[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/09/03]
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Simon Cozens wrote: > What next? rsync://rsync.foo.com? Do you ssh to ssh.yourhost.yourdomain.net? > Should file: URLs be redesignated file://file.localhost/... ? Hey, mom, I'm > just connecting to redundancy://redundancy.redundancy.org/redundancy/ This reminded me of what is more of a human error than a software error. I hate the way that movie companies use domains. To transform this in to a software rant, I hate the software that doesn't slap them the instant they try to register domains like www.myproduct2-themovie.com or www.myproduct1.com. The basic way of handling things is to have a site (say www.mysite.com) and use this to display products, as in www.mysite.com/myproduct1 and www.mysite.com/myproduct/2. But movie studios don't want to use this standard format. Getting a new domain name just to promote a product with a short shelf life clutters things. Are they really going to be updating and promoting the website two years after the release? Do we really need a new domain for each product? The argument that people won't know what studio to find the movie under doesn't really stand up well, as there are search engines, and no doubt sites which list the top boxoffice hits (the only ones that have their own websites to begin with) and links to their official sites. Imagine if everyone got a new domain for every product... anns_photo_album.org, anns_resume.com, anns_list_of_pet_peeves.org, ann_old_table_for_sale.com, and of course ann-theperson.There's stuff above here
Generated at 14:02 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52