-2

It seems like all the newer SE sites are named topic.stackexchange.com.

Just to keep everything orthogonal what about adding serverfault.stackexchange.com as well and point it to serverfault.com?

5
  • 2
    Apart from some abstract sense of order, are there any concrete advantages to this? (SEO, perhaps)
    – Shog9
    Nov 13 '12 at 19:07
  • 1
    @Shog9 I don't believe there are any SEO advantages.
    – sysadmin1138 Mod
    Nov 13 '12 at 19:19
  • 2
    This is taking pedantry to breaking point. There has to be a reason to do such a thing and I seriously doubt anyone here can think of one. Nov 14 '12 at 5:37
  • 1
    So you are saying because I want it isn't a reason? It may not be a good reason, but it is a reason.
    – Zoredache
    Nov 14 '12 at 8:28
  • "I want" is a valid reason only to a toddler. Nov 15 '12 at 9:22
2

This would seem logical, except none of the trilogy (SO/SF/SU) are accessible this way -- I believe the trilogy sites are still "special", and there might be a bit more involved than just the name...

If it is possible without requiring the sacrifice of a developer during the full moon I heartily approve though.

1
  • Arqade.com and askubuntu.com are special too (for possibly different reasons). For SE2 sites, getting your own domain name is a badge of honour.
    – user9517
    Nov 13 '12 at 18:36
2

I wouldn't see much of a problem coming from redirecting serverfault.stackexchange.com -> serverfault.com. But I'm sure the codebase uses the hostname of the site, so I doubt it would be trivial to add alternate hostnames to sites.

Arqade (gaming.stackexchange.com) already does this in the reverse, arqade.com -> gaming.stackexchange.com

1
  • That's true, if it's implemented as a 3xx redirect I don't expect it would be any issue since the browser is just going to re-request the page with the redirect target URI.
    – voretaq7
    Nov 13 '12 at 18:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .