| 3:52 am on Jan 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
How stupid are these sites?
As stupid as we fellow webmasters :.
| 4:06 am on Jan 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The other day on a local radio station, the host was asking a guy who later gave out his website address in the fashion including the www. and the host immediately and very seriously asked, "you don't need the http?!"
At least WWW needs to be there, just example.com will look so inappropriate for many people.
| 10:23 am on Jan 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I am not convinced by the argument that it is technically necessary to distinguish servers. you can have example.com as the web server and still have mail.example.com as the mail serve, seperate websites on subdomains etc. etc.
I like the brevity of not having a www, but some people will assume it is needed and type it in. On the other hand if you do not have it, some people will assume it can be omitted. Either way you need the redirect.
I doubt it has much effect on search, assuming you are talking about a new site rather than switching. Not many users are going to do complex searches like inurl:www and the like (I am not sure why anyone would do that either!).
It comes down to shorter URLs vs being like everyone else.
The fact that many big sites use other subdomains means people do see sites without the www quite a lot. en. on Wikipedia, finance. on yahoo .news on the BBC etc. Most of those do have the www. on the main page, but it is not an invariable pre-fix anymore.
| 10:38 am on Jan 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
You can have example.com for the webserver and mail.example.com for email, but also www.example.com for the webserver and example.com for mail. Why should you separate email to a subdomain, where everybody is used to send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org instead of email@example.com? Actually the SMTP RFC defines that email should go to the IP address associated with example.com unless MX records are present in the DNS configuration.
As email is a much older technology (1965 first emails, 1982 RFC SMTP standard) than websites, I think the SMTP protocol has more rights to the short domain name than HTTP.
| 12:54 am on Jan 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Of course the email address is firstname.lastname@example.org!
However, almost every SMTP/POP3 client on the planet will be connecting to smtp.example.com and pop3.example.com to send and receive their mail.
Those names have no effect on the email addresses that they actually work with.
| 1:29 am on Jan 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|However, almost every SMTP/POP3 client on the planet will be connecting to smtp.example.com and pop3.example.com to send and receive their mail. |
No, they won't. All SMTP clients first query for A and MX records for "example.com" without smtp or pop3. If no MX record exist, the A record is used which is the IP address directly associated with example.com. Otherwise the value of the MX records is used which is--especially for smaller domains where people don't have their own email server setup--in many cases an email server on a domain other than example.com.
I just used the example to show that there is no definite answer what the proper use of example.com without www or mail would be.
FWIW, I today scanned through five weeks of Apache logs to find image hotlinking abuse. My experience from that scan is that about 95% of the sites which hotlink to my images use either www.example.com, forum(s).example.com or useralias.socialnetworkingsite.com. The few sites with example.com were without exception from tech-savvy people operating a small site. It was certainly not the mainstream in my investigation.
| 6:58 am on Jan 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Based on my experience, i would say that it does hold a relevant portion for the rankings on the SERPs.
The canonical issue is still widely considered by the webmasters all around.
| 5:43 pm on Feb 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|It sounds like we disagree on the WWW part, but after doing this kind of software for about 8 years now, I am 100% confident default to no-www is the best interest of usability even if it is not perfect SEO. |
The above is the "Quote of the Day".
Can you believe this is the type of response I'm coming up against even after providing reference to this topic? No, not from the original client that I convinced prior, but from someone else who is adamant on forcing non-www on its users.
Yes, I resurrected an older topic but it is definitely an ongoing issue that should be discussed.
| 8:04 am on Jun 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
It's been few months, any findings to report?
Is dropping the www something you recommend doing from the get-go OR would it be OK to modify existing sites after-the-fact?
And if so (for part 2), what would be the anticipated benefit of doing so?
| This 69 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 69 ( 1 2  ) |