websites which have switched to .uk

[daxio]

Just noodling around the web looking at the latest views on .uk and the upcoming deadline next year. Can't help thinking that allowing pairs to co-exist will lead to enormous confusion. A quick glance at DL is already showing that. Interestingly it is never too late for Nom to decide to re-pair .uk with .co.uk etc. Anyway ..

A nice little host search on google shows who is using .uk:

The results are kind of mysterious presumably because there are no keywords.

So white peaks shepherd huts comes near top whilst Total UK is several pages down ..

(from where I am searching anyway)

 

[martin-s]

More than when I last looked, but very few notable sites still.

 

[daxio]

And it looks like Sugarfina's entry into the UK market has got off to a shaky start - the .uk version is registered in Nottingham but the site is throwing a certificate error ... , the .co.uk version is registered in Japan and directs to GoDaddy ... oh dear.
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyl...ing-posh-pick-and-mix-to-london-a3193501.html

 

[martin-s]

Who?

 

[daxio]

They make champagne gummy bears.

 

[martin-s]

Never heard of them

 

[lazarus]

Sugarfina LOL....

With a big enough marketing budget you can just about anything.

 

[daxio]

I may be late to the party here but cannot help feeling that this will be a complete disaster: Sometimes the .co.uk and .uk will be the same company, sometimes not - and imagine the opportunities for speculative or even unscrupulous registrations if someone forgets to register ( or later, renew ) the variant that may not be currently in use. Going from having 'a website name' to owning 2 domains will be confusing enough for 90% of website owners - how will they know about 301s , telling google about their preferred site domain etc. ? I think the .uk variant should have been reserved indefinitely, unless activated then intentionally allowed to lapse - effectively becoming "opt-out" rather than "opt-in". Increasing reg fees could cover this extra admin and compensate for the loss of the new extension registrations.

 

[Lovekraft]

I may be late to the party here but cannot help feeling that this will be a complete disaster: Sometimes the .co.uk and .uk will be the same company, sometimes not - and imagine the opportunities for speculative or even unscrupulous registrations if someone forgets to register ( or later, renew ) the variant that may not be currently in use. Going from having 'a website name' to owning 2 domains will be confusing enough for 90% of website owners - how will they know about 301s , telling google about their preferred site domain etc. ? I think the .uk variant should have been reserved indefinitely, unless activated then intentionally allowed to lapse - effectively becoming "opt-out" rather than "opt-in". Increasing reg fees could cover this extra admin and compensate for the loss of the new extension registrations.

It's very true and I think most of us here realised a long time ago that Nominet really don't care about the confusion and mess it will cause / already has caused. Having 2 different companies using the same term across .co.uk and .uk and making them fight against one another, all just part of the Nominet gravy train I'm afraid.

When 123-reg force registered the corresponding .uk for every one of their customers .co.uk domains without asking them and Nominet just let them get on with it only highlights their lack of care for the consumer and their duty to look after the .uk domain space responsibly.