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? >