3 ms·
I rather preferred the aesthetic of "guardian.co.uk" to "theguardian.com". The "theguardian" logo is rather fugly. It also seems a bit premature, why not wait
by nly 13y ago
I rather preferred the aesthetic of "guardian.co.uk" to "theguardian.com". The "theguardian" logo is rather fugly.
It also seems a bit premature, why not wait for guardian.news?
- Shank 13y agoI think they'll probably end up keeping guardian.co.uk just to prevent a squatter from taking it - this post sounds more like an explanation to readers as to why they're now redirecting to the new location and silently changing URLs to the new place. At least, I don't think that The Guardian is going to ditch it any time soon - too much SEO & incoming links to the old tld to lose if they do.
- nly 13y agoIt doesn't matter. The old domain issues a HTTP redirect, so it's effectively dead from a marketing perspective.
- erichurkman 13y agoNot dead. All links issue 301 Moved Permanently redirects. curl -I http://www.theguardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/30/clegg-go-home-illegal-immigrants-campaign HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently <snip> Location: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/30/clegg-go-home-illegal-immigrants-campaign Also, all of their pages have proper canonical tags. <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/30/clegg-go-home-illegal-immigrants-campaign" />
- nly 13y agoWhat I meant by "marketing" was the .uk domain is no longer visible to visitors. I don't care about SEO.
- tsmarsh 13y agogu.com works beautifully.
- nly 13y agoBut... http://www.gupuds.com/ http://www.gupuds.com/