16

Should Stack Exchanges sites with top-level domains have *.stackexchange.com redirects? For example:

  • stackoverflow.stackexchange.com
  • serverfault.stackexchange.com
  • superuser.stackexchange.com
  • askubuntu.stackexchange.com
  • seasonedadvice.stackexchange.com

(And also the meta.*.stackexchange.com versions of those too.)

It just seems like if someone hears about this Stack Exchange site Example that might help, they might try typing example.stackexchange.com instead of example.com.

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Five years later I think this this is still a really good idea. In the past I have tried manually typing e.g. superuser.stackexchange.com, assuming that all SE sites had naming consistency. I was surprised to get a "community 404" instead of being redirected to the site.
    – Cool Fool
    Commented Feb 2, 2016 at 7:21
  • Nope - the duplicate question doesn't have an answer. If it did before it is now gone. It is over 6 years since this one was asked and it is the older one. The duplicate question was asked 4 years later.
    – vfclists
    Commented May 30, 2017 at 8:16

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5
+25

Plus as a bonus*, greasemonkey scripts could then be tailored to *.stackexchange.com without having to worry about some border cases like askubuntu.com... Also, the SE branding would be even more consistent if it were part of each SE site URL

*) if the redirect were the other way around

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    Not true unless they redirected askubuntu.com to askubuntu.stackexchange.com. I don't think they'd do that. This is asking for the opposite: redirect askubuntu.stackexchange.com to askubuntu.com
    – Kip
    Commented May 17, 2011 at 18:26
  • @Kip true, I read Corey's comment before posting this and absent-mindedly swapped the redirection here. But this way would be even better IMHO since it would also put the SE branding into the URL
    – Tobias Kienzler
    Commented May 18, 2011 at 4:52
-1

Short answer - no :)

Long answer, these sites weren't created with these names when they were launched so adding an alias now would be somewhat redundant.

Improve this answer
4
  • 5
    "Redundant" assumes the condition that both domains are known by everyone. It's redundant up until the point when someone visits the alias and not the original. So though your answer of "adding an alias now would be somewhat redundant" may very well be correct, the reasoning of "these sites weren't created with these names when they were launched" doesn't seem to adequately explain it.
    – Corey
    Commented Dec 29, 2010 at 19:56
  • 15
    but it's not like it costs anything to add a redirect, right? redirects are intended to be redundant.
    – Kip
    Commented May 13, 2011 at 15:24
  • 1
    @kip sure, let's add redirects for every string combination from 1 to 12 characters, just in case!
    – Jeff Atwood
    Commented May 18, 2011 at 4:08
  • 9
    @JeffAtwood: Stop attacking a straw man. I'm just suggesting redirects for the urls that users are likely to enter if they assume that all stack exchange sites follow the same pattern as the sites they're familiar with.
    – Kip
    Commented May 18, 2011 at 13:08

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .