Forum Moderators: phranque
Twitter and the short-link focus has got me thinking. My domain is about as long as WebmasterWorld so I don't know. Google rankings and possibility of change is another factor but that aside, what do you think, www or just domain*com?
I suppose people are more familiar with the 'www' bit on web addresses so I tend to side with that. But whatever you choose, make sure both work and that one only ends up in the users address bar which ever they type.
I believe Google also see's (or at least used to) 2 different sites in the www and non-www, so its best to prevent any duplication penalties that may be imposed. However, this info may be out of date given that Google have said duplication is not a huge factor in the rankings..but I may be wrong or misheard what Google said.
:)
Of course, half the people who link to me put the WWW in their link anyway, even though they never saw it on my site.
If your site accepts both, I think Google is likely smart enough to know that a WWW and non-WWW page is the same page. I mean, if Google is smart enough to search a gazillion pages in 0.16 seconds, I think they're smart enough to understand www/no www! But if you install code to either force the WWW or remove the WWW, then it's not an issue, because then the SE's will always see your site one way, no matter how people link to it.
Google is likely smart enough to know that example.com/ and www.example.com/ are two different URLs, and therefore *are not* necessarily the same page. Like most other major search engines, Google does run a back-end de-duplication routine --occasionally buggy-- if and when they get the time to do so. I prefer not to depend on their 'kindness' to do this, though.
"www" is a subdomain, just like any other subdomain. So it might be "www" or "search" or whatever. But in no case is any subdomain necessarily the same thing as the main domain or any other subdomain. Search engines' basic unit of identity is the URL, not the 'page' and certainly not the 'file.' If so much as one character is different, then two strings do not represent the same URL. The content returned for requests for those two URLs then might be the same, or it might not.
The main advantage of non-www is brevity -- possibly important if you get a lot of type-in mobile traffic. And using non-www may save you several bytes per page load if you use canonical URLs in links on your pages.
The main advantage of "www" is that it serves as a visual and auditory "heads up" that a Web address immediately follows in print, radio, and TV advertising. You'll also notice that many people think that *all* Web site URLs start with "www" -- as in the occasional "www.whatever-I-am-searching-for-here.com" referrerals you may get from search engines and DNS-failure search 'services'.
If you've got a major/recognizable brand, the leading "www" isn't so important. But if you're not yet famous and you're competing for revenue with others in your space using print and media ads, then that "www" may be important.
Also, if you might 'make it really big' some day, it's somewhat easier to add server load balancing if you've left the root domain free.
Pick www or non-www as you see fit, and then 301-redirect the non-preferred 'flavor' to the one you prefer.
Jim
For example, tech-savvy people know you don't need www for 99.99% of the websites out there. When they enter an address in their browser, it is usually without www. This means that a tech-focused website could get away without the subdomain www. On the other hand, if you're running a cookbook site, it might make users feel more confortable with the www in the address.
Either way, a 301 can fix your decision.
Whilst 'www' may not be the most keyword-dense way of doing things, it certainly is the most user-friendly.
Many text editors, email clients, and word processors will generate hypertext links if you've used the www (as in www.example.com), but will not link out if you've typed example.com.
Also, verbally, if you're talking instead of typing, you could say "http - colon - double-slash", but most non-technical people will get that wrong, whereas they're familiar enough with "www" to get it right, and even put in the dot unprompted. ;)
I personally 301 redirect www. requests to my sites to the sans-www. version of the domain and have been doing so for years.
This makes me think, I wonder how many terabytes of data transfer could be saved across the entire Internet each year if everyone stopped using www.? ;)
A domain is more than just a website; it can have dedicated mail servers, ftp, www, workstations and whatnot. The 'www' is a specific designation pointing your users to the web server in your domain.
Many text editors, email clients, and word processors will generate hypertext links if you've used the www (as in www.example.com), but will not link out if you've typed example.com.
Also, verbally, if you're talking instead of typing, you could say "http - colon - double-slash", but most non-technical people will get that wrong, whereas they're familiar enough with "www" to get it right, and even put in the dot unprompted.
I understand that you can add or edit subdomains at your discretion, but the 'www' has become more or less convention in reference to a web server. It tells the user he or she is visiting a web server. Much like the 'mail' subdomain is often used to inform the user he or she is making use of a pop/smtp server. If we don't take the user into consideration when naming our (sub-)domains, we might as well revert to using bare IP addresses.
the part of the url that specifically points a user to your web server is the schema which is http: (or https: for secure servers).
this schema is provided by default for web (enabled) clients.
there is nothing preventing you from having a web-based subdomain such as [ftp.example.com...] which is completely distinct from a ftp server address such as ftp://example.com/.
The schema part in a URI is there to tell your client software which 'language' to speak. It is my understanding that it refers to a service, not a server.
No More WWW
I'm through with it and good riddance!
2008-01-06 - [WebmasterWorld.com...]
These types of topics always seem to appear at about the same time of the year. :)
I think the .com, .net, .org, or even .mobi acts as enough of a clue that it's a website for the overwhelming majority.
It tells the user he or she is visiting a web server.
Much like the 'mail' subdomain is often used to inform the user he or she is making use of a pop/smtp server.
Feel free to do it without the www, but consider your audience first or you may end up hurting your branding.
the "dot" between the domain and the cctld tells 99% of all users and readers that it is a domain name and the context (protocol) tells you when it is a web site.
it's almost 2010 now - the www is obsolete.
it's like "trolley tracks" laid across the "information superhighway".
useless for protocol, abysmal for vox, marginal for print, ignored for mobile web ...
A domain is more than just a website; it can have dedicated mail servers, ftp, www, workstations and whatnot. The 'www' is a specific designation pointing your users to the web server in your domain.
when was the last time you emailed somename@mail.example.com
regarding email addresses:
perhaps you weren't serious, but you might want to read these and figure out how your suggestion would handle all the use cases supported by the current standards and protocols:
[tools.ietf.org...]
[tools.ietf.org...]
in some cases might even counsel against retroactively changing an existing site
regarding email addresses:
perhaps you weren't serious, but you might want to read these and figure out how your suggestion would handle all the use cases supported by the current standards and protocols:
[tools.ietf.org...]
[tools.ietf.org...]
Well, I guess you weren't serious? :)
The point is there are times when www. must not be used to access a website but there should NEVER be a time when the www. can't be left off and the user just use example.com instead.
We really need to get away from www. for the very reason that users don't understand it isn't necessary and that there are times that is must not be used. The best way to teach users that www. isn't needed or to get them to forget about it is to 301 redirect our sites from the www. to the non-www. version of the domain. In time users will begin to forget about www. or realize it isn't needed. Using and promoting www. just reinforces a misunderstanding about how the web works.
The only valid argument I have seen above for using www. is on legacy websites that were canonicalized to the www. version for a very long time. Even at that, properly canonicalizing the webaddress using 301 redirects to go to the non-www. version of the domain and telling the various search engines via their webmaster control panels to use the non-www. version should mitigate the SERP hit from making the change.
In that 2008 topic I reference earlier, I was convinced that maybe my choice to strip the www was an incorrect one. Well, I ended up flipping again and chose to go without it. I've not looked back since. URI brevity is very important these days and in all fairness, it has been since the dawn of the Internet. Removing those 4 characters allows for a bit more breathing room in the overall scheme of intuitive URIs.
Want to really see an eye opener? Watch folks use the mobile web. They don't know what www is. :)
Want to really see an eye opener? Watch folks use the mobile web. They don't know what www is. :)
We really need to get away from www.
Common people have common sense. That is why they use www!
Watch folks use the mobile web. They don't know what www is. :)
We are very close to the point when every-word-can-be-domain without .com, .net, .org, etc. When this becomes a reality you'll see how important is the 'www' label for marking a World Wide Web resource!
so is it www.webmasterworld.com or webmasterworld.com?
My preference?
WebmasterWorld.com
Don't forget proper casing in the domain (PascalCasing). How many times have you had to look at a domain to read the words? Not to mention all the domain bloopers we've seen over the years due to concatenation. :)
I like it www but type in a domain name with out the www matter of fact I type the domain name without the http: so do we forget it as well?
But really, short of a study of user behavior when provided with different domain names showing significant differences in user experience, it's an argument about the color of bikesheds. Flip a coin to pick the canonical one, make the other redirect there, and move on.
wwwsite:www.example.comsite:example.com -inurl:wwwwwwMake sure the non-www always 301 redirects to the www instead of not resolving at all.
I also like coffee with a little cream and no sugar, and I dip grilled cheese sandwiches in ketchup. FYI.
I see a lot of people doing that. They think www.example.com is the web address so they type it.
I don't see a lot of capitalizing in web addresses - I think people are suspicious that it might not work.
NewWidgets.com is clearer than newwidgets.com - I guss some people might think they're two different domains!
www.webmasterworld.com
In with the new.
WebmasterWorld.com
I'm looking at a site now that we relaunched with non www and short URI constructs. Thousands of pages, not a single URI is truncating in the SERPs, not even close. Talk about clean.
So tell me, does everyone still say dub-dub-dub when giving out web addresses verbally? Come on now, fess up! ;)
