (works on small sites) or as I presume you are suggesting use mod_rewrite (or similar) to forward any of the .com's to .co.uk

All it takes is a 301 redirect and Robert's your fathers brother.

Of course if you do decide to move to a .com then I think we will need to start a petition at no. 10 for you all to be hanged, though being lenient you could be given colonisation instead.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

us.theregister.co.uk

Do your little bit to remind the yanks that they do not actually controll everything, and the world does not revolve around America.

0
0

Firefox

As long as I can type "theregister" into the address bar of Firefox and come directly to The Reg site, I don't care too much though I think keeping the .co.uk is a good idea.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

.co.uk

I just tried typing it as theregister.com and I /can't do it/. My fingers want to type theregister.co.uk.

My other furry/SL cohorts agree - .co.uk

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Another .co.uk vote

Whilst I'm not going to stop reading it if it goes .com, I do like the .co.uk. It reminds me that the US isn't everything... thankfully...

0
0

El Reg URL

to start I really enjoy the Register. Am a US resident, but am proud to admit I religously read the Register. So I feel a certain prestige not depending on just the US propo. At the same time, it is probably easier for folks around the world to find a .com URL as compared to .co.uk. Being a braggart, I always tell folks that I use the Register, a Brits website due to the valid alternate views that it presents.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

its .co.uk?

I have to admit I originally Googled the register and didn't pay attention to the url, then I added it to my iGoogle RSS feed and didn't need to remember it or give it any attention. I assumed it was a .com not a .co.uk even though I knew it was a site from the United Kingdon. Yet again I learn something useful from an article on The Register.

0
0

Domain should reflect the writers

I've been reading elreg from the U.S. for 5 or 6 years now, and I've always typed the .co.uk domain in. I think the domain name used should reflect the culture of the site. Given that the writing uses many British phrases (presumably most of your journalists are British), staying with ".co.uk" seems appropriate. I don't see how changing it to ".com" would increase the site's appeal.

Although there I think anything of a site that was just ".com" to start with, changing from ".co.uk" to ".com" for the purpose of appealing to American readers seems like the sort of thing that would backfire and/or attract the wrong type of readership (i.e., who would suddenly start reading a site just because the domain changed from ".co.uk" to ".com").

0
0

Whiff of whalesong ?

What about a nice new logo too ? I've seen some really cutting edge stuff for something that escapes me just now around recently.

0
0

And another vote for...

theregister.co.uk of course!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Get on with the articles..

Are you bored? Its great like it is, stop worrying about your domain name and keep putting your effort into the great articles! (btw my vote is keep it .co.uk)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Title

I usually type the .com address but I'm not worried if that forwards me to the co.uk address

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Missing the point I think

Aside from a few xenophobes, I don't think anyone really CARES what the url is.

The important part is content and speed. Being located in the US, I know that if I type in elreg.co.uk, I'll be served more slowly than if I type elreg.com.

No matter what URL you go with, I think you need to make sure that it gets served to people at the same speed as their local version would have been previously.

Of course, since I'm US and we're far far better than anyone else, I'm only dimly aware that there IS someplace outside the US, but I've been told that it exists, and so I think they probably imagine they matter too.

B

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Another vote for .co.uk

It is not just brand but also culture (or cult?). You're a global brand the way it is and with merits.

It is hard work and a waste to offer different content on two or more 'national' sites. IT is without borders.

If anything just tag the article with US/EU/whatever for local interests along with NSFW/Letters/etc. Then redirect the .com to .co.uk. That's all you'll need.

MM - a long time reader from Brazil.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I say keep it! Down with the bloody Americans...I mean Go Al Gore!

It sucks that the US is trying to own the Internet...I know Al Gore created it, but come on!...leave your meat puppets off and be a team player! Don't give in to Da Man! :)

As a reader, there's something exotic about the .co.uk for us American folks over here and I would have thought there would also be a bit of national pride on your parts. *shrug* Just my $.02

0
0

To quote another (nearly) former tech newsletter

Nasty, British and short - stay with the co.uk.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Stick with .co.uk.

I can only echo the sentiments of some other and say that the .co.uk speaks of British integrity and humour.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Plain old redirect?

So what would the difference be with us.elreg and uk.elreg? If the stories are different, or there's different filtering of stories, then there's the reason for going .com and redirecting .co.uk to uk.elreg.

But if there's no difference, then it's just a toss-up, and whichever loses gets to be redirected to the winner, with the consolation prize of a lifetime of 302 (Found) HTTP replies. Setting up reverse proxies around the world with uk/us/de/ca/ja/etc won't really matter to Apache.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Keep it co.uk

Don't change a winning formula.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017