I'm **strongly** all for umn.edu/something
otherwise known as subfolders instead of subdomains.
1. Eliminates the problem of setting up a redirect from
http://www.department.umn.edu to http://department.umn.edu
2. I believe search engines treat subdomains as separate sites - anyone
3. A manual search of "h1n1 site:www.umn.edu" may not return results
from "h1n1 site:www.research.umn.edu"
4. In print/verbal promotion it is easier to remember/promote
"umn.edu/h1n1" then "www.boyton.umn.edu/h1n1"
5. Subfolders mimic a user's desktop organizational experience.
Everything is contained it it's respective compartments.
6. People are being trained not to trust and question sub domains
because of spam issues.
7. Subfolders create a stronger sense of unity and connection in the
university environment. All housed within "umn.edu"
8. Personal: I think sub-domains are passee and prohibit the user from
quickly eliminating part of the url and treating it as a bread crumb/
university wide navigation tool.
Peter Wiringa wrote:
> On 1/26/10 4:26 PM, Kristofer Layon wrote:
>> I have some clients' sites on www1, but could happily move them. I can't
>> think of an argument for keeping them there; I'm sure most clients would
>> gladly go to a /name.umn.edu/ domain instead of their current
>> (though I'm sure, now that I said this, someone would surprise me…)
> Actually, I'd be curious to hear what others have experienced in this
> area. We [very] rarely run into a situation with a central (TC or
> systemwide) initiative where we can't obtain a name we're hoping for,
> that really does seem to apply to our situation, because it's already
> in use by a unit for what may be a very narrow purpose.
> It seems like it's in the best interests of some groups to identify
> with with their ancestors, i.e. the department that offers that basket
> weaving course might have more clout if their association with their
> college is clear, and their college might have more clout if the fact
> they're a part of the U is clear (I believe there's data to support
> the unit to the U as a whole portion, going back to the brand policy).
> This could be done on the site and also through the hostname.
> Just an example: maps.umn.edu. The interactive side (and eventually
> the static pages) of the TC campus maps are under
> campusmaps.umn.edu/tc. We had to avoid www1 for technical
> considerations, but maps.umn.edu was already taken. Not trying to
> sound greedy here, and I imagine you (Kris) and some others have come
> across similar situations, but it seems to me like this is a clear
> example of something where a much broader audience could be served in
> the maps.umn.edu space. Be thankful for redirects, I suppose
> (umn.edu/maps does something useful).
> Not that campusmaps.umn.edu is bad name.
> We've been talking a lot about the architecture of the U lately, and I
> think it would be helpful for us to understand where all the other
> units and developers/ecomm folks are coming from. Five models come to
> mind when you drop down a level, under a college or VP or vice
> chancellor, for instance.
> The something.umn.edu does make sense for functions of units that
> serve campuswide or systemwide purposes, regardless of where they are
> in the org chart (i.e. onestop.umn.edu, which serves a huge audience
> and has a cool name).
> What makes sense to everyone? And why? Is the idea of different
> hostnames for everything driven more by the client or by the developer?