.UK Announced

[Stephen]

No DRS actions on .uk owners

So more DRS = Even more revenue for Nominet

Sorry dont understand, it is not going to be possible for .co.uk owners to take action againist a .uk owner via DRS, as all parties had access to obtain the .uk?

So no DRS actions on .uk owners.

 

[Paullas]

Sorry dont understand, it is not going to be possible for .co.uk owners to take action againist a .uk owner via DRS, as all parties had access to obtain the .uk?

So no DRS actions on .uk owners.

what about vice versa????

 

[tifosi]

as all parties had access to obtain the .uk

But isn't that a major bone of contention with the proposal? They don't. The drs is (or should be) independent of the method of acquisition of the domain and all about the intention and usage of said domain.

 

[Paullas]

Nominet don't make any money from the DRS. The expert gets the fee if paid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok fair enough but still another potential big revenue stream from this.

 

[anthony]

Sorry Anthony, you are being daft now, well I say "now" but I mean "again".

I refer you to this post:
http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/uk-domain-name-consultations/108491-uk-announced-123.html#post423597

Are we going to get that definition from you of what a domainer is, or are you going to dodge the answer for fear of committing yourself?

 

[Stephen]

SEO and .uk

Back on topic

Does anybody know any more ways the new possible .uk could effect SEO or any comments on below please;

1. For somebody who doesnt provide linked pages from prior site,
   add a link inwards from anywhere else or submit new domain name
   to search engine, they may not get their new .uk site ranked for several months
2. Ranking would be reduced if full and proper migration was not done to new .uk site
3. The search engine algoritham uses the age of the domain as one of the
   many factors, so a new site via a new .uk will not rank as high even with
   same content, would make larger difference if prior site was very old
4. If they run both sites .co.uk and .uk at same time, it would be classed
   as duplicate content and sites would be marked down for ranking or at worst ignored
5. existing inward links to your site from other websites would not work
   unless special code is added to get then to work
6. would have to change other 301 redirects from other domains
   currently used for SEO to new site
7. would have to change other 301 redirects currently used
   for domain protection e.g. plural domains

If anybody thinks it would be possible to get input from Acorn SEO members
who may not be following this thread,
I would really appreciate some help in getting their input.

 

[Brassneck]

I just deleted a few posts that were getting a bit abusive and personal ......

Stephen.

 

[Brassneck]

Have you thought about editing (with indications of where you've edited) rather than deleting in full? I read the post you deleted as it came by email.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would love to have time to edit but in this case it was quickest to simply delete. Sorry if I deleted something important that got caught up in the middle - hopefully it can be reposted.

 

[GreyWing]

I refer you to this post:
http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/uk-domain-name-consultations/108491-uk-announced-123.html#post423597

Are we going to get that definition from you of what a domainer is, or are you going to dodge the answer for fear of committing yourself?

Well I answered it before you even asked the question, how clever am I?

I'm saying to you it is impossible to implement your idea because it is impossible to quantify the difference between a domainer and someone that has multiple online businesses.

There is no meaningful quantifiable definition of a domainer, never has been hence the point of my question to you.

I just know the next question is going to be groundhog day like, followed by me pointing it out to you again because you lack the mental capacity to take it in. :roll:

 

[Brassneck]

I feel if one has time to read something through in full it shouldn't take much longer to click modify that post, select the text that contravenes forum policy and Ctrl+V replace it with "Edited for {prewritten reason} by Brassneck". If it was the lot, do it for the lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Understood - but people requote the 'abusive bits' and then some of the posts wouldn't make sense taking those bits etc. You don't have to read an entire post for more than a few seconds to spot the abusive bits.

Stephen.

 

[Stephen]

SEO and .uk observations?

Back on topic

Does anybody know any more ways the new possible .uk could effect SEO or any comments on below please;

1. For somebody who doesnt provide linked pages from prior site,
   add a link inwards from anywhere else or submit new domain name
   to search engine, they may not get their new .uk site ranked for several months
2. Ranking would be reduced if full and proper migration was not done to new .uk site
3. The search engine algoritham uses the age of the domain as one of the
   many factors, so a new site via a new .uk will not rank as high even with
   same content, would make larger difference if prior site was very old
4. If they run both sites .co.uk and .uk at same time, it would be classed
   as duplicate content and sites would be marked down for ranking or at worst ignored
5. existing inward links to your site from other websites would not work
   unless special code is added to get then to work
6. would have to change other 301 redirects from other domains
   currently used for SEO to new site
7. would have to change other 301 redirects currently used
   for domain protection e.g. plural domains

If anybody thinks it would be possible to get input from Acorn SEO members
who may not be following this thread,
I would really appreciate some help in getting their input.

Could anybody help with this please, as trying to put as much information to Nominet about the ramifications
of when somebody changes their domain to a .uk - in that people may get the domain to protect their .co.uk
but when they look at what they would have to to use it and what they may risk if they dont migrate properly.

Not to mention time and cost for stationery, brochures, exhibition stuff, vans, signs, uniforms, etc.

 

[Marcoose]

I think you've covered pretty much everything there mate.

 

[Marcoose]

What I don't understand is why the press aren't picking up on this. Surely it's newsworthy?

 

[getmein]

I think you've highlighted the 2 major issues from a transition redirects and dupe content.

Moving from one domain to another across a whole namespace will require 301 redirects on an epic scale. Not such a big issue for a small site, but for larger sites (say 50+ pages) it's important to redirect site.co.uk/page1 to site.uk/page1 to try and keep any deep links that go to the inner pages (both for direct traffic and seo) rather than just redirecting everything to the homepage. Its also a poor user experience to redirect someone to the homepage rather than the page they were looking for.

Given the scale of this sort of transition, easy to imagine that some redirects will be incorrectly configured and the site owner won't even appreciate that lots of links they have built over many years are either not being counted, or are not being counted in the same way (particularly true when the ratio of homepage:deeplinks changes).

It also means, for users on a shared hosting platform they'll need to host both sites which might bring additional cost for people not on a VPS/dedicated box. I'm also not sure if all shared hosting platforms support allow their customers access to .htaccess or if they do, would be prepared to setup the 301s correctly for their customers. Easy for a site owner to make a mistake when editing .htaccess

Dupe content - I think there will be a large number of site owners, who won't see any problem in just duplicating their site twice.

 

[addz123]

I think you've highlighted the 2 major issues from a transition redirects and dupe content.

Moving from one domain to another across a whole namespace will require 301 redirects on an epic scale. Not such a big issue for a small site, but for larger sites (say 50+ pages) it's important to redirect site.co.uk/page1 to site.uk/page1 to try and keep any deep links that go to the inner pages (both for direct traffic and seo) rather than just redirecting everything to the homepage. Its also a poor user experience to redirect someone to the homepage rather than the page they were looking for.

Given the scale of this sort of transition, easy to imagine that some redirects will be incorrectly configured and the site owner won't even appreciate that lots of links they have built over many years are either not being counted, or are not being counted in the same way (particularly true when the ratio of homepage:deeplinks changes).

It also means, for users on a shared hosting platform they'll need to host both sites which might bring additional cost for people not on a VPS/dedicated box. I'm also not sure if all shared hosting platforms support allow their customers access to .htaccess or if they do, would be prepared to setup the 301s correctly for their customers. Easy for a site owner to make a mistake when editing .htaccess

Dupe content - I think there will be a large number of site owners, who won't see any problem in just duplicating their site twice.

eh? You can use a simple one line code in .htaccess to re-direct every page on a site from ABC.com/page to ABC.co.uk/page. It's not hard.

You can also use the find and replace plugin to fix all of the internal links in the site.

 

[Edwin]

What I don't understand is why the press aren't picking up on this. Surely it's newsworthy?

Because Nominet have done a magnificent job of making the idea superficially attractive and superficially simple.

For instance, who would say "no" to greater security? Who wouldn't want something that boosts the UK economy?

The fact that .uk will do neither only becomes apparent with a lot of thought and a lot of digging - certainly won't be clear from their proposal and covering material.

They buried the key "existing .co.uk owners won't get their .uk" issue in half of one paragraph on p13 (section K) and only allowed for a "no to the whole idea" response at the very END of the proposal, after people have spent an hour or so on the details.

It's a very clever, very devious piece of PR manipulation, which is why until now the mainstream press coverage has been bland/positive and unquestioning. This is changing, but slowly, as the wider facts of the issue start to get recirculated.

 

[Stephen]

Media coverage?

...,This is changing, but slowly, as the wider facts of the issue start to get recirculated.

Unless there is a killer hook for the journalist to get excited about, its a bit of a nerd story, with no excitment at the moment.

When Nominet announced the proposal even in its simplified form, the big media did not really cover it, as it is just not that interesting to them.

However in my experience once the story appears in technical media and is picked up on specialist outlets
and then regionals then it makes it to one of the big media outlets, the rest of the media feed off the story.

We are not there yet, but as Edwin states the issues are getting more cover and as more is pointed out,
then the story will get more and more coverage, I just hope it is not late before they make the decision (but I guess that will in February 2013?)

 

[Marcoose]

Because Nominet have done a magnificent job of making the idea superficially attractive and superficially simple.

For instance, who would say "no" to greater security? Who wouldn't want something that boosts the UK economy?

The fact that .uk will do neither only becomes apparent with a lot of thought and a lot of digging - certainly won't be clear from their proposal and covering material.

They buried the key "existing .co.uk owners won't get their .uk" issue in half of one paragraph on p13 (section K) and only allowed for a "no to the whole idea" response at the very END of the proposal, after people have spent an hour or so on the details.

It's a very clever, very devious piece of PR manipulation, which is why until now the mainstream press coverage has been bland/positive and unquestioning. This is changing, but slowly, as the wider facts of the issue start to get recirculated.

Is it not worth you or someone else with stature within the industry communicating with XYZ newspaper to highlight the shenanigans that are going on? I mean if someone doesnt and this isnt put out there, next thing you know the consultation might be over and, UK introduced with no going back. There are so many things that I would expect people would be interested in reading: the cost to business, how much money a not for profit stands to make (potentially more than the GDP of some countries), the fact that .co.uk owners wont necessarily get their .uk, etc. Surely there's a story in this and its a case of educating a journalist on the real outcomes rather than Nominet's sugar coated sales pitch?

 

[Marcoose]

....The economy is a hot topic right now and if the figures that some people are mentioning (Nom's windfall, cost to business) are even close to accurate, I am sure people would want to know about it.

Edit: I think all we're really lacking is a real study into this cost - something that Nominet should have handled but decided not to (I wonder why).

 

[Stephen]

Which message?

....The economy is a hot topic right now and if the figures that some people are mentioning (Nom's windfall, cost to business) are even close to accurate, I am sure people would want to know about it.

Edit: I think all we're really lacking is a real study into this cost - something that Nominet should have handled but decided not to (I wonder why).

I find your never sure which bit if a story may interest the media;

• is it Nominet selling you something that it has already sold?
• is it the cybersquatting potential?
• is it the rebranding costs to UK industry?
• is it the greed of Nominet with all the auctions?
• is it the foreign trademark holders grabing the best of the uk domains?
• is it the likely hood of increased cyber crime rather than less?
• is it the 800% increase in renewal costs?
• is it that Nominet have consulted the people before it changes the entire uk internet?
• is it the people who are supposed to be looking after the uk internet have
  made an appaling mess with this proposal?
• the list goes on ......