Choosing a domain name

[ktinkel]

Useful article exploring various aspects of domain name selection and use: “Tips on Choosing a Good Domain Name” by Christopher Heng of TheSiteWizard.

Discusses length of the name (ease of remembering it vs ease of typing); whether (or when) to use a hyphen in your name; pros and cons of using alternate domain types (.net or .biz rather than .com, for example); and more.

[terrie]

I just recently went through this with my sister when I was helping her set up email hosting at myhosting.com...the name she really wanted was taken and we were able to find an alternative that didn't have too many additional charaters...

He's got some really intersting info...thanks...

Terrie

[dacoyle]

Kathleen,

Very appropriate, considering what Lois posted a few days ago, the unfortunate choosing of "NineDaysofArt" for a URL.

I'll check out the article later, but my two cents, I always prefer shorter (and sometimes, having multiple domain names pointing to the same site...especially if you change the primary name, maintain the old version at least for a couple years.)

My agla.org was originally agla-va.org, but agla.org came available about a year later and we snatched it up quickly. We still kept agla-va.org active as many sites link to us and it took me a LONG time notifiy everyone and wait for links to get updated.

And a lesson learned from politicians; sometimes, it's in your best interest to register all variations and .com .net and .org just so your opposition can't set up an alternate site.

(later) OK, now I've read the article. It's rather basic and I disagree with parts of it. But some very good points.

Yes, hypens can be problematic and that's why I'm glad we got control of agla.org. But I disagree that longer names can sometimes be best; the fastest to type or remember is the rule of thumb I always use, which is why I fought against the standupforequality.org site I did last year. I just think it's too long to type, but it is easy to remember.

As to .net, .org, .com, in most cases this is easy but often abused. .net is a provider or host company. .org is a nonprofit, though not necessarily tax deductible. .com is commercial. For my candidate sites, some are .com and some are .org; I prefer .org but there's no clear choice on this. Do we need a .pol?

The article does cover some of the basics, but it could use an update.

[ktinkel]

Originally Posted by dacoyle

… my two cents, I always prefer shorter (and sometimes, having multiple domain names pointing to the same site...especially if you change the primary name, maintain the old version at least for a couple years.)

My agla.org was originally agla-va.org, but agla.org came available about a year later and we snatched it up quickly. We still kept agla-va.org active as many sites link to us and it took me a LONG time notifiy everyone and wait for links to get updated.

Short (meaningful) names are ideal, but they are often hard to get. We faced that problem here, as every variation we could think of on DTP and desktop publishing were taken, so we settled for something logical, assuming that most users would bookmark it anyway, so would seldom need to type in all those letters!

The names I really dislike are cryptic strings — often initials of the business name — that I always have to look up to remember.

Originally Posted by dacoyle

And a lesson learned from politicians; sometimes, it's in your best interest to register all variations and .com .net and .org just so your opposition can't set up an alternate site.

Politicians and many businesses.

Originally Posted by dacoyle

Yes, hypens can be problematic and that's why I'm glad we got control of agla.org. But I disagree that longer names can sometimes be best; the fastest to type or remember is the rule of thumb I always use, which is why I fought against the standupforequality.org site I did last year. I just think it's too long to type, but it is easy to remember.

See above. Do not exactly disagree, but prefer memorable (even if hard to type) to hard to remember.

Originally Posted by dacoyle

As to .net, .org, .com, in most cases this is easy but often abused. .net is a provider or host company. .org is a nonprofit, though not necessarily tax deductible. .com is commercial. For my candidate sites, some are .com and some are .org; I prefer .org but there's no clear choice on this. Do we need a .pol?

Not a bad idea — if only to give readers fair warning when the site is ambiguous (as the ones of yours I’ve seen are not). But .com is either incorrect or unfortunate! <g>

Originally Posted by dacoyle

The article does cover some of the basics, but it could use an update.

I guess this thread can update it here, then!

[dthomsen8]

Short or long? Is

www.fairmountca.org
better than
www.fairmountcivicassociation.org
when Fairmount, CA might be the interpretation?

We are using both.

[jgr]

Originally Posted by dthomsen8

Short or long? Is
www.fairmountca.org
better than
www.fairmountcivicassociation.org
when Fairmount, CA might be the interpretation?
We are using both.

Why not use a Solomonic approach and cut that baby in half -- use something like www.fairmountcivic.org?

[donmcc]

I think long names are less important these days. I suspect that most referrals to a site are from links, and once there the bookmark or history keep me coming back. I don't think I have ever had to type the name of this forum. I got here the first time from a link that KT put into a message on Adobe forums, and it's been a bookmark since.

Only in the case where a person sees an URL in print, on TV, or the side of a truck is typing it in necessary, and I think that is a fairly small source for most sites.

Don McCahill

[dacoyle]

Originally Posted by jgr

Why not use a Solomonic approach and cut that baby in half -- use something like www.fairmountcivic.org?

Exactly what I was going to suggest. The first could have been anything in Fairmount, but your Solomon solution should be clear to most users.

[dacoyle]

Kathleen,

I just enjoy it when we agree so much. <g>

Not a bad idea — if only to give readers fair warning when the site is ambiguous (as the ones of yours I’ve seen are not). But .com is either incorrect or unfortunate! <g>

Glad to know my sites aren't ambiguous. Especially for the political sites, I strive to make it clear what they are. I'm not sure .pol is the best extension... but I wish there was a dedicated extension for campaign sites. Something as structured as for .gov and .edu sites; only the campaign would be able to register any variation. No chance of scalpers.

[dacoyle]

Originally Posted by donmcc

Only in the case where a person sees an URL in print, on TV, or the side of a truck is typing it in necessary, and I think that is a fairly small source for most sites.Don McCahill

Depends on the site. Other than my FT job, every site I do still requires lots of printed material. And I insist the web URL is on every single piece of printed material. Especially for campaign sites, it's critical. Also for nonprofits.