A Plea For Actual Domain Identities

Question

There is a blog post from Joel on the Stack Exchange blog around the time of WebApps' Area 51 Graduation:

A while ago, I wrote:

“Individually-branded sites felt more authentic and trustworthy. We thought that letting every Stack Exchange site have its own domain name, visual identity, logo, and brand would help the community feel more coherent. After all, nobody wants to say that they live in Housing Block 2938TC.”

Well, funny thing… that didn't quite work out the way I expected... mostly because nobody could think of any good domain names. Believe it or not, "NothingToInstall" was one of the better suggestions. Ack.

This reasoning was used as justification for reverting "Nothing to Install" to "Web Applications", and maintaining graduating sites as "topic.stackexchange.com".

I understand the backlash that Nothing to Install received, and I understand that some sites' names are just difficult, wordy, mildly ambiguous, and aren't the obvious solution to the problem. But let's flip this situation on its head.

Ask Ubuntu has graduated and maintains its own domain identity, that being askubuntu.com, which ubuntu.stackexchange.com redirects too. I'm well aware that this is in large part to the partnership between Stack Exchange and Canonical. Here in pure Stack Exchange land, though, there are a handful of sites that actually have and actively maintain identities, with spectacular names (Ask Different, Seasoned Advice, Cross Validated), and the domain names to match.

Then there are those that were fraught with contention and didn't have an overwhelming agreement regarding the name/identity of the site. Nothing to Install -> Web Applications, and personally-notable, Gaming.

Everyone is correct here. Domain names are important, and both topic.stackexchange.com and an actual identity serve a significant purpose. An elevator pitch is important not only for introducing the users to the site upon their first visit, but also to explain what the site is in, well, elevators. All of these work together.

However, there are sites that have developed and earned their identity. I admit to speaking with absolute bias with regard to Ask Different, but I also am incredibly fond of Seasoned Advice. To date, Ask Different has accepted users publicly for over 1 year now, and has benefited tremendously from external advertising, the WWDC and Lion release traffic, and stands to continue this trend from iOS 5, and the continual release and update of hardware by Apple. There has been one question about not understanding the name of the site, but this is far from the mixed opinion that other sites have encountered.

In general, neither approach is correct in all circumstances. Forcing every single site to not have their own identity or branding, but to simply be subsumed into the generic "stackexchange.com" domain is, in some ways, just as harmful has forcing all sites to choose their own name, domain, and branding.

For sites that have graduated and established their use and identity, please grant us the use of our brand domain name.

---

See also: a very topical point on Meta Gaming.SE.

Answer 1

Since It's clear that a custom domain is off the table (something I emphatically disagree with, but there appears to be no feasible way around), could we at the very least get the name in the system changed from "Apple" to "Ask Different". I'd be mostly satisfied if the mobile site said "Ask Different", people subscribed to the "Ask Different" newsletter, we were listed as "Ask Different" in the Stack Exchange list of sites, etc. Using the actual askdifferent.com domain would be nice, but the confusing branding actually on the site is a bigger concern to me.

Answer 2

There was some discussion of sites perhaps "graduating" to a custom domain at roughly Server Fault traffic levels, which I believe 10 months ago was around 60k/visitors day. Apple.se currently gets around 12k/visitors per day.

But I don't think we would want to do that now, even if the site did grow by 5x. As you pointed out ...

Ask Ubuntu has graduated and maintains it's own domain identity, that being askubuntu.com, which ubuntu.stackexchange.com redirects too. I'm well aware that this is in large part to the partnership between Stack Exchange and Canonical.

From my perspective, this is now the only condition under which custom domain names will be considered.

Of course we are happy to maintain the courtesy redirects for sites that did pick a decent domain name under the old plan, but this is strictly a grandfathered-in best effort sort of deal. We now prefer the "United States of Stack Exchange" model for its simplicity. In retrospect, the idea that we would have 50 websites, with fifty different domain names, is COMPLETELY INSANE. I honestly have no idea what we were thinking there.

Any way, long story short -- if you can get Apple, Inc. to officially sign off on the site, we will happily change the domain name to whatever is required. Beyond that Act of God scenario, we simply aren't doing custom domain names for any sites as a matter of policy.

Answer 3

In my (albeit limited) experience telling people about Ask Ubuntu, it's a lot easier to explain to people that I'm a community member of AskUbuntu.com, a Ubuntu Q&A site, instead of being a member of "Ubuntu.stackexchange" - it just doesn't click with people who

A. don't already know about the site,

or

B. don't know about stackoverflow (or superuser, or serverfault, or....)

So having a domain name is nice when you're explaining the concept to folks, but the answers above have good points as well.

Answer 4

In response to the two current answers: If I understand correctly, you're arguing for the lowest common denominator?

"We can't do that because everyone will want one" doesn't really convince me, and it's NOT applied consistently:

• sites don't come out of beta at the same time.
• not all sites even survive - how unfair!

Both of these are 'fuzzy' decisions which you apparently don't shy away from.

I've argued this point before, but please forgive me for saying it again:

I don't believe people get mad, impassioned or cantankerous because they disagree with your decisions, so much as they get mad because you change your minds¹, or don't deliver what's 'written on the box'.

I'm totally convinced that you can have a differentiated approach to domain names without the strife, as long as you are upfront about it:

After one year out of beta, if a site has clearly coalesced around an identity/domain which we are also happy with, we will consider switching to the given domain name (while conserving the topic.se as a redirect)

^{1. This doesn't mean you should never change your minds, I'm just explaining what I believe generates the flak.}

Answer 5

When the announcement went out

Domain Names: The Wrong Question

… there were still many passionate (and divisive) arguments on both sides of the issue. Over and over, each site would get mired down in the mind-rending work of just naming the site. So, we finally made the decision to stop squandering all all that passion and energy on such a cantankerous issue like custom naming.

With the 20-20 hindsight of launching 61 sites, the simple naming convention (descriptive of their place in the network) was the best decisions to come out of the controversy. I'd rather just get to work and focus on the content of the site.

Having said that, There were a few sites that made an impassioned plea to keep their name. Under the hood, sites still have their topic.stackexchange.com name, but we are able to accommodate those few sites by creating a permanent redirect from from their custom name. It was a simple solution, so we were glad to do it.

If you are seeing inconsistencies in the naming convention, that's only from the stuff we grandfathered in for those few sites. I'm not the final arbiter of what is technically feasible or how effort should be expended coding around these exceptions, but rousting this age-old argument doesn't seem like it will produce anything useful. Coming from the developers, though, it looks like we're just going to have to say "no thanks."

Answer 6

Seasoned Advice is an awesome name. I send people links to http://SeasonedAdvice.com/ instead of https://cooking.stackexchange.com/, 'cause it just looks so much better.

Unfortunately, making this the primary point of entry would set a bad example. 'tis the old, "If I give one to you then I have to give one to everyone else" thing - pretty soon, every graduating site wants one, regardless of whether they actually have a good name. This was a bitter argument once twice already; the outcome was a real bummer for those of us who wanted unique domain names, and it was a sour note played during what should be a time of jubilation - does this really need to be repeated for every site?