What guarantee do we have that history won't repeat itself? The GameSpot fiasco simply started with a logo and more ad revenue.
The GameSpot fiasco was going on for years before the logo branding. I was hired after the decision was made to combine the varying parts of the sites (this was decided in 2003, I was brought on in April 2004). The decision then was made specifically to share content on both sites.
This time around, no content will be shared. It's simply a domain change. You can check out comicvine.gamespot.com for a living example. This site moved over a year ago with no repercussions and their userbase is almost as passionate as ours, albiet smaller. Look at their insane user powered wiki, for example.
I feel like CJayC truly believed things wouldn't go that way either when he sold the site.
I can't speak for him, honestly, but the people in charge of then CNET and the people who are in charge now are some very, very different people. I'm one of the few still left who lived through the first merger and they are scared to death of even attempting to do anything like that ever again. Honestly, the only fear they had about making this move was people comparing it to the debacle of 2003. No one wants to repeat that.
That's good to know I suppose. Just so long as you keep it in their minds.
The other legitimate issue here is of course that long or confusing URLs don't tend to help people. If your reference point is the average click bait addict, a URL such as gamefaqs.gamespot.com would frustrate them and turn them away. Further, it would confuse just about anyone with a hint of dyslexia.
I don't think most people will be frequently typing in the site's URL that often. If they do, they can still just type gamefaqs.com and get redirected so it's not a problem. As is already the current case, the bulk of our traffic will be from search and won't actually be paying the slightest attention to what's in their URL bar. ---