us.theregister.co.uk 

By Mark Rendle Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:35 GMT

Serve them right for appropriating .com in the first place.

Left as it is 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:40 GMT

.co.uk is part of The Register's identity. It specifies that it's British and that's great. No offence to the Americans, but I like seeing that it's a UK website where it feels more... homely. Still, to me it doesn't make much of a difference either way really because I have the RSS on Google :D

Really, who cares? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:41 GMT

As a yank who's mastered typing .co.uk in a surprisingly short six years, why should this matter?

I would think the "branding" issue would be much better addressed by continuing to produce top-quality journalism.

After all, I usually am able to type "news.bbc.co.uk" instead of "cnn.com" when I want hard news. Even though it requires a few extra keystrokes, I think I can cope.

Keep .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:41 GMT

Dear Reg Team,

I reckon you have done a fantastic job with www.theregister.co.uk and think it should stay as it is. Let the Yanks know its a UK site!

If It aint broke, dont fix it!

:-)

I've used .co.uk for years... from the US 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:41 GMT

Hasn't broken my fingers yet... I do think the co.uk is part of the Vulture. Just my two American cents.

You must be joking 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:41 GMT

What's the matter with theregister.co.uk? Leave it alone, then get rid of elreg.com. Then bring back the rope.

us.theregister.co.uk 

By Rose Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:42 GMT

Well, it would make a change from the UK being considered an extension of US territory :)

Plus, if you say it with a Yorkshire accent, it sounds just right.

(PS if you decide to use dot com, then why not use us.theregister.com *as well as* uk.theregister.com? Many big companies already use this system)

Noooooooo! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:43 GMT

Please keep .co.uk - it's one of the great things that sets El Reg apart from the mass of corporate 'merkin sites. It may be a small, petty thing, but I still get a cheap kick every time I glance at the address bar and think "hell, we may be stuck with American movies, culture, government and nukes, but at least The Register is still British!"

Unlike whoever proof-reads your articles (there is no hell vile enough for you!), the .co.uk address is a good thing, and would be sorely missed (if only by me).

showing your roots 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:44 GMT

I have been a reader of theregister.co.uk for a good number of years. The tongue firmly in cheek approach to IT related news is something of a pleasure, in comparison to those who either report it with dry boredom or Labrador like excitement.

I can't see "theregister.com" looking or feeling right.

the .co.uk is definitely part of the brand at this point, and its also something of a warning. British humour contained within, enter at your own risk.

I think redirecting the .com to .co.uk seems a great deal more appropriate for our american cousins who can't quite manage to grasp the concept of vulture central originating from Britain, then to force loyal readers who hail from the same shores to forget theregister's origins and look up to the address bar to be greeted with a .com

At least thats my opinion on the matter.

Thats all I have to say about that.

Change the URL all you want, but keep the boffinry 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:45 GMT

Personally speaking I like the "made in Britain", er, ting that goes with a .co.uk URL - perhaps no surprise coming from an Englishman.

That said it's not a deal-breaker in the way that internationalising (internationalizing?) your content would be. By that I mean US spelling, quietly dropping English like "boffins" (or the magnificent "boffinry") and whatnot.

name choice 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:45 GMT

I'm reading from Canada and consider The Register to be a UK publication catering to a global audience. As such, I like the co.uk domain and think it should be retained. To me at least, com domains come across as American which The Register is not. That's part of the reason I read it, because it isn't as self-centred as most US publications seem to be.

Go with the co.uk in my opinion. I value it and I'm not in the UK.

.co.uk 

By Jan Buys Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:46 GMT

I'm not from the UK, but still I feel that www.theregister.com would feel like El Reg going American, while I love its still quite Brittish touch.

Btw, why would using www.theregister.com translate to uk.theregister.co.uk while you could just let the .com address forward the reader to www.theregister.co.uk? Or are there plans to offer different content depending on read location? :-s

Anyway... I'd stay with .co.uk

You're fine either way - stress less 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:47 GMT

I was at a meeting in Scotland with Joel Spolsky. I spoke to him briefly.

He said that American businesses had NO problem dealing with British providers. So if TheRegister is concerned that a lack of .com is somehow a turn-off to a potential audience, don't worry. This is backed up by other Americans too.

If an audience is turned off by a lack of .com, then your sly puns and quirky commentary will be beyond them anyways.

Conversly, British don't mind a .com either.

So if the switch is not too expensive, just run both.

No-one that matters should be baying for your blood or setting up hate sites like: bringbacktheregister.co.uk or ihatetheregisterforswitchingto.com

You've got a great site with good content... That shines through, whatever your domain name.

stick with .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:47 GMT

Don't the US readers already have theregus.com? keep your branding just as it is, we should be proud of the .co.uk URL, and besides, being linked even more closley with the USA is not going to endear you to the rest of the world in these times of international stress, I thought .coms were for COMercial businesses? I know they are controlled by companies andthe government of the USA, but they are for comercial use for everyone, so it saddens me to see you calling it a country specific domain, are .org, .net the same?

Anyway, keep the .co.uk and be proud of it, its one little bit of empire we are still allowed to force onto others!

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:49 GMT

Its got to be the .co.uk domain, the Register is staunchly British damn it, and we shouldn't let those damn yanks get their filthy colonial mitts on it!

Plus my t-shirt would be obsolete if you change... :)

Stick with .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:50 GMT

Changing is purely cosmetic in the address bar. Stick with your roots!

Oh dear.. 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:50 GMT

Well I would suggest sticking to the .co.uk in case some muppet in the US decides that the .com should be theres and you lose your customers off to someones idea of revenue building (a search engine portal).

Would you trust the US legal system? At least nominet are normal human beings..

Sure use the .com for the US guys but keep the UK the rest of us.

.co.uk! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:51 GMT

Would definitely like to vote for '.co.uk' to remain, thankyouverymuch. I fully appreciate what .com *should* mean, but at the end of the day we all know it doesn't, and it's nice to have a rare website that's proud to be British :-).

Does it realy matter? 

By Chad H. Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:51 GMT

I mean, if all links are going to work..... Does it realy matter, as long as the Witty reporting style remains the same....

Personaly, I'd keep it the way it is now, us over here, and US over there, why change what works? Thats what users do.

Let's go with the dot com, then 

By Stuart Bevan Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:52 GMT

I'll be honest, my gut reaction was to baulk at the idea of going .com. I don't know what it is, perhaps a tedious sense of national pride, but with the general assumption that .com means American, it was nice that sites like the BBC and El Reg championed .co.uk, for want of a better description.

However, needs must, and it sounds like the overhaul is required. I take it there would be some sort of IP filtering which would take you to either us.etc or uk.etc based on where you're browsing from?

Sounds like a plan then, guv.

Depends 

By Dunstan Vavasour Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:52 GMT

Somehow "theregister.co.uk" give more of an impression of a bunch of guys mucking about with technical news, while "theregister.com" makes you sound like a dull news site which just rehashes corporate press releases and wire stories.

Depends on which you want to sound like: the Private Eye of tech news, or The Economist.

Why not go for a third option? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:53 GMT

Like theregister.net?

.com Americanisation 

By Mark Lockwood Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:55 GMT

For mine, El Reg is a British institution, and going to .com would make it feel much more American.

That said, it would still become my favorite news site, so full of color in the way you tell your tales. But would it allow for a re-count on the lappy and mobe votes?

Aaaaargh 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:55 GMT

What about airstripone.theusregister.com? Doubleplusgood url, eh?

My vote is for .co.uk 

By Chris Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:56 GMT

I started reading this site long before the .com address became available. When El Reg did start using theregister.com, I noticed that the selection of articles on .com and .co.uk were different -- that is, the .com articles seemed to be a more filtered version, with the .co.uk site having all the .com articles plus UK-specific ones. For that reason, I kept reading the .co.uk site and never looked back. Now I suppose there are a couple of reasons I think you should stay with .co.uk:

1) I would think that more people are in the habit of automatically typing (and have bookmarks pointing to) theregister.co.uk than theregister.com (and please, whatever you do, don't force us to add "www." to the address!). And I don't know about other people, but when I type an address, I expect to stay on that site; I don't expect to get redirected to a different site, even a different site controlled by the same organization (not without warning, at least).

2) El Reg id decidedly British. Much of the terminology on the site is British (and hence, not normal for probably a large percentage of your readers). If people see a .com address, they may assume US-based and not understand the terminology. Worse, people casually browsing to the site, not knowing it is British, may claim to get offended by terms such as "xxx went tits up" (or by the many double-entendre headlines).

3) And of course the most selfish reason, I'm used to theregister.co.uk, so I guess after so many years it's a source of comfort.

Jingoistic Sabre rattling nonsense, etc... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:56 GMT

Given the uniquely british humour and outlook of theregister it would probably be more appropriate that it keep .co.uk as it's primary address.

However, so long as you don't all bugger off over the pond, start using 'z' where you should be using an 's' and start saying 'dude' a bit too much then would it really matter?

Yes! Yes it would, we're proud of .co.uk and you should bloody well keep it as the primary, sod em!

A Disgruntled Northener.

.co.uk 

By David Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:56 GMT

Why go yank if you don't have to?

UK and International editions 

By John Latham Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:57 GMT

Currently, you have an international/US domain name and a UK domain name both with the same mix of content. This is a waste of domain names.

Better to create "international" and "UK" editions, on different domain names, with different content filters.

I think the BBC does this quite well, although I'm not sure how their editions map to domain names.

John

Doesn't matter 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:57 GMT

I'm in the US, but visit a lot of international sites. I'm in the habit of using the country info when it's needed. I tend to view the global TLD's as global, and not necessarily just US...but then I guess I would.

I think the .com thing is just a fad. 

By bill Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:57 GMT

I say that the .com thing is just a bubble waiting to burst. This "internet" is just a fad that will go the way of the pet rock. It is not a dump truck, but a series of tubes, just ask an American congressman.

Or, ok I guess you guys could go with a .com and make my life a lot easier, I think of my little vultures as international ambassadors of unsolicted editorial info, making your site a universal leader in dis-information!

To UK or not to UK? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:58 GMT

To us Canuks, the .co.uk suffix tells us you're not part of Bush's Surveillance System, at least not deliberately part of it. Hang on to your present moniker.

.com isn't international, it's an alias for .us. Ignore it.

Rippy

Proud to be a dot co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:59 GMT

Should be globally branded as theregister.co.uk

While you're at it, petition Gordon Brown for a national theregister holiday.

Title 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 15:59 GMT

Really it makes absolutely no difference to me

www.theregister.eu 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:00 GMT

So you didn't the eu domain is that what all this soul searching is about?

www.theregister.com 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:00 GMT

www.theregister.com

TheReg.co.uk 

By Vic Sub Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:01 GMT

Oh how I miss that URL... It had a certain symmetry.

Call me sentimental but I'd like to see that one brought back

Gotta keep El Reg British 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:01 GMT

The yanks have nicked everything else as their own, and enjoy rewriting history to make themselves look the heroes, so why on earth make it look to the untrained eye as though El Reg is american!

!!! KEEP EL REG BRITISH !!!

The Register 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:01 GMT

Keep it .co.uk. Many of your stories relate to the UK. If people cannot

manage a .co.uk then perhaps they should have their internet access

removed! I access sites is Canada, Australia and can manage .ca or .au

us.theregister.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:01 GMT

I'm in the US and I'm an employee of a company w/a growing UK presence. I started reading El Reg because I liked reading about IS/IT from the UK perspective. <i>That's</i> the part of this site I value. I will still be going to theregister.co.uk and will continue to look for the UK view.

Not sure it matters... 

By David Matta Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:02 GMT

I usually get to the site via theregister.com, but once there, I really don't care what appears in the address bar.

I really couldn't care less... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:02 GMT

...as long as my bookmark( www.theregister.co.uk) doesn't suddenly stop working (even if it is to redirect me to us.theregister.com).

Who cares? 

By Pete McPhedran Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:02 GMT

I relate the domain name to a physical address. Does it really matter if XYZ Corp moves from 100 Derry Road to 1555 Main Street? It's still XYZ Corp!

So long as all your customers know how to reach you, that's all that's important.

--Pete

Both national and global? 

By Rich Bryant Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:02 GMT

Only in the diseased mind of the American web-user. There actually IS a .us hierarchy and you can buy and use domains in that hierarchy.

.com is global and i have no issues with it - until you start getting slagged for not covering enough US issues.

maintain heritage 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:02 GMT

When reading a page, i don't mind where the site is coming from. That is to say, if reading a .com, .co.uk, .fr etc. site I appreciate that it is from another country but do not mind that it is not .co.uk.

It therefore does not follow that it is "silly for US readers to read from theregister.co.uk" - thus, no need to move.

The domain should reflect where the site is based: if based in the UK, then .co.uk serves nicely, if based in the US, then .com

Big deal? 

By Terry Ellis Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:03 GMT

Being a reader for a number of years now, I honestly had no idea that the site was 'mirrored' accross both the .com and .co.uk domains, being an avid .co.uk user myself.

Being slightly unaware of the fact that both of these domains existed, my initial question is whether there is content that is directed exclusively at one or the other's territory (i.e. are there articles that only appear on the .co.uk or .com version of the site)? If the answer is no, then I do not see any reason to abandon the .co.uk domain for the .com one. (I guess I am also asking what is the use of a us.theregister.co.uk or uk.theregister.com sub-domain?)

After all, all major companies around the globe have to have there headquarters somewhere, and so (to me, at least) it is really a question of where your operations ultimately run from and this should determine which domain you run from. If you remain true to your current brand, then surely .co.uk is the way forward. However, one can sympathise with the decision to migrate to a .com domain, especially if this is what was originally intended.

Personally? I agree with Mark above - make a stand and adopt a us.theregister.co.uk or, maybe, force them into a us.theregister.com domain to show that the .com domain should really be non-geographic.

Anyway, kudos for this article - it says so much about El Reg's approach to journalism and the modesty with which it consults it's readership.

us.theregister.co.uk 

By James Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:04 GMT

The .co.uk part of the URL is part of what attracted me to the Reg years ago. It suggested it wasn't a run of the mill US-centric site and this has been borne out with the British humour and stories. Losing the .co.uk to become uk.theregister.com would feel like changing into a small, after-thought subsidiary of just another US tech site and lose much of the unique Reg brand appeal.

Just theregister.co.uk, please 

By Seth Rightmer Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:04 GMT

As a US reader, I enjoy the fact that The Register is a UK company. Coming here makes me feel as though I'm a bit more cosmopolitan than I really am. Perhaps it isn't wise, but I feel as though UK sources are more reliable and less biased than US sources.

theregister.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:05 GMT

You are a U.K. publication so you should use theregister.co.uk and if you want to have targeted content simply do as the BBC do at news.bbc.co.uk and allow users to choose between a U.K. or International edition.

I think you are big enough and have enough readers now that it doesn't matter. The BBC don't have a .com address and they have millions of readers from all around the world. Why do you need a .com address? Are you just worried that our American cousins will think less of a .co.uk domain than a .com domain? That's just silly and the BBC is proof that if your content is good and something that people want to read then the domain doesn't really matter.

/Steve (from U.K. but currently residing in Västerås, Sweden)

Keep it .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:05 GMT

I have a bit of a patriotic soft spot for .co.uk addresses I have to admit, but in this case I feel it does actually serve some additional "branding" purpose if you like: although The Reg is now an internationally read website, it does still slant it's editorial, and it's outlook on the world if you like, with a definitely British angle on things. I'd like it to stay that way.

Not to say I won't read it ever again if it did switch to a .com (spit!) of course...

Oh for heaven's sake 

By Martin Hanley Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:06 GMT

Is there really any competition here? Use the .co.uk domain - it differentiates you from all the US news sites, and offers a tantalising promise of proper spelling, proper humour, and non-US-centric news. Oh, and it shows you don't have to whalesong it to a .com domain just to feel like you're playing with the big boys.

Alternatively, stick with them both. You'll no doubt be keeping both domains (ahem) registered anyway.

Martin

Keep El Reg British! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:06 GMT

An important part of The Register's branding comes from the wry blend of insight and sarcasm lovingly injected into each article. Despite the number of global correspondents, this writing style is firmly ensconced within the subcategory of British humour, and does not deserve to be tarred with the epithet of a .com address.

Please don't fall for any Web 2.0 spin touting ".com == international"; it's as clear as a smack in the face to most people that most large .com websites live and operate from the United States.

theregsiter? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:07 GMT

How about buying theregsiter.co.uk, I must make that typo 2 or 3 times a week :)

Prefer .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:07 GMT

Being a British reader, for slightly patriotic reasons, I would prefer the .co.uk address to be used. Many sites use .com, which has a kind of generic-ness to it. Having .co.uk gives the site (IMO) a slightly more 'unique' flavour on the international market.

Having said all that, I can completely understand why, for commercial reasons, it might make more sense to have the .com address displayed in the address bar.

At the risk of a "me too" 

By Adrian Jones Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:08 GMT

I'd say definitely stick with the .co.uk.

Part of the charm of El Reg is the fact that it's mainly UK based, covers news items of interest to UK techies and has a definite British sense of humour.

The .co.uk emphasises that.

Show some pride 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:09 GMT

If .co.uk is good enough for the BBC, it ought to be good enough for you.

It's part of the character of the site 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:09 GMT

You've always been a British site - it's obvious in the humour and sarcasm.

Keep it that way!

Keep it! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:09 GMT

The .co.uk is part and parcel of what The Register is. Keep it!

Consult with your Logo Watch dept. 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:09 GMT

All this worry about branding sounds perilously close to the navel-gazing, tree-hugging hippy rubbish that your esteemed publication is first in line to shoot down as the pointless and costly exercise it is.

However, assuming you do want to offer different content depending on whether the audience is US or UK/European - and there is a good argument for doing so - then why not serve .co.uk to the UK and .com to the US?

On the flip side, you've already described how to achieve the desired effect without having to force users to make the choice of which domain they type in, or click through to. Like many other UK newspapers (both online and in print) that have a UK edition and a global edition, the choice is made by the user on the site itself, perhaps with a cookie set to remember their preference next visit.

When it boils down to it, if you do choose to offer content tailored to the audience, then a choice will have to made at some point, whether it's in the URL, or by clicking a link (or by auto-magic detection of location).

Personally, I say keep .co.uk - it reflects the writing style better!

Jock

Dot co dot UK - Of course! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:10 GMT

WHat are you thinking! Next it will be an attempt to water down the humour "to widen your international appeal"?

The Register is a little bit of Britain on an international stage. Keep the .co.uk .

- Paddy3118

us.theregister.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:11 GMT

Silly? Isn't that all the more reason? The web is silly and Britain celebrates silliness.

Idea 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:11 GMT

How about you drop them both and redirect everything to theregister.uk.com. That way everyone would be equally confused. Perfect.

.COM 

By Craig Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:12 GMT

The one that generates the most revenue.

As long as I don't have to change my bookmarks I don't mind. Sure it would be nice to keep it .co.uk but the more money you can make the better.

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:12 GMT

You're a British publication, be proud of it.

If I want US-based news I'll go somewhere else.

Keep your indentity.... 

By Highlander Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:13 GMT

Well, as an expatriate living in the glorious totalitarian state previously known as the leader of the free world I have to say keep the .co.uk.

.com may not be a 'US' domain, but it operates as a defacto US domain. The Register is profoundly British, from the sense of humor to the point of view, the uniquely pragmatic and cynical British attitude shines through.

I personally like .co.uk, but in this modern world of sheep-like web users with IQs that match their sheep-like status, having a '.com' domain is a far more successful strategy. Few if any web-sheep even know how to type anything other than '.com' when entering a domain name.

I don't think it matters 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:13 GMT

...as long as the quality of the stories remains the same.

Do whatever makes it easier on yourselves.

Keep the co.uk! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:14 GMT

Says it all - keep the co.uk - british and proud of it.

Title 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:14 GMT

As an American: Keep the .co.uk.

It's who you are and who you have been for the last eight or nine years that I've been reading the site.

Scott O.

Who cares? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:15 GMT

Just don't make me change my bookmark and I truly don't care.

.COM = US 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:15 GMT

I agree that .com generally implies (at least to a majority of people) a location in the United States. While that may or may not be so terrible, The Register is in the UK and people ought not be mistaken about that.

Plus the .co.uk explains all the British slang and nonsense words that liberally cover the site. If people thought for an instant that such terms were coming from a US site the game would be up and people would think you were a wack Web 2.0 or SMS company.

Don't bland the brand! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:15 GMT

I note that the beeb and the graun have just won two webbies - and generally, .uk is no disadvantage in branding terms for a news website of any description.

I think it is part of your brand and none the worse for that.

Don't bland the brand!

Keep both and point them at one place? 

By Steve Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:16 GMT

If i'm right in the thinking that you need two seperate sites to serve locally relavent content and probably most importantly sell advertising space to advertisers who want to sell into a particular market then why not just have one single site where the users IP is parsed and you then send them to the relevent edition? (clearly, undetermined IP's get sent to the UK version)

Then have something in the topbar which allows the user to select which edition they view should they not wish to view the version for their locality.

Not only does this mean you only need one site, without the need for endless subdomains blah blah, it means it scales - should you add say a Brazilian edition you just add a new edition for the locality and set up the IP parsing.

That way you can have as many domain endings as you like, just all pointing at the same place. And if you feel the need to have the site stored in several localities to minimise international transit just use a CDN platform.

Keep .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:16 GMT

For all the good reasons already mentioned.

It's true, "us.theregister.co.uk" for the US version does look a bit silly, but why not make it "yank.theregister.co.uk"? :-)

Should be... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:17 GMT

...theregister.co.uk should show news with popular UK news at the top; theregister.com.us should show news with popular US news at the top; theregister.com should show new with the overall most popular at the top.

I would use .co.uk and flick to .com for a different take on things when bored.

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:17 GMT

Why not just have the .com site forward to the .co.uk. That way if you type in the .com you get the .co.uk

http://www.motorcyclenews.com does this but the wrong way around. If you enter .co.uk you end up with the .com.

The Register site is UK based so the address you see should be .co.uk

Boomer (in da UK)

UK all the way 

By Steven Hewittt Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:17 GMT

El Reg has always been (in my eyes) a UK IT News website, that covers both national and international geographical area. Unless El Reg is planning on have IT Public Sector news for the US then why pretend to be global?

IT News from around the world but based from the UK. Written by a UK team (mainly), by a UK company for what must be generally the UK market.

Why drop the UK domain?

www.isaidmobe.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:17 GMT

No more meetings about this issue, or you'll start redesigning the logo. Is that whalesong I hear?

...where once was a horse... 

By Mike Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:17 GMT

(Old UseNet folks will get the reference)

Anyway, late to the party but just _have_ to join the pile-on. I've been a Reg reader (in the U.S.) too long to remember, and dabbled with the "U.S. local" edition for under a week. Of course, I also subscribe to The Economist, but by the look of the above I'm not atypical. As long as you don't just give up the .com to be one of those nasty web-graveyards, _please_ keep .co.uk as the main address.

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:18 GMT

.co.uk is the way to go.

Just drop dot-com 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:18 GMT

Just drop the whole dot-com thing, and stick to the proud www.theregister.co.uk tradition everywhere.

-Jan from Czech rep.

I wouldn't trust .com 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:19 GMT

I'm in the US. I stopped reading the .com site back when you served an Americanized feed to it that removed some of the salt. Keep the .co.uk and just make the .com DNS record point to the same IP address.

El Reg is rebranding madness!! 

By Simon Day Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:19 GMT

Watch out - whale song at 12 O Clock!!

Severe danger of incense burning may also occur!!

Please be serious!!

Most self respecting UK companies go for the .co.uk - then to avoid cyber squaters and typo's grab the .com - but then alias it to the same site (works on small sites) or as I presume you are suggesting use mod_rewrite (or similar) to forward any of the .com's to .co.uk

All it takes is a 301 redirect and Robert's your fathers brother.

Of course if you do decide to move to a .com then I think we will need to start a petition at no. 10 for you all to be hanged, though being lenient you could be given colonisation instead.

A no brainer, as our American cousins would say 

By Jason Scrutton Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:19 GMT

As a long time reader, and recent contributor, methinks .co.uk is all that is needed!

us.theregister.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:20 GMT

Do your little bit to remind the yanks that they do not actually controll everything, and the world does not revolve around America.

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:21 GMT

I just tried typing it as theregister.com and I /can't do it/. My fingers want to type theregister.co.uk.

My other furry/SL cohorts agree - .co.uk

El Reg URL 

By Ray Pasley Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:22 GMT

to start I really enjoy the Register. Am a US resident, but am proud to admit I religously read the Register. So I feel a certain prestige not depending on just the US propo. At the same time, it is probably easier for folks around the world to find a .com URL as compared to .co.uk. Being a braggart, I always tell folks that I use the Register, a Brits website due to the valid alternate views that it presents.

Firefox 

By Colin Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:22 GMT

As long as I can type "theregister" into the address bar of Firefox and come directly to The Reg site, I don't care too much though I think keeping the .co.uk is a good idea.

Another .co.uk vote 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:24 GMT

Whilst I'm not going to stop reading it if it goes .com, I do like the .co.uk. It reminds me that the US isn't everything... thankfully...

Title 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:25 GMT

I usually type the .com address but I'm not worried if that forwards me to the co.uk address

Whiff of whalesong ? 

By David Mantripp Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:25 GMT

What about a nice new logo too ? I've seen some really cutting edge stuff for something that escapes me just now around recently.

And another vote for... 

By Rich Harding Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:25 GMT

theregister.co.uk of course!

Domain should reflect the writers 

By Paul Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:27 GMT

I've been reading elreg from the U.S. for 5 or 6 years now, and I've always typed the .co.uk domain in. I think the domain name used should reflect the culture of the site. Given that the writing uses many British phrases (presumably most of your journalists are British), staying with ".co.uk" seems appropriate. I don't see how changing it to ".com" would increase the site's appeal.

Although there I think anything of a site that was just ".com" to start with, changing from ".co.uk" to ".com" for the purpose of appealing to American readers seems like the sort of thing that would backfire and/or attract the wrong type of readership (i.e., who would suddenly start reading a site just because the domain changed from ".co.uk" to ".com").

Get on with the articles.. 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:28 GMT

Are you bored? Its great like it is, stop worrying about your domain name and keep putting your effort into the great articles! (btw my vote is keep it .co.uk)

Missing the point I think 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:28 GMT

Aside from a few xenophobes, I don't think anyone really CARES what the url is.

The important part is content and speed. Being located in the US, I know that if I type in elreg.co.uk, I'll be served more slowly than if I type elreg.com.

No matter what URL you go with, I think you need to make sure that it gets served to people at the same speed as their local version would have been previously.

Of course, since I'm US and we're far far better than anyone else, I'm only dimly aware that there IS someplace outside the US, but I've been told that it exists, and so I think they probably imagine they matter too.

B

its .co.uk? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:29 GMT

I have to admit I originally Googled the register and didn't pay attention to the url, then I added it to my iGoogle RSS feed and didn't need to remember it or give it any attention. I assumed it was a .com not a .co.uk even though I knew it was a site from the United Kingdon. Yet again I learn something useful from an article on The Register.

To quote another (nearly) former tech newsletter 

By Simon Greenwood Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:29 GMT

Nasty, British and short - stay with the co.uk.

I say keep it! Down with the bloody Americans...I mean Go Al Gore! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:30 GMT

It sucks that the US is trying to own the Internet...I know Al Gore created it, but come on!...leave your meat puppets off and be a team player! Don't give in to Da Man! :)

As a reader, there's something exotic about the .co.uk for us American folks over here and I would have thought there would also be a bit of national pride on your parts. *shrug* Just my $.02

Another vote for .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:31 GMT

It is not just brand but also culture (or cult?). You're a global brand the way it is and with merits.

It is hard work and a waste to offer different content on two or more 'national' sites. IT is without borders.

If anything just tag the article with US/EU/whatever for local interests along with NSFW/Letters/etc. Then redirect the .com to .co.uk. That's all you'll need.

MM - a long time reader from Brazil.

.co.uk only 

By Simon Oxlade Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:32 GMT

The Times newspaper, one of the finest publications ever created and certainly the one with the richest history, is reached by the URL www.thetimes.co.uk. This is because it deals with news from the UK perspective. Type in www.thetimes.com and you get the Shreveport Times, which is in the south of that former colony run by that ghastly Shrub fellow.

Point is that El Reg delivers IT and tech news from a British perspective, complete with attendant jingoism and mild xenophobia - something that makes it very different to all the other 'tech news' sites out there. By all means run a .com site, with appropriate filters for the US if really necessary, but please keep the .co.uk. It's a little news union jack waving amid the wastes of bland US coverage....

And, it keeps me sane.

Stick with .co.uk. 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:35 GMT

I can only echo the sentiments of some other and say that the .co.uk speaks of British integrity and humour.

Keep The Register British 

By Glynn Williams Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:36 GMT

The Register is a UK oriented company. Vulture Central is based in 'Britain's' capital. What more reason could you need for keeping the .co.uk!

I can see the headline now, right on this very page: "LOGOWATCH: Vulture Central in Rebranding Madness"

theregister.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:36 GMT

How about just "regist.er" if you can arrange it with the Eritraens?

Lets face it, you have a well known UK address and it should stay that way.

Stick with .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:36 GMT

It's nice having something that you can be proud is an English product, and that says it explicitly, even if you have to look for it to find it!

Does it really matter? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:36 GMT

After getting to your site, I really don't look at the address bar to make sure I'm still on a .com domain. As a "Yank" it really doesn't make any difference to me as long as I can still get here.

It seems like national pride is winning out and that's just fine by me.

co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:36 GMT

i live in the US and visit your site daily. it's my favorite source of tech news, without question. i've always typed theregister.com. however, i think you should stick with co.uk. it doesn't bother me either way if typing either will bring me to the same great site.

.co.uk - not proud of being British? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:37 GMT

The Register is British, damnit. Be proud!

Plain old redirect? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:38 GMT

So what would the difference be with us.elreg and uk.elreg? If the stories are different, or there's different filtering of stories, then there's the reason for going .com and redirecting .co.uk to uk.elreg.

But if there's no difference, then it's just a toss-up, and whichever loses gets to be redirected to the winner, with the consolation prize of a lifetime of 302 (Found) HTTP replies. Setting up reverse proxies around the world with uk/us/de/ca/ja/etc won't really matter to Apache.

us.theregister.co.uk 

By Steve Evans Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:38 GMT

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

IIRC .com really should be international, the Americans have a perfectly good .us TLD they *should* use.

I like having .co.uk, it serves as a warning to our cousins across the pond that we spell correctly and they should expect sarcasm, piss taking and other words they're not used to like erm, windscreen... ummm.

Title 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:39 GMT

Leave the .co.uk it's different. It puts a UK slant on things. I go to news.bbc.co.uk and cnn.com. Of course I'm from Canada. But the .co.uk means that things are different from a com and of course better.I can't find the word whilst on an American site.

keep it British 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:39 GMT

.co.uk all the way

.com isn't "international", it's been predominantly American all the time. .com has no legal UK status or regulation either. It's entirely un-British.

From a perceptive point of view though, .com would likely cause confusion for Americans thinking it's a US site and wondering what the hell many of the UK centric articles and language is on about.

Can't stand uk.***.com URLs anyway. Just makes us seem inferior, especially when no us.***.com is enforced for the US.

Either .com is international and there's no uk.***.com or it's entirely a US top level domain.

Better still, petition for a new second level domain in .uk

www.theregister.uk :-)

Keep it co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:39 GMT

Don't change a winning formula.

theregister.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:39 GMT

I think if you name it theregister.com and keep it the way it is, with all its British peculiarities you risk confusing your audience. When I go to theregister.co.uk I expect it to be the way it is, in part because it is British. And I think you are doing a wonderful job with the website, so my suggestion would be just keep its style, substance _and_ URL :-).

.co.uk please 

By Martin Gregorie Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:39 GMT

Like some others, I've read The Reg longer than it has had the .com domain.

I like its UK-centric attitudes, humour and coverage of political issues (e.g, ID cards) and think that using .co.uk as the prime domain is a good peg to support the whole parcel of location, attitudes and topics.

By all means keep .com (and add .eu and .net) as you wish but my preference is to treat these TLDs as aliases for .co.uk, with .co.uk appearing as the domain on all displayed content.

If, in future, you decide to include location filtering to support automatic translation or relevance filtering (I would strongly deplore the latter - IMO its far too close to censorship) then please make sure that www.theregister.co.uk is the prime, unmodified base of all content and always works this way no matter where or who the reader is.

as it always should be theregister.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:40 GMT

As a Us reader who's been visiting the site since before it was using the .com I say leave it, simply on the grounds that it makes me feel superior to the rest of the country who gets their news (of any sort) through the controlled corporate distillery.

Plus I think we yanks could use a bit of pie on our face and be reminded that we are not the center of the universe by seeing us.theregister.co.uk would be a very subtle way of doing just that.

Consider the registrars 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:40 GMT

I don't think it really matters visually - I've always used .co.uk but .com would be neater if you're having country-specific subdomains. So the only other consideration is I guess a technical one - do you want to deal with Nominet or one of the US registrars.

If you do switch to .com, can you make the .co.uk automagically redirect to the uk specific subdomain pretty please? That way we can carry on using what we know and love without having to remember that we're all of a sudden 'international'.

Ta muchly.

.reg! 

By Aaron Fothergill Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:40 GMT

If it has to change, why not campaign for a new .reg top level domain name?

Keep .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:41 GMT

I'd suggest you keep .co.uk. You have a very British way of doing and saying things - you're a British website read by the world, not a global website.

Unless global website is what you are after, but you would need to match the content to that global style, which I doubt any long term regular readers (including me) want.

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:41 GMT

I never liked theregister.com even if it had the same content.

.co .uk 

By Keith Williams Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:42 GMT

Leave it alone..

Branding problems? I hear Wolff Olins of Olympic logo fame are available to help 

By John Fowler Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:43 GMT

ho ho

I vote for .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:44 GMT

I agree with quite a lot of others here.

The Register is very British, which is good from a humour point of view.

.com is not going to be the same.

I'm all for redundancy, but surely that souldnt be at the expence of your branding.

Please keep the .co.uk

uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:44 GMT

do the americans understand our humour (humor?)? I recall numerous translations of proper English into american so let's keep it as .co.uk and then we all know where we stand

Blighty! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:45 GMT

El Reg is not nearly UK-specific enough. Can you please arrange for uk.theregister.co.uk to work soonest?

co.uk 4 life 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:46 GMT

I've been a faithful yank reader for many years, if I ever give the site out to friends I always use the .co.uk address. It just looks right, even though I get to the site these days through RSS feed I still think the main site should be .co.uk. Dump the .com even, unless you plan on advertising on some sleazy billboard somewhere the majority of people recognize the brand as theregister.co.uk.

Anyway you don't want to confuse what sort of site this is, us yanks get confused easily-- when we see wierd words like colour in places we don't expect things go all haywire.

Redirect .com to .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:46 GMT

Keep the .co.uk and make .com redirect to it -- I like knowing that I'm reading something from the UK and the '.com' types should know too.

To me, a uk.theregister.com branding would lessen the impact and make El Reg seem more corporate USA.

Must be .co.uk 

By Matt Thornton Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:46 GMT

Echoing what everyone else has said - TheReg has its heritage in being British and proud of it and you must keep the .co.uk as the base domain.

Also (but of lesser importance IMNSHO) is .co.uk is PR8 whereas .com is PR7. My experience of domain name changes suggests GoogleBot et al aren't as sensitive to change as they could be...

If you really must rebrand then force the yanks to use the .co.uk...

here here! 

By Toby Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:47 GMT

"Please keep .co.uk - it's one of the great things that sets El Reg apart from the mass of corporate 'merkin sites. It may be a small, petty thing, but I still get a cheap kick every time I glance at the address bar and think "hell, we may be stuck with American movies, culture, government and nukes, but at least The Register is still British!"

I know the address woul not change content but it just makes me feel like you'll start being just like every other clone news site out there

stick with the .co.uk!

TheRegister.co.wales! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:48 GMT

Forget the world.

I say back to one's root.

We can tell you are all Welsh at heart.

Keep 'em ALL - let GOD sort 'em out 

By Brett Brennan Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:49 GMT

As an "early" internet adopter, I have had .com, .us, .net and .org domains forever. I tried - unsuccessfully, BTW - to get a .co.us domain (not available - go figure THAT one out!) as part of an expected move into Ireland (.co.ie) in the near future - to be able to differentiate us as both a US and Irish company.

The point here is: if you need to have coverage in all the territorial domains in order to prevent squatters, you certainly *MUST* get the registrations and keep them. However, I feel that redirection to theregister.co.uk is the appropriate result of the "bald" name in all TLD - that is, theregister.co.eu or theregister.com should display theregister.co.uk upon redirect. "Regional" editions should be accessable either as a link on the home page or via a regional sub-directory (theregister.co.uk/us or /ie). Although I fear that most readers don't really care that much about regional-specific stuff (except regulatory or legal).

I read El Reg *BECAUSE* it is International. IT *IS* International, and El Reg is one of the few news sites that truly appreciates this. I'd even go so far as to say "BOHF without Borders".

As has been forcefully stated earlier, you're BRITTISH, DAMN IT, and should be PROUD of the fact that, unlike us Colonials, you still have attitude that pronounces the name of a historically famous river like it's some red-neck's fishing hole. (Thames, that is...)

keep it uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:50 GMT

Leave it as .co.uk, there arent enough sites out there hailing the success of the UK

Use .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:50 GMT

Keep using .co.uk - what is wrong with being proud of the .co.uk heritage and embracing it. us.theregister.co.uk only looks strange because we are used to seeing US domination in websites, it would be nice to keep theregister different.

.co.uk 

By Chris Papaioannou Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:50 GMT

Gets my vote.

I wouldn't be devistated if you went for the .com, as long as the content stayed the same. But the .co.uk would be preffered.

Makes it feel all British and what-not =)

But who owns .com? 

By Peter Mc Aulay Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:51 GMT

I'm sure VeriSign would never be so crass as to accidentally or "accidentally" lose the theregister.com domain records, but why tempt fate?

redirects will see you fine for a good while yet. 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:52 GMT

sheesh, run it duplicated across the board.

the url can't be that expensive surely.

just for kicks see if you can't purchase "theotherplace.co.uk" too.

:P

move to .com 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:52 GMT

As a keen (british) reader of el reg, I pleased that it's british, however, I also like the way that some browsers support the ctrl+enter keystroke to add www. and .com to the path. As such, while I think it's a sadness to have to dump .co.uk, I reckon the way forward is .com.

Stick to .co.uk 

By Frans van Otten Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:54 GMT

Everyone has a .com domain. Using a .co.uk domain is different. I like it.

Some of us want to choose what bias we get in our news reporting... 

By Trevor Pott Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:54 GMT

I vote .co.uk

While I know the Register, like certain...other...IT rags has a bit of a chip on thier shoulder about Canada, we are *not* americans. I, and many of us, don't want our news from an american branded, american perspective site. I prefer the slightly more open-minded, and realistic viewpoint of british journalism to the xenophobic fox-news-esque 'reporting' that comes out of the states.

While things are coming from a .co.uk address, I can at least live in the fantasy world where I can believe that the news is coming from a british, not american perspective.

I love the register, and along with...the other...british IT rag, it forms the daily breakfast read for me. The only issue I've ever had are the occasional articles that tell Canadians "shut up and stop trying to read the .co.uk site, and use the .com site, becuase you're americans, and should be reading the american site." We're not. We don't want to be. Our system of government, values, and beliefs are far more, 'european' than america.

(I know, European doesn't exist, you are all individual nations, etc. Most members of the union have things like health care, belief in privacy, an innate hatred of the RIAA, a belief that corrupt governments should be slapped, etc. that align more closely with Canadian beliefs than the value set evidenced by american reporting.)

While I am aware that I will likely have the ability to choose "british site" or "american site," simply having the URL differentiate such is...comforting. Your article asks if we value the .co.uk branding...well...on behalf of at least a three dozen Sysadmins, programmers, and IT consultants from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada...we do.

Oh sure! 

By Edward Pearson Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:55 GMT

Fine let go changing everything! It was fine as it was, but no, becuase the yanks feel inferior (they should be getting used to it!) El Reg should change its primary domain.</sarcasm>

Lets just change Opal Fruits to Starburst! Nobody will notice!

Lets change Marathon to Snickers! They'll like that!

No, the Red phone boxes aren't working out, lets make them black. Equality y'know...

The backlash was silent but deadly.

The day my browser redirects to .com is the day that I start using my mod points on Slashdot and then El Reg, then, you're really screwed.

How can you in good faith mock the stupid Americans (and there are enough of them) when your hardcore fish n' chip eating, pint drinking crowd are carelessly being redirected to a more USy address. What next, Stella in wine glasses? Actually caring about American politics, if I gave a shit about what the senate's up to, I'll pick up a good ol' fashioned english paper as most seem to have succumbed to the easy option of printing whatever the NY Times does anyhow..

Forget this madness and run another story on Second Life or something...

keep the .co.uk 

By skim Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 16:55 GMT

like everyone said, keep the .co.uk to preserve the UK pride and presence.

i'm a big fan of El Reg from the states - going six years now; honestly, when you introduced .com, i decided to use it for convenience, but mind you .co.uk lets readers know the site is originated from Britain, made by Britain, written by Britain, for the world - not another muck-up news site from the states pretending to be true boffins.

however, i do agree us.theregister.co.uk seems a bit silly. is it us or uk? it might as well be theregister.co.uk/us

if for some odd reason you decide to make .com the primary site, might i warn you, you may find El Reg merch selling on eBay with auction titles like "Authentic, original El Reg Hat, w/ .co.uk embroidered in the back. Made by Britain"

Keep .co.uk 

By Lesley Cowley Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:00 GMT

I admit that I'm biased, but I think the .co.uk is part of the established and well-known Register brand. Having a .co.uk also means you can easily contact the registry should you need to.

btw, please don't design a new logo!

Lesley

CEO, Nominet

.co.uk 

By davebarnes Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:00 GMT

I live in Denver, CO USA.

I surf to http://www.theregister.co.uk

I want the cheeky British perspective.

I don't want a US site. I refuse to surf to .com

You want to be trusted? Stay .co.uk 

By Guy Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:00 GMT

I'm an englishman living in the states, and one of the things I'm most proud of about the old homeland is our news sources. The BBC and El Reg.

Changing to .com would just mean I have to describe that, yes El Reg is British, I know it has a .com address but it's British, I promise. Trust me it would get tedious.

Whereas at present I send someone a link theregister.co.uk, it's self evident in the link.

Trust me over here, UK news sources carry more weight than US ones, being a .co.uk, lends your stories more trustability (I know I know, but it's a good word)

Missed Point? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:02 GMT

I think a lot of people have missed the point of this exercise. Both .com and co.uk exist its not about dropping co.uk to go .com. It seems to me they are simply going to mask or redirect 1 or the other so that no matter which you type .com or co.uk it will show as co.uk in the address bar. For what it is worth I am American and I say the site should continue to use co.uk. I don't ever bother to go to the .com site. I agree with others that the co.uk is part of thereg's brand and culture.

what's wrong with ... 

By Ashley Evans Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:03 GMT

making the americans use .co.uk

oh... you want to encourage more American users by pandering to their ego. Well, you've done alright so far so why not avoid trying to fix something that doesn't seem broken.

One site, geoip, just as CNN its easy 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:03 GMT

Just do as CNN does and have one site that uses geo_ip to work out the expected location, and then offer a flag option to fix their location

theregister.insipidyellow 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:04 GMT

Changing to .com would be fine, but really I don't care.

Even though .com is "American" I don't think that'll last forever. I don't associate it with the USA anyway.

On the other hand, I think there should be a move away from "serious" internet brands needing a ".com" address. Hopefully one day we can be more flexible in our URL names and not be restricted to ridiculous 2 or 3 letter suffixes.

Somebody said:

> I was at a meeting in Scotland with Joel Spolsky. I spoke to him briefly.

Pfff... you mean you collected your free pint!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/01/the_color_of_irony/

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:04 GMT

Go for dot.com, then someone bigger than you will want the URL, and there'll be no nominet to protect you...

Oh, and you are British, so stop being so silly.

Definitely keep .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:05 GMT

The .co.uk must stay! It's as much a part of the brand as the theregister name itself. Even when lived in the in the States (and I've been reading theregister since '97), the .co.uk gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside - as opposed to all the bog standard .com

Definitely, keep .co.uk

-Aleks

.co.uk 

By Naadir Jeewa Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:09 GMT

Being .co.uk gives The Register is part of the great British brand of no punches pulled criticism, of which the likes of Mark Kermode and Charlie Brooker are also a part of.

Staying .co.uk doesn't reduce your global appeal, but becoming .com might make you seem none other than another CNet.

Stick to .co.uk 

By ihouse@scmf.co.uk Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:09 GMT

Whilst I recognise that The Register has a lot of American contributors and covers a lot of American subjects, I have always appreciated the fact that it continues to present a definitely British flavour.

There are other American-based technology websites with .com addresses and I look at them occasionally. theregister.co.uk is front and centre on my Google homepage and I check it several times daily.

I think you should use the .co.uk, because The Register IS a British website - dealing with international topics, but from a uniquely British point of view. Is Britain really so insignificant (don't answer that) that Americans would have difficulty remembering the domain suffix for El Reg?

I know .com SHOULD be a global domain, but it's "overwhelmed" by the Americans. If only they had gone for .usa, things might be different. As it is, .com's globality (is there such a word?!) is diluted by all the non-global companies using it.

co.uk all the way 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:10 GMT

I'm a canuck and I always goto co.uk (the .com site just never looks right) so I say keep with it!

What'll it do to your google rankings! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:10 GMT

But seriously... .co.uk all the way baby!

Technically it's not really a big deal 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:12 GMT

Well written software to run the site shouldn't care about the URL it's on, plus the webservers can run off both names at the same time.

I'd say stick with the co.uk for branding purposes.

Leave it as it is... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:12 GMT

I prefer the .co.uk as it implies a more worldly site that does not have some of the myopia associated with some .com sites (since .us is not that common yet...)

Two addresses 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:13 GMT

Use 'us.theregister.co.uk' for the main site

Then have 'them.theregister.co.uk' for the US

.co.uk 

By Martin Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:15 GMT

Just to add to the list. Something homely about it...

What exactly 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:15 GMT

were you on when the idea of dropping .co.uk hit you? I too want some of the stuff!

Most outrageous idea of the month.

That is, unless it's a joke, but for a joke it's quite a bad one.

Keep .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:17 GMT

www.theregister.co.uk - the only way to be

it's the content that's important 

By Brian Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:18 GMT

It's the content of your site that keeps me coming back for more ... the URL that I have to type is of no consequence.

However, if you are rationalizing all the URL's and servers, might I suggest (as a Canadian reader) as a compromise the "www.theregister.ca" URL that I currently use.

Change the URL all you want, but keep the content the same!

Regards,

Brian

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:19 GMT

That's my vote. .com won't increase credibility or recognition.

Hurumph 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:19 GMT

Sir.

I was APPALLED to read that the Register would even consider adopting a .COM suffix. Of what can you possibly be thinking?!

Why, when I was a lad………< BoreFilter has automatically removed a total of 4,280 words from this posting. Click here if you would like to see them> … and so that was the end of that. Anyway, to reiterate, don't drop the old .CO.UK lads; think of England.

Yours sincerely,

Col. Lucas Davenport the third (Rtd).

.co.uk OK by me 

By Mark York Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:21 GMT

& now for something completely different.

Make your own dead parrot sketch here

Just add:

IBM Blue instead of Norwegian Blue

URL instead of Plummage

Gates instead of Fjords

.com instead of slug

theregister.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:21 GMT

Keep writing in real English, with real English sarcasm and use a real British domain name.

ADJB

My Opinion 

By DoubleD Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:22 GMT

Change it to sex.com

Is slashdot available? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:22 GMT

a) it hardly matters

b) yes, isn't it laughable that .com is national and international!

c) is there really a need for a .us.<name> or uk.<name> version - do those buggers over the sea get different content?

d) it ain't broke, leave well alone

my two pacific pasoes worth :)

Keep it britishersest 

By toby powell-blyth Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:25 GMT

Let's be proud to carry .co.uk to the masses in the US for once. Otherwise we'll be poodling to their ideals of domains, we don't need to pull a Blair for the American audience

Another Yank checking in 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:26 GMT

I read the reg because it's not like every other tech news site under the sun. It seems to me that having the .co.uk in your URL helps you to stand out from the crowd. It's a part of your branding. The .com TLD should be international but the sad reality is it percieved as American. When was the time you visited a .us site? Exactly.

Stand proud and firm with your co.uk in hand 

By Gareth Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:26 GMT

(any positions open writing headlines..? :) )

As an ex-pat living in Mickey-Mouse-Murder-Funland, I am grateful for all the Britishness I can still can get my mitts on. I feel proud to be reading a co.uk. El Reg seems to be a British site that is happy to have international readership, and I feel the co.uk is an important element of that.

whatever 

By Del Merritt Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:27 GMT

I'm a "yank" and I have no problem with .co.uk. (i.e, "me too!") In fact, after looking at it once or twice, I never bothered with the "US Edition"; I like to see the blend and perspective.

What I DO NOT get is why some of the offshoot sites - like Reg Channel, Reg Hardware and Reg Developer - don't have an easy link back to the "main" register. Perhaps it's adblock in Firefox dropping the link; if that's the case, I'll just live with it.

Yeah, do it like cnn 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:27 GMT

I can't believe you're spending time on this. Keep them both. Have all of them behave like cnn.com where the user can change their region and then maybe other region specific news is put lower or flagged (I still like reading about UK politics even in the US though, so don't remove it.) Newer users will bookmark theregister.com and older ones will keep the co.uk.

This isn't bloody rocket science, in fact, I fear I hear some whalesong coming from your office, as you worry about your branding. :-P

Leave it 

By Richard Neill Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:27 GMT

I think you should forward .com to .co.uk.

Tech readers are pretty savvy - they'll work it out.

Also, British news outlets (usually) tend to be, and are seen to be, much more trustworthy/competent than their US equivalents. For example, compare

the BBC to CNN.

Yet another <AOL> 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:28 GMT

Everybody and his dog has a dozen .com domains. .co.uk still means something maybe not much, but _something_ -- and it's a definite part of your identity.

Keep the .co.uk 

By Dan King Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:30 GMT

Keep your British roots. I'm in Canada, a regular reader, and I enjoy reading some of your local articles and concerns. A British perspective on a world wide industry is more valuable than a whitewashed global approach. I like the satiric approach - keep biting the hand that feeds you and stay true to what your are.

Thin end of the wedge. 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:30 GMT

If El Reg is going global (or American) then how about 'boffins', 'blighty', 'our boys/lads' and other comically anglocentric tropes? No surrender to the ICANN and that.

Keep .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:31 GMT

Do I need to come down with the Clue by Four?

VultureCentral.xxx or WhaleSong.eu? 

By Turbojerry Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:33 GMT

Ok, it's not 1st April, I've checked, so you want us to be your Strategy Boutique, well I think I can help. Dot com is for humourless American Corporate types called Chet and Biff, The Reg is very British, both in it's humour and general outlook, therefore think co.uk is perfect, unless you're thinking of selling out to Rupert Murdoch, in which case I suggest myvulturecentral.com.

PS I can do a nice logo for £400K, one previous owner, good little runner...

It is el Reg that is all that matters 

By matthew newman Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:34 GMT

I am a US reader, and I have been reading The Register since way before their was a .com domain at all. I read it everyday and would no matter weather there was ever a .com domain purchased. In fact just recently I started typing that vs. the co.uk. So in short... what difference does it make as long as the content is the same? If you wanted to segregate some us vs eu content that I could understand, but I like reading all of it as do many others, that is why you became such a success here even prior to the .com domain.

my vote 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:35 GMT

nationality : US / Holland

location : US

choice : ".co.uk"

I think we have a winner 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:35 GMT

Looking at the posted posts, .co.uk is definitely in favour.

Seeing theregister.com has just hit me on the head a couple hundred times, I hate it, it's like looking at thenews.com. Even thenews looks better under a .co.uk.

As for us.theregister.co.uk, I don't see toooo much wrong with it but I see your point of course.

But even this works to your advantage... Us, The Register, company of UK.

Look at the BBC 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:37 GMT

The BBC have bbc.com (took a while to acquire from the Boston Business Consortium or something!), but it directs to bbc.co.uk

The co.uk is important, and should stay. Firstly, it makes it clear that we value the co.uk "brand" - just like the BBC do. Secondly, it equally diminishes the .com "brand" which is no bad thing.

Not *everything* which is useful should live under .com, even if such a .com exists.

Stick to .co.uk :-)

.co.uk 

By Toshio Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:40 GMT

What the hell is wrong with you?

You have a brand.

You are brits.

You have captured an audience.

I have you bookmarked in my brain as a british (i.e. more credible than the rest) site.

I like seeing sites that don't bow down to some .com frenzy.

I think having non generic TLD sends a clear message that internet is not USA-only medium.

I think that everybody who would prefer .com instead of .co.uk should be registered as a USA republican and promptly given three options to chose from:

- a) be exiled to Texas and put in a cold storage next to John Wayne.

- b) be exiled to Guantanamo as a danger to civilized world.

- c) be exiled to Oz to experience first-hand what happens to a country and people that just want to go at it the easy way.

Another vote... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:41 GMT

...in favour of ElReg's distinctive Britishness, part of which is distinctively British domain name.

Rojer, a long-time ElReg reader from Russia.

Stick with .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:42 GMT

Dont move over to .com; stick with the .co.uk

Apart from the bbc news site, this is the only other .co.uk URL worth reading

Vote for .co.uk here... 

By Cliff Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:44 GMT

Have to agree, the tone of the site is British (it's still a 'mobe' goddammit, no matter what comprimises you make for our hard-of-understanding cousins), be .co.uk and proud of it.

A few years ago I'd have been more ambivelent, but now the .co.uk TLD has a caché of its own, I think it's worth staying put. Or rather, if you go .com, I'll cancel my subscription ;-)

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:51 GMT

You know it makes sense.

.co.uk 

By Ian Ferguson Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:52 GMT

I'm in the process of moving our company's branding from a .com address to a .co.uk address. Simply because we've found that our customers value the localisation. Less important with a business based around a website maybe.

In the early days of the internet, .com was a sign of prestige - and thus .co.uk cheapness, and so on (I once had a boss who said 'I never go to websites with .net at the end - it's all porn) - but I don't think this is the case any more.

More to the point, why do you have Reg Developer and Reg Hardware on separate domains? I find it intensely irritating that I follow a story from theregister.co.uk (or from my RSS reader) and there's no big obvious logo or link to take me back to the front page of theregister.co.uk.

If you're proud to be British... 

By Timbo Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:52 GMT

...then keep the .co.uk....after all, being a dot com doesn't hold any "weight" anymore, as a bloke in a shed can register (sic) a dot com for next to nowt anyways....and he isn't likely to be a "global player".

So, stick with the co.uk....and if the Yanks complain about "us.theregister.co.uk" that'll teach them for not using "co.us" (PS Keep up the good work on the site!), rgds, Tim

(PS Unlike your story said, I had to register to post this - which isn't a bad thing, I s'pose - but the anonymous post function didn't work for me !!)

Stay with .co.uk BUT... 

By Peter Hoare Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:53 GMT

So my tuppence-ha'penny's worth is to say stay with .co.uk...

BUT on a slightly related note, could I beg for a clearer indication in stories as to whether we're talking UK or US. Too many times on your site I'm reading things like "The Government" or "The Courts" and it's only half way into the story you actually get enough context to realise whether it's talking about the US or the UK.

Natural enough when you get a UK writer talking about a UK news story, or a US writer etc.. but given the mix you have, it does get confusing at times!!

Keep .co.uk 

By Dan Demaine Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:53 GMT

I think that the .co.uk URL should be kept because I think it feels more 'personal' compared to .com.

el-reg.co.ck 

By Charlie Clark Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:54 GMT

What does the strategy boutique say about that? (shameless stolen from Nathan Barley and presumably others but still good)

No need for subdomains - you can have el-reg.co.ck/uk, /us, /etc. which is the more common practice nowadays. We can assume the /us stuff is for all the bible-bashing, nuke launching petrolheads who can read stories conforming to their world view but with a helpful "Englishian" dictionary.

.co.uk - recognisable - so keep it 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:54 GMT

An IT brand is automatically assumed to be USA based - the URL (and the content) makes the important point that this is British and not following any party line.

Now as to the vulture - shouldn't we pick a British bird - no, on second thoughts, keep the carrion eater right where it belongs, in the centre.

Cheers

Andrew

Keep .co.uk 

By Alex Speller Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:55 GMT

Definitely. It's definitely a big part of your brand and I always type that in even though it's longer.

Keep the .co.uk 

By davcefai Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:56 GMT

I think the .co.uk is important. One of the reasons I read the Register is that it is British, with a British slant on things. When I first came across the site the uk bit was one of the reasons I bookmarked it. Since then I have visited at least once daily.

keep .co.uk as default 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:56 GMT

if anything, the .co.uk/ on the address helps serve as a warning that british humor, and a decent helping of british attitude will be presented in the articles...

The Title 

By Andy Barber Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:56 GMT

I always thought that "The Register" was a backwards reference to 'The Register', which commented on BRITISH politics. Therefore I feel .co.uk should be kept, to keep it in line with the root of the name. I'm not aware of "The Register" being in the American English parlance, so .com would NOT be appropriate.

Andy Barber

BR1 5AD, England.

Don't go .com 

By Jeff Stacey Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:56 GMT

As a Canadian, I say stick true to your root and brand and stick with .co.uk

Didn't think it mattered until I read some comments above 

By John Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:58 GMT

I was about to say "don't worry about it" - .co.uk or .com who cares then i read many of the comments above. What they have made me realise is that the UK centric nature of El Reg is actually very important to many readers (myself included). Losing some of the humour would surely become tempting as the transatlantic media barons decided to launch their branding campaigns on this terrific site.

.co.uk is closer to the vision of the Reg which i want to read.

Keep .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 17:59 GMT

Forward the .com to your .co.uk. The Register just doesn't look right with .com banged on the end.

co.uk 

By N7DR Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:01 GMT

If you must choose one, choose .co.uk.

El Reg has (thankfully) never been one to worry about bucking trends. Just because a bzillion other sites wish to bury their distinctiveness in the all-consuming .com TLD, that's no reason for El Reg to do so.

Besides which, who ever heard of a dot-co-dot-uk bust? Ergo, .co.uk is a lot safer from a business standpoint.

Adamant of Tonbridge Wells

If you're going to use all that british slang... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:01 GMT

... then it has to be co.uk. Keep your distinctiveness!

Keep the .co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:02 GMT

As one of your U.S. readers, I say keep it! There's nothing un-global or un-professional about having ".co.uk" instead of ".com". Besides, the current URL reinforces the Britishness that makes this site a joy to read.

The Register -is- a UK Voice 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:04 GMT

Don't mess with success. Marketers think of brands rather than product. You have a product. The product is an engaging and wonderful insight from the UK point of view.

After the marketers have smoothed your skin and desnaggled any bad teeth you will no longer be the unique and interesting site that you are.

PS I have read theregister from Canada for many years- keep it up!

Another .co.uk vote... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:07 GMT

The general consensus (which I am in agreement with) seems to be that as the Register is a British site, with a definite British slant on things, then proudly wearing a '.co.uk' domain is a good thing.

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:07 GMT

You can tell the site is English coz it's funny. That would probably deter americans much quicker than us.theregister.co.uk would

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:08 GMT

why are you even asking? durrrr

my two "pennies" 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:11 GMT

elreg is inherently british, and although it is no more troublesome to type a different address, i feel the identity of this site would lose a bit of itself somehow if it went to just .com

Keep the co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:12 GMT

Too many comments along the same lines I agree with.

uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:12 GMT

been said many a time. the register is a British site, and the domain name should reflect that. also, the .co.uk is part of the sites personality

.co.uk 

By kaiserb_uk Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:15 GMT

.com means american, or at least it does to me. Stick with the uk url please.

co.uk 

By Chris Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:15 GMT

Leave it .co.uk. From a Yank that has been reading it pre-com. It's a nice big F-U to the early US registrar.

Look at it this way, when you make it .com you will get even more stupid questions about "non-USAisms." I'd say Brit-slang or Blightyisms but you know everything revolves around us Yanks.

Title 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:16 GMT

I pride myself in getting my news from a NON US website, please don't change.

Whatever is easier to type 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:18 GMT

I'm a US reader, and as a world traveler, I know that the best source of news within a country is most often from news services in a different country, so I've always gone to co.uk.

When I'm in front of a browser that doesn't already have a Register bookmark, I type it in manually. I find ".com" much easer to type than ".co.uk."

When I type "theregister" in Firefox then do a CTRL-ENTER, I end up at the .com address. I don't know if it works the same in other countries.

Bottom line, perhaps, should be what's easiest for the readers.

Don't care, as long as you remain the same 

By Gary Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:18 GMT

Personally, I don't care, though it seems to make sense to use .com as the root. Still, .co.uk seems to sound better than .com; less corporate, perhaps.

Even coming from an American, I think the following comment sums up my opinion best:

"(PS if you decide to use dot com, then why not use us.theregister.com *as well as* uk.theregister.com? Many big companies already use this system)"

theregister.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:20 GMT

Cheers for asking, the .co.uk has my vote. The Register is indubitably British, lets keep it that way.

.co.uk 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:22 GMT

Keep the .co.uk defo.

Keep it 

By Dillon Pyron Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:25 GMT

As an American, I say keep it. I've been typing it for years, why change now.

Besides, my t-shirt and cap both say www.theregister.co.uk. You'd make me buy a new set? Oops, shouldn't give you guys any ideas.

Vive L'Academie Anglaise 

By Vaughan Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:26 GMT

Communications received from the USA are often responded to with a witty appraisal of the linguistic deficiences of our former colonial subjects. The loss of the UK top level domain might be seen to excuse them, thus rendering the replies of your writers, seeming a little hypocritical, rather less potent. I would certainly regret the loss of such amusing paragraphs.

I'm confused... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:27 GMT

I don't see what the problem is with .co.uk for UK usage and (us.)theregister.com for global use. What's the "served globally" issue? If links are all relative (okay, with an indirection script to the appropriate reghardware etc., although I'm not clear why that had to be a separate domain in the first place) surely the problem solves itself?

FWIW:

1) I'm absolutely against getting rid of .co.uk.

2) us.theregister.co.uk seems silly - just as uk.theregister.co.uk is redundant. If you've got the .com, use it as a US default.

3) Picking up the user's location is annoying if there's no good way to override it - e.g. I'm in the UK as part of Creative, but because our network connection goes through Ireland, google.com redirects to google.ie.

4) I can't see a reason why you'd ever have a problem with theregister.co.uk and theregister.com coexisting, without the need to re-write content (with the proviso that all the URLs have to be local). Making the web server send the base address as whatever it was asked for isn't difficult.

My $.02/1p.

Doesn't matter to me... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:31 GMT

I've been using co.uk for years from the other side of the pond. I couldn't care less about the domain name. Just keep the great content coming.

.com? - too anonymous 

By Rob