example.com vs www.example.com

[RedWine]

I know there used to be alot of concern about splitting PR or backlinks. I was wondering if that has mostly been resolved by the fact that Google will allow you to specify your preffered domain name.

I personally am in the camp where I feel example.com/ is superior to www.example.com/. I know how to set up the 301 redirect on the server to make sure it resolves properly depending on what I choose. My concern is that if I go with example.com/, then set up the 301 redirect on the server so www.example.com/ will resolve to example.com/, and I also go to Google and set up example.com/ as my preference... I know that I will still get alot of others that link to my site as www.example.com/ ... does this mean that I will still be splitting the links and PR because of that?

Thanks in advance!

[dailypress]

I dont think so.

I personally prefer www.Example.com similar to what Google and Yahoo have done.

[bill]

I set all of my company's URLs to the www-less format many years ago. I standardized this on all business cards, brochures, pamphlets, signs, decals, letterhead, and all promotional materials. The unnecessary www subdomain is 301'd to the correct primary domain.

Sure you'll always get a few people who link incorrectly. They'll be covered by the 301 redirect. You can contact them directly if it's an issue for you.

Regardless of which you choose, it's important to be thoroughly consistent in your application of the name both online and off.

[piatkow]

My personal preference is without the www but I have observed that most users type it in automatically, even to the point of "correcting" a link request that explicitly says http://example.com

As bill says, be consistent.

[HuskyPup]

I set all of my company's URLs to the www-less format many years ago.

Me too in the mid 90s!

Interestingly Sir Tim Berners-Lee has been quoted as saying that using the www prefix was an error in hindsight...guess he didn't realise just how popular it was going to be eh?

[g1smd]

Reasons to use non-www : shorter URL, easier to say, easy to link to, easier to brand?

Reasons to use www : people expect to see URL begin with www, also [site:www.example.com] and [site:example.com -inurl:www] searches that really show you what is going on.

I usually use www for the whole site, and I have no problem branding as non-www - because the redirect from non-www to www gets the visitor to the correct page anyway.

My logic is that you buy the domain name and then put various services such as www, ftp, mail, etc, on sub-domains.

[RedWine]

Thanks for the responses, the key question to me in makeing this decision is

If I go with example.com, set up the 301 redirect, as well as specify my "example.com" prefence for listing with google... will I be hurt in any way if others link to me using www.example.com? ... I know it will all resolve correctly to example.com... but will I loose back link credit/PR for links that have the www in them?

I know the 301 redirect will get users to the right domain name, but does it also insure credit for back links with www in the url?

Thanks again I really appreciate the discussion on this.

[g1smd]

A single step 301 redirect will pass PageRank.

I almost always use www for the site URLs but sometimes the promotional literature will contain the non-www domain name. This relies on the redirect getting the user to the correct URL.

I don't see that as a problem.

I type

google.com

when I want to make a search.
I type

bbc.co.uk

when I want to find out what's on the telly.
Neither of those use "www" in their branding, but their sites do use the www when you visit.

Both of those redirect to www.

[piatkow]

G is actually seems quite happy if you use the utility in webmaster tools to determine the preferred version. The rest of the pack seem to expect a 301

[noox]

I'm preferring the www-less version, too. But there is one problem: If your site is often mentioned in forums or other user genertated content, usually urls with www are automatically rewritten to links. Urls without are not.

[AnkitMaheshwari]

There is absolutely no issues of Page Rank if you are using 301 from one of them to other.

[TowerOfPower]

Consumers and users expect to see "www.example.com", and not "example.com"

After years of this behaivor, I'm not even comfortable myself whenever I go to a site without a www sub-domain.

Why would you want to lower conversions or hinder the growth of your user base?

These are the small things that can make a huge difference.

[edited by: TowerOfPower at 1:06 pm (utc) on April 23, 2009]

[dailypress]

Reasons to use non-www : shorter URL, easier to say, easy to link to, easier to brand?

Well I use the www. but never say it. Neither do I say [....]

I simply say example.com unless im talking to older folks who freak out if I dont spell out the www. (the ones who dont know what URL is ...etc)

[g1smd]

Correct. And when I type

example.com

into my browser I expect the site to work.

The fact that I am redirected to

www.example.com

when I get there is a good thing - any links I cut from the browser URL bar and paste as links on the pages of other sites will be correct.

[RedWine]

Ok, thanks all. Some good points about why to use the www that I did not think of. Thanks for the answers about page rank being passed. I now like the idea of redirecting to www.example.com... Its not like I can't use example.com when its more convenient.