I'm **strongly** all for umn.edu/something
otherwise known as subfolders instead of subdomains.

Reasoning:

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 
know?

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.



Andre






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
>> /www1.umn.edu/name/.
>>
>> (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.
>
>    umn.edu/unit/something
>    umn.edu/something
>    unit.umn.edu/something
>    something.unit.umn.edu
>    something.umn.edu
>
> 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?
>