Re: Renaming

[Svetlana Tkachenko]

Hi Tristan

Thank you for your insight. Please see my suggestions to them below.

> 0400, Richard Stallman
> <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Does anyone disagree with renaming the service evalualtions by adding
> > ".com"?  
> 
> I disagree, for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) Not every hosted service offers their software for self-hosting, so
> there is no point in trying to make a distinction in these cases.

In this case writing "foobar.com" rather than "foo" would emphasize that this
is a site hosted by them, and not by you. Is this a bad thing? (In my view, no.)

> 2) Referring to a service by a name other than the one that is usually
> used will make it harder for people to discover our information about
> it when searching the web.  (That is, depending on the search engine, a
> search for "GitLab" might not rank our page as highly, or even might
> not return it at all, if our page instead refers to it only as
> "GitLab.com".)

Would suggest to remedy that by writing "Usually called GitLab" in a short 
description of the site which is being evaluated.
 
> 3) Not every hosted service uses a single domain name, so we would
> either have to list only one (which has the same problem as point #2)
> or list all of them, which could be unwieldy in terms of presentation
> and maintenance.

Would be interesting to see examples here, but I'd suggest to also remedy this
by adding a short description of the site being evaluated. Without it, the
other domain names would be unknown to the reader, and this perhaps could be
a serious gap: having read "foo.com" and not knowing that "bar.com" is the same,
they'd think that "bar.com" wasn't rated.

Hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Svetlana