|brotherhood of LAN|
| 4:20 pm on Jul 24, 2013 (gmt 0)|
It doesn't really matter in regards to google, just pick one and stick with it.
Having "www." is helpful as a visual cue to people that it's a web address while without it is shorter.
The topic has been covered through the years, here's one particular thread [webmasterworld.com].
| 5:30 pm on Jul 24, 2013 (gmt 0)|
thanks dudu ...
but in Google webmaster, matt told that "www" is more preferable then non - "www"....
| 9:17 pm on Aug 2, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I'd like to see a reference to Matt saying that www is better.
| 1:19 am on Aug 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
:: detour to pursue hunch ::
amazon dot com redirects to www et cetera
wikipedia dot org redirects to www et cetera
youtube dot com redirects to www et cetera
Doesn't seem to have harmed any of them.
Oh yes and...
google dot com redirects to www et cetera
| 2:38 am on Aug 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Sure, but that's custom and correlation. There's no cause and effect proved there.
Early on, most servers were set up such that you had to have a www because that was what mapped to the public, web-accessible document root for the webserver. But that's convention.
Let's see I have a hunch.
Amazon.com - English
Wikipedia.org - English
youtube.com - English
google.com - English
What have I learned about what Google likes?
| 3:50 am on Aug 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Whoops! I misread the previous post and thought it said "without www is better", so that's what I was casually rebutting :)
| 10:15 pm on Aug 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Got it. So now all we know is that Google likes sites in English, but the jury's still out on the www/non-www ;-)