I have searched for many websites. But i Didn't getthe real and detailed clarification.
In some sites i read, Only the sites using the " www "prefix in the url are crawled freqently and it will be the most useful one for seo.
How far it was true.
Look up "canonicalization issues" + SEO. Basically, if your webserver is responding to both www.Example.com/widgets/blue and Example.com/widgets/blue your poor website may be viewed as serving up duplicate content. Really, it's not you, just some dumb search engine . . but you've got to deal with it if you depend on "it" for your income or living.
This guy has something to say about the issue: Matt Cutts [mattcutts.com]. People usually listen attentively when he speaks . . unless he's talking about the buying and selling of links.
Then those same people roundly abuse him. :)
You want to keep your link popularity focused on one version or the other, not split between variants.
What is the difference between using www and with out www in website url.I have searched for many websites. But i Didn't getthe real and detailed clarification.
In some sites i read, Only the sites using the " www "prefix in the url are crawled freqently and it will be the most useful one for seo.
How far it was true.
For those of us who were around then, there can still be some confusion over the word "server": is it a computer, or a program? I think the confusion stems from this early wedding of one server/one computer.
Even if every site didn't need a dedicated computer for each server, a convention was developed that permitted one to easily move from a shared computer running multiple servers (FTP, DNS, telnet, WWW, etc.) to multiple computers, each running a single service (or fewer than before).
The convention is that each service should have a separate domain name - even though there is no technical requirement for such. (Each service uses a different port number - thus all common services can coexist on the same computer and same domain name.)
The irony is that the DNS system - and it's ancient users - never anticipated the huge growth of the Internet. Nobody really thought about the case of requiring more than one computer to handle a given service!
Early on, though, some large sites emerged, and they had to open up - gasp - ftp2.example.com, or www2.example.com! "Load balancing" was practically non-existent, and was done by asking users to randomly choose one of the names (typical for FTP), or by splitting some content (say, images) onto a separate web site.
Once the web grew to the point where ANY large site now requires multiple physical servers and some sort of load-balancing or load-distribution, the whole point of "www" has become moot. There's no point in creating a distinct name for the web server's address - "www" solved a problem that has become impossible to solve using a simple naming convention, and now requires technological solutions.
Once you get past a single server running any one service at your "corporate face", "www", "ftp", etc. are useless. The same technology that allows you to go from 1 to 2 to 10 or 100 servers also makes the "www" unnecessary.
I prefer dropping the "www", but maintain a "www" DNS entry, and have your server redirect "www" to "non-www".
We have the luxury of web browsers designed to accomadate for our laziness, first it was automatically adding http:// and these days firefox will look for alternatives if the DNS record doesn't exist for www (or the other way around?).
From my tinkerings in the google webmaster account, you can specify to google whether they should catergorise your site with or without the www.
at the end of the day, it's mostly a personal preference.
You should also invest some time in the google webmaster account if you have multiple domains ie domain.com, domain.us, domain.co.uk etc all landing on the same page to ensure they rank and categorise the correct domain accordingly.
But, there may be issues using that type of formula. It could be one method of "disturbing" the indexing of your site. Just imagine if you had 20,000 product pages. And those 20,000 product pages could be browsed to with both www and without www. In theory, you have 40,000 pages and 20,000 of them are duplicates. Now they have to figure out which version is the duplicate. What does that do to an indexing routine?
I prefer dropping the "www", but maintain a "www" DNS entry, and have your server redirect "www" to "non-www".
Been reading this thread, and started thinking from a users point of view.
I know from watching your average Internet user (like my Mum & Dad for example) that they will always start with www. when typing a URL into their browse.
Even with sub-domains, eg sales.example.com they will type www.example.domain.com
Even here at work in the IT department, if I'm reading a URL to a colleague I have to explicitly say that it doesn't start with www.
People are so used to www. that I see absolutely no advantage from a users point of view of dropping it.
www is a sub-domain of example.com.
This is incorrect, though it's a commonly-misused term.
First of all, technically, what we sometimes call a "sub-domain" is actually called a "zone".
In, say, "www.example.com", "example.com" is a zone (or a sub-domain, if you will) belonging to ".com". "www" (typically) is a host within the example.com zone, not a zone (or sub-domain) itself.
A zone may contain hosts, and, as well, may own additional zones.
There's a special case for the "root" name of a zone - it is automatically a host, as well as being the name of a zone. (The only way to disable this is to assign it an address of 0.0.0.0.)
"www.example.com" is not a zone (or sub-domain) unless it has been explicitly set-up as such - and in most cases it is not, as a zone called "www" would be quite confusing to users. (Imagine: www.www.example.com, or news.www.example.com, etc.)
There is no way by simply looking at a domain name whether it is a zone or just a host.
People are so used to www. that I see absolutely no advantage from a users point of view of dropping it.
It's less to type, and will eventually be the norm. In any case, as long as you redirect www to non-www, you make everybody happy.
