Andre, I'm going to have to wholeheartedly (but respectfully) disagree 
with you on some points here.

We *want* to be able to search department websites separately via a 
search engine.  We also want to be able to search the entire U 
collectively.  Sub-domains help us do both.

There could be 10 departments who want to promote content about H1N1... 
if boynton grabs first... what are all those other 
departments to do?,, is a nice solution to the problem.

I've never heard of anybody being scared of a subdomain because of spam?

Sub-domains are a fundamental component of DNS, the Internet, and the 
World Wide Web.  They're no more out of vogue than the dot-com is.  To 
quote a good point you made recently, Andre: people find stuff by 
searching.  They might not even care what the URL is.  And people can 
find what they need just as easily if the URL is or  Splitting up websites into separate subdomains of UMN.EDU 
makes sense from a network infrastructure and information management 
viewpoint, I believe.  We're bound to run into problems using third 
party tools if all of our websites run as subfolders of 
There's a lot of web technology that assumes different sites are on 
different domains.

The U has far, far too many websites for us all to be subfolders of


Andre Leroux wrote:
> I'm **strongly** all for
> otherwise known as subfolders instead of subdomains.
> Reasoning:
> 1. Eliminates the problem of setting up a redirect from 
> to
> 2. I believe search engines treat subdomains as separate sites - anyone 
> know?
> 3. A manual search of "h1n1" may not return results 
> from "h1n1"
> 4. In print/verbal promotion it is easier to remember/promote 
> "" then ""
> 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 ""
> 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 / 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: The interactive side (and eventually 
>> the static pages) of the TC campus maps are under 
>> We had to avoid www1 for technical 
>> considerations, but 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 space. Be thankful for redirects, I suppose 
>> ( does something useful).
>> Not that 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 does make sense for functions of units that 
>> serve campuswide or systemwide purposes, regardless of where they are 
>> in the org chart (i.e., 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?

Zachary Johnson * Web Manager
Student Unions & Activities
(612) 624 - 7270