Okay, all kidding aside, what I've been reading lately has tended to favor using the www.Example.com version and redirecting Example.com to the www. version.
It's somewhat of an epic battle - www. vs. Example.com - but at least according to Jane and Robot (Vanessa Fox) it looks like robot is happy with www. right now.
I prefer to register my domains without paying the extra for the optional www., though sometimes I do purchase the ".". :P
Let me clean me screen! I was wondering why my renewal fees are so high. It's because of both versions, that never dawned on me. :)
www.Example.com version and redirecting Example.com to the www. version.
Yup, that still seems to be the suggestion on this side of the pond. And one that I'd stick with.
Head over to the social media side and they've dropped their pants (www). In fact, they don't care much about canonicalization. Nor do they care about http vs https.
The "www" subdomain was originally added to domains to differentiate the "private network" and the "public web site." The domain would often resolve to different content than the subdomain, and although both can "be the same site," there is no requirement that they are.
If the OP is actually being charged extra by a registrar for a subdomain, then that bears some investigation as it is dishonest at best, and likely criminal fraud.
Jim
"My biggest mistake was using the www"!
I'd have to agree with that sentiment. But, it may be too late. That www. is ingrained in the general and Webmaster public alike. And, with over 55 trillion links on the Internet (as of 2007 December), I'll keep me www and just 301 non www to www. And, I can promote either one, doesn't matter. :)
"My biggest mistake was using the www"!
That assumes that the "www" webpage will always be the dominant use. That may not always be the case. So its good to use the www now and leave your options open in the future.
For marketing you can always brand and redirect the current most used use to the full syntax.
On my personal website, I redirect both example.com and www.example.com to web.example.com. 'web' is much easier to say than 'double-u double-u double-u'. ;)
I prefer using www because then the search site:domain.com -inurl:www is useful to check that no other variations have been indexed.
Actually I have a new launch coming up and I'm stripping the www. It is all audience based. If you expect a balance of links with and without, I'd go without now that I've seen the "other side" of things. That www is a hindrance when working with character limitations. :)
technically, I get told, www. IS a subdomain, so other subdomains are instead, not as well!
I go with convention, and use www
You know, I've supported that same mantra for years. I'm starting to see things a little differently now, from various marketing angles. There is a movement on the web towards micro-blogging and that www is three characters you can do without. That means that your inbounds are going to be minus the www. At some point, you really have to look hard at your audience and cater to their needs and that of your marketing. I have Twitism and that www is a challenge if things are not set up properly at the destination.
But I get really narked when subdomains are listed as www.subdomain.example.com
Also, now that I've been surfing more with my PDA for testing, that www is surely a pain in the arse, it really is. I'm fortunate in that most of the destinations I visit have their ducks in a row. :)
Arrrggghhh! I'm with ya' there, what a mess that can create if someone or something, like a bot, finds it by mistake. I don't think it is too common of a find but when they exist, be prepared. :(
personally I never enter www. but in my sites I always do www. and redirect non-www.
I see that response quite a bit more frequently these days as us Baby Boomers move over and the next gen comes in. :)
I'm hoping that the discussion of 301 Redirects in this instance are something of the past and that everyone has their things in order. Yes?
I prefer to register my domains without paying the extra for the optional www., though sometimes I do purchase the ".". :P
I saw my first shop sign with only 2 w's today ww.thisorthatshop.co.uk There I was thinking they were short of space I didn't realise they were saving money :)
So once they've paid for two, might as well go the whole hog!
:)
I personally have used both methods on different websites and prefer using www.
I have also realized some of my visitors are refered doing Google searches i.e.:
www keyword
