Comments on: WWW or NO-WWW? http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/ News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com. Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:35:20 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Aarem http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/comment-page-2/#comment-866943 Aarem Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:51:43 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/#comment-866943 A point that is made about serving both www and no-www (without re-direct from one to the other) is that is divides search rank. So it seems reasonable to choose one as the default and redirect from the other. So, on the no-www site we get this useful tip: --------------- It's a fairly simple process, actually. Create a file called .htaccess and paste the following lines, changing the domain name to match that of your site: (for Apache Webserver:) RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.(.+)$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://%1/$1 [R=301,L] --------------- I was just wondering if anyone could translate that into ENGLISH?! How/where do we change "the domain name to match that of your site"? Any tips? A point that is made about serving both www and no-www (without re-direct from one to the other) is that is divides search rank. So it seems reasonable to choose one as the default and redirect from the other.

So, on the no-www site we get this useful tip:

—————

It’s a fairly simple process, actually. Create a file called .htaccess and paste the following lines, changing the domain name to match that of your site: (for Apache Webserver:)

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.(.+)$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://%1/$1 [R=301,L]

—————

I was just wondering if anyone could translate that into ENGLISH?!

How/where do we change “the domain name to match that of your site”? Any tips?

]]> By: rundmw http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/comment-page-2/#comment-866481 rundmw Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:15:43 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/#comment-866481 @buy: Absolutely, if you do not use any subdomains, then the cookie-security benefit disappears and then we're largely back to a question of aesthetics. In fact, the vast majority of my sites do <em>not</em> use any additional subdomains. But I would prefer to be flexible enough to accommodate them if I need them at some point in the future. @buy: Absolutely, if you do not use any subdomains, then the cookie-security benefit disappears and then we’re largely back to a question of aesthetics.

In fact, the vast majority of my sites do not use any additional subdomains. But I would prefer to be flexible enough to accommodate them if I need them at some point in the future.

]]> By: busy http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/comment-page-2/#comment-866200 busy Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:30:04 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/#comment-866200 The www issue makes sense, except that it doesn't apply to sites that don't use subdomains in that way. So if you are using them, then of course you would need a subdomain to keep cookies secure. You could call it www, or main, or anything. Saying that all sites should use it is basically just saying that you shouldn't use a domain by itself, that you should always use a subdomain. I guess that's really what this whole discussion boils down to. Is a domain enough, or does there have to be a subdomain? The www issue makes sense, except that it doesn’t apply to sites that don’t use subdomains in that way. So if you are using them, then of course you would need a subdomain to keep cookies secure. You could call it www, or main, or anything.

Saying that all sites should use it is basically just saying that you shouldn’t use a domain by itself, that you should always use a subdomain.

I guess that’s really what this whole discussion boils down to. Is a domain enough, or does there have to be a subdomain?

]]> By: okparrothead http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/comment-page-1/#comment-866131 okparrothead Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:48:03 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/#comment-866131 I think there are two issues. Usability and SEO. Most hosting co.s have their servers set to re-direct, so this isn't an issue. If you're setting up your own, you'd be missing a bet not to have it re-direct, to or from www, your choice. Typeability: www is one more place to get thick fingered. Long domain names are hard enough. Three letter domains aren't around anymore. I understand the control>enter shortcut, but that leaves out all the other tlds. Subdomains: @rundmw & cogg make a good point for the www, but the vast majority of sites I visit don't have subdomains, so this may not be critical for most domains. Considering SEO, I think its all about consistency. I wouldn't publish anything, in print or online, that wasn't the preferred URL. By publishing a site URL online without the www, yet in print with the www will only confuse the issue. Some folks will type it off a business card with the www, yet find it in SERPS without. Publishing both URLs is perpetuating split page ranking issues. I think there are two issues. Usability and SEO.

Most hosting co.s have their servers set to re-direct, so this isn’t an issue. If you’re setting up your own, you’d be missing a bet not to have it re-direct, to or from www, your choice.

Typeability: www is one more place to get thick fingered. Long domain names are hard enough. Three letter domains aren’t around anymore. I understand the control>enter shortcut, but that leaves out all the other tlds.

Subdomains: @rundmw & cogg make a good point for the www, but the vast majority of sites I visit don’t have subdomains, so this may not be critical for most domains.

Considering SEO, I think its all about consistency. I wouldn’t publish anything, in print or online, that wasn’t the preferred URL.

By publishing a site URL online without the www, yet in print with the www will only confuse the issue. Some folks will type it off a business card with the www, yet find it in SERPS without. Publishing both URLs is perpetuating split page ranking issues.

]]> By: schwoortz http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/comment-page-1/#comment-866087 schwoortz Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:32:35 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/#comment-866087 @rundmw & cogg (Cookie security): What then is the best way to treat this issue and at the same time deal with any redirecting - I guess donain.com needs to be redirected zu www.domain.com - for search-engine-matters and consitency? @rundmw & cogg (Cookie security):
What then is the best way to treat this issue and at the same time deal with any redirecting – I guess donain.com needs to be redirected zu http://www.domain.com – for search-engine-matters and consitency?

]]> By: rundmw http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/comment-page-1/#comment-866031 rundmw Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:07:29 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/#comment-866031 It seems to be agreed by all that whether the user enters the www or not, the system (DNS + webserver) should recognize it, handle it, and redirect to the version that you choose to be canonical. With this setup, the question of typing it or speaking it is never an issue: type/speak whatever is appropriate for the context (the shorter one, the prettier one, the one the user expects to hear, etc). As long as the canonical version appears in the address bar via your redirects, you've got your branding, your consistency, your SEO benefits, etc. I personally prefer it <em>without</em> the www for all the common reasons (what a pain to type and say, why take a longer address, it's not necessary, etc). Certainly I will never type it directly. But I find myself moving back towards making the www the canonical choice for two primary reasons: 1. Cookie security (@cogg: thanks for pointing that out) 2. I must grudgingly admit that I think the address bar looks better with the www, as noted by multiple commenters above. But even in the absence of the aesthetics - on which different people will reasonably differ - the cookie security bit is an issue of genuine <em>function</em> that I find to be pretty significant. It seems to be agreed by all that whether the user enters the www or not, the system (DNS + webserver) should recognize it, handle it, and redirect to the version that you choose to be canonical. With this setup, the question of typing it or speaking it is never an issue: type/speak whatever is appropriate for the context (the shorter one, the prettier one, the one the user expects to hear, etc).

As long as the canonical version appears in the address bar via your redirects, you’ve got your branding, your consistency, your SEO benefits, etc.

I personally prefer it without the www for all the common reasons (what a pain to type and say, why take a longer address, it’s not necessary, etc). Certainly I will never type it directly. But I find myself moving back towards making the www the canonical choice for two primary reasons:

1. Cookie security (@cogg: thanks for pointing that out)
2. I must grudgingly admit that I think the address bar looks better with the www, as noted by multiple commenters above.

But even in the absence of the aesthetics – on which different people will reasonably differ – the cookie security bit is an issue of genuine function that I find to be pretty significant.

]]> By: Alan Haggai Alavi http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/comment-page-1/#comment-804164 Alan Haggai Alavi Mon, 06 Oct 2008 05:49:48 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/#comment-804164 I do not like prefixing <code>www</code> to websites unless they do not work without it being present. It's high time that <code>www</code> is declared `<em>officially deprecated</em>'. I redirect <code>www</code> to just the domain for my all my websites. I do not like prefixing www to websites unless they do not work without it being present. It’s high time that www is declared `officially deprecated‘. I redirect www to just the domain for my all my websites.

]]> By: busy http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/comment-page-1/#comment-790868 busy Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:31:59 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/#comment-790868 Oh, look at that. http://no-www.org actually posted something new to the site. I thought it was dead for good. Oh, look at that. http://no-www.org actually posted something new to the site. I thought it was dead for good.

]]> By: msquared.id.au http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/comment-page-1/#comment-790742 msquared.id.au Wed, 03 Sep 2008 06:29:08 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/#comment-790742 I agree with ParkinT: it's frustrating when you say "subdomain.mydomain.com" and they end up trying "www.subdomain.mydomain.com". My solution is tell them "http://subdomain.mydomain.com". I agree with ParkinT: it’s frustrating when you say “subdomain.mydomain.com” and they end up trying “www.subdomain.mydomain.com”.

My solution is tell them “http://subdomain.mydomain.com”.

]]> By: DangerMouse1981 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/comment-page-1/#comment-722343 DangerMouse1981 Wed, 14 May 2008 19:31:26 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/19/www-or-no-www/#comment-722343 The www. subdomain has the benefit of allowing you to maintain brand whilst quickly switching out against any penalities the SEs may impose. The www. subdomain has the benefit of allowing you to maintain brand whilst quickly switching out against any penalities the SEs may impose.

]]>