![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| |||||||
| Forums | Register | Groups | Awards | Arcade | Pets | T-Bucks / T-Store | Invite Your Friends | Blogs | Mark Forums Read |
| Web Design Forums and discussions on webdesign |
Web Design | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| Civilians | Domain are very cheap now adays. What would be the pros and cons of using different hosts served from the same server, say: www.blogyourbrainoff.com and www.yourbusiness.com instead of diferent domains, say: www.yourbusiness.com and blogyourbrainoff.yourbusiness.com I could imagine there are a number of pros, cons and 'issues' from the admin people (performance, security, firewall issues, ...), users (wouldn't www.blogyourbrainoff.com look nicer to them?), designers (css's all for same host, ...) and arquitect (cookies, security, back end programming, ...) perspectives. Albretch |
|
| | #2 (permalink) |
| Civilians | onetitfemme wrote: > Domain are very cheap now adays. > > What would be the pros and cons of using different hosts served from > the same server, say: > > www.blogyourbrainoff.com > > and > > www.yourbusiness.com > > instead of diferent domains, say: > > www.yourbusiness.com > > and > > blogyourbrainoff.yourbusiness.com > > I could imagine there are a number of pros, cons and 'issues' from the > admin people (performance, security, firewall issues, ...), users > (wouldn't www.blogyourbrainoff.com look nicer to them?), designers > (css's all for same host, ...) and arquitect (cookies, security, back > end programming, ...) perspectives. > > Albretch > Dont think it would matter. The URL isn't as important as your content after all; but from a bran point of view, perhaps different URLs for *distinct* products is always a good idea. We have one site that uses blog.<mydomain>.com and <mydomain>.com without any problems; although the blog is not physically the same site, it is related, and part of the same site subject-matter-wise. But if the subdomain was not related I'd have it somewhere else. -- x theSpaceGirl (miranda) # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com # # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website # # this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005 # explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers # to duplicate this post. |
|
| | #3 (permalink) |
| Civilians | onetitfemme wrote: > What would be the pros and cons of using different hosts served from > the same server, say: > > www.blogyourbrainoff.com > > and > > www.yourbusiness.com > > instead of diferent domains, say: > > www.yourbusiness.com > > and > > blogyourbrainoff.yourbusiness.com If the two sites are logically related, like the blog in question is an official function of the YourBusiness company and is in fact about YourBusiness, then a logical subdomain (I'd perhaps go for the shorter blog.yourbusiness.com rather than blogyourbrainoff.yourbusiness.com, unless there was a crucial need to "brand" the phrase "blog your brain off") would make sense. On the other hand, if it's the personal blog of the business's founder with no connection to the business other than that it's created by the same person, then a separate domain (I'd use one in .org, .info, or .name if it was a noncommercial project) would make some sense. When a group of sites is definitely intended to be seen as a related cluster under a single "brand name", then they definitely should be in logical subdomains: "miami.foobar.org" and "cleveland.foobar.org" for the Miami and Cleveland chapters of the Foobar organization, rather than "foobar-miami.org" and "foobar-cleveland.org". When whole clusters of different domains are registered and used with a common substring instead of use of subdomains, I refer to the practice as "Stupid Unnecessary Domain Names", and consider it one of the signs of the extreme dumbing-down of the Internet over the last decade. More on subdomains: http://domains.dan.info/structure/subdomains.html Dan's Domain Hall of Shame: http://domains.dan.info/hall/shame.html -- Dan |
|
| | #4 (permalink) |
| Civilians | onetitfemme wrote: > OK, I found your points insightful, but you/we are right up to a > point. I find *your* points rather hard to understand, however. > IMHO, even your examples are very much contrived if you consider that > "foobar-miami.org" and "foobar-cleveland.org" or for that matter, > "miami.foobar.org" and "cleveland.foobar.org", make sense for people in > the US, but if you think 'global' (as I think 'you' should while > talking about anything Internet), how is it that people would prefer: So make it miami.us.foobar.org, paris.france.foobar.org, and so on. > http://www.yourcompany.com/?chocolate > > and/or > > http://www.yourcompany.com/?shokora (<- Japanese) I suppose it depends on whether your site is in English or Japanese, I guess... and support of international character sets so that the Japanese word for chocolate can be written in the correct characters would be helpful (though internationalized URLs are still not really well supported). Just what does that have to do with domain usage, however? -- Dan |
|
| | #5 (permalink) |
| Civilians | > I suppose it depends on whether your site is in English or Japanese, I guess. Or whether you put it online and it has an international appeal (something not only desirable ;-), but expected on the Net) > support of international character sets so that the Japanese word for chocolate can be written in the correct characters "the correct characters ..." I just used an example. in the case of Japanese, in their lang they use three different scripts (including a "latin-1" one) > would be helpful (though internationalized URLs are still not really well supported). That, we know, WILL change and is changing rapidly > Just what does that have to do with domain usage, however? Initially I asked for ideas on using 'domain' or 'URL paths' as kinds of "namespaces" Also I think internationalised 'URL paths' are better for managing webapplications; their log files, performance, adjustment to user locales, data store access paths; memory footprint. When you use different domains you are basically using virtual hosts (another server running instance) right? I think this is the case at least with Apache lbrtchx |
|
| | #6 (permalink) |
| Civilians | onetitfemme <onetitfemme2005@yahoo.com> wrote: > I could imagine there are a number of pros, cons and 'issues' from the > admin people (performance, security, firewall issues, ...) No security issues. Firewall issues are pretty unlikely as well. miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan |
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| plesky domains! | |-|erc | Web Design | 0 | 10-14-2005 02:05 |
| DOT WS Domains? | justsurfing@gmail.com | Web Design | 6 | 09-28-2005 04:00 |
| [News Feed] Common Lineage Suggested For Viruses That Infect Hosts From All Three Domains Of Life | Forum Mouse | News Articles | 0 | 12-06-2004 16:00 |
| Lock down your domains. | GreyWyvern | Web Design | 10 | 11-12-2004 16:00 |
| Backordering domains..... | Viper | Web Design | 14 | 11-03-2004 16:00 |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |