WWW or NO-WWW?

Last week saw the launch of 99designs.com. SitePoint’s first spin-off company, 99designs will shepherd SitePoint’s Design Contests section into its new life as a separate site. One particularly geeky detail on this new site is the fact that its hostname doesn’t start with ‘www’.

While we have certainly launched non-‘www’ subdomains before (reference.sitepoint.com being the most recent), the main homepage for SitePoint has always been located at www.sitepoint.com. The launch of 99designs.com without a ‘www’ represents a change in approach and, to some degree, a nod to web fashion.

In the past, it was expected that companies would have different servers (and thus different hostnames) for each of the Internet services they would provide. www.example.com for their web sites, ftp.example.com for their file transfer services, and mail.example.com for their email services.

As things turned out, many small companies can’t afford to have a separate server for each of their services, so they run many of them on the same box. As a result, the above naming convention doesn’t really make much sense in most cases.

There are other reasons to do away with the ‘www’ prefix—the fact that it takes forever to say, for instance. As a result, fashion has shifted such that many new sites—especially those created for tech-savvy audiences—are now launching without ‘www’ prefixes (e.g. Twitter).

There is even an advocacy group campaigning against continued use of the ‘www’ prefix (although the site hasn’t been active since 2005). An update posted in July 2008 confirms that the site is still being maintained; there just isn’t much new to say! And of course, because every advocacy group needs its detractors, there is a pro-‘www’ group.

Whichever side of the argument you fall on—whether you prefer to stick with original spirit of the Web, or would rather succumb to recent fashion—the important thing is to be decisive. Choose one version of your site’s address—either with or without a ‘www’—and use it everywhere.

Whichever one you don’t use should redirect to the one you do use (e.g. http://www.sitepoint.com/ redirects to http://www.sitepoint.com/). The FAQ section on the no-www site provides instructions on how to set up your server to do this.

Putting this redirect in place ensures that Google only sees one verison of your site (rather than splitting things like page rank across the two ‘versions’ of your site). It also prevents browsers that offer to remember your users’ login details from getting confused and storing two separate sets of credentials for your site.

Of course, there are always exceptions. digg.com (and www.digg.com) and flickr.com (and www.flickr.com) are high-profile examples of sites that refuse to redirect to a single canonical hostname. Why they choose to do this I couldn’t say, but at any rate I don’t suggest following their example. Since this post was originally written, Digg have made www.digg.com redirect to digg.com. As of this writing, however, Flickr continues to support two hostnames separately.

All that said, if you do nothing else, you should at least make sure your site is accessible with or without a ‘www.’ on the hostname. In the absence of a globally-embraced standard for top-level web site hostnames, users can be understandably confused if one version or the other fails to work. SitePoint contributor Roger Johansson recently wrote about this on his blog at www.456bereastreet.com.

Free book: Jump Start HTML5 Basics

Grab a free copy of one our latest ebooks! Packed with hints and tips on HTML5's most powerful new features.

  • bschilt

    Would it be feasible to some day eliminate “http://” too?

  • http://www.twice21.com ParkinT

    I have always been a big advocate of subdomains. I think they are underutilized.
    However, I see (in the general public) there is a serious misunderstanding. That is: the assumption that ‘www’ MUST prefix any domain name entered in a browser.
    It frustrates me when (usually verbally) relating a subdomain.domain.tld to someone and they enter it as www. (ie http://www.subdomain.domain.tld).

    There is (was) a reason that the triple-w subdomain represented that area that was publically available [only]. I think it has become antiquated; in the web’s old-age of just 20 years.

  • Anonymous

    Either way, it’s a single DNS entry to support both, why make an effort to exclude one or the other?

  • Benedict

    have a look at http://no-www.org/

    Why is .www deprecated?

    covered in 2003 ..

  • CG

    If I am setting up a new site I drop the www and ALWAYS redirect. However as designers/marketers we’re not always that lucky. If I have an older domain that is not redirecting I analyze it to see if the www or no-www has more backlinks, better rankings, etc before I set up my redirect. Sometimes it’s better for the client’s site to use the www, sometimes not.

    For me that is the deciding factor, not vanity.

  • AndrewCharron

    Personally, I see it as more of a preferance than whats needed. Domains that utilize www to me look cleaner in the address bar. Almost as if my domain has a padding around it.

    Sure, www isnt NEEDED, but lots of things we use day to day arent needed. We dont need colours, we dont need design, but we prefer them because it adds to the feel.

  • bennerg

    I think it is important to consider the point of view of the average web user, for whom “www” represents “a web page”. Many times I have dictated to someone to enter a url with a non-www subdomain into their browser, and they automatically prefix it with ‘www”.

    I guess it’s part of the average users’ consciousness now, and the decision should be – is there an important reason to change – or just embrace it!

    When configuring DNS subdomains ( eg. reference.sitepoint.com ) I often add a second A record ( in the above example http://www.reference.sitepoint.com ) just to catch those users who assume there should be “www” at the start of every url.

    For all domains we always put www and non-www records in our DNS, and ensure the web server accepts both.

    This in my view is being customer concentric, rather than having “electronic arrogance” as we call it our company, where one assumes customers should know all this stuff, and end up experiencing pain trying to just do ordinary everyday stuff. Antiquated it may be, but so are “please” and “thank you”. Old (even 20 years) does not mean irrelevant. Remember there are >100 technically incompetent users for every technically competent geek. And they are ultimately the ones who pay the bills.

    And as for “http://”, most browsers already add that automagically. And that’s really only a user interface issue except for linking in web page source files, where the designer really should know what to do – as there are many protocols other than http.

    Gary

  • http://ratherodd.com Raffles

    I’m a no-www man myself, just because it’s shorter.

    What I do think is terrible is when subdomains have www. in front of them. That is just silly and confusing, especially when the no-www version doesn’t work!

  • http://www.digitalgreenlight.com busy

    Ew, get rid of it, I do.

    Average users don’t understand it, and I’m slightly curious to the amount of space that’s taken up on the web at large by “www” in all those links on all those pages.

    If it shows up 5 times on an average webpage (just a guess)
    an estimate would be almost half a terabyte. (15 bytes times 29.7 billion pages)

    Crap. No preview for posting comments. Hope it looks ok.

  • http://stephen.calvarybucyrus.org pkSML

    NO WWW

    I run several websites from my home computer and have never given much thought – or any headaches – to using the www prefix. In my opinion, it’s four more letters to type in any domain I plan to visit. Web developers should try to keep the typing down to a minimum with domain names. I know of a domain name that I might visit once in a while, but it’s 25 letters long. That’s just way too much typing – even for a 50wpm typist!

    I set all my websites up with a wildcard to point to one IP address. In my web server, I set up the root and the WWW subdomain for each host to be the same website, of which I just read from this posting is a bad idea… So I might redirect WWW users to the root domain for our beloved Google’s sake.

    Since most websites will redirect to the www subdomain (if they use one), I am happy to just enter the root domain name and let them redirect me.

    Making your site accessible is obviously priority numero uno.
    I think shorter is better, but on literature (business cards, flyers…), the www. clarifies that it’s a website – especially considering the wide variety of TLDs available today. Redirections can round up all users to your preferred domain.
    Maybe we should just all start using FQDNs! http://24.145.130.71./

  • douglsmith

    No www for me. It’s easier to write, easier to pronounce, and easier to remember at a glance. I always make both work and redirect to the no www version.

    Don’t forget to log into Google’s Webmaster tools and set your preference. They will then try to present it in the way you’ve specified.

  • halil

    I do not need to go far away in order to set up an example. Just look at one of my .txt files containing a list of links. Some start with www, some do not. Lika a territory map. It is not a problem to me, other than the non-stylish look. But I am sure (and I did it many years ago) average user would got confused by this.

    Besides, I think subdomains have some other implications eh? E.g., they are used to host images for better performance, or to host other TCP applications (FTP, media streams etc, http://ftp.etc.com...).

    Along with technical requirements and considerations, and keeping in mind the SEO jungle, I think a common sense settlement in this area would be beautiful, for a better and more stylish web.

  • http://www.arwebdesign.net samanime

    I prefer having the www at the beginning because it is what most people will look for. However, I’m also definately pro-making sure both work, and if I verbally dictate it to someone, I usually will leave off the www, just because I know my server will add it on it’s own.

  • Paul Annesley

    I’m in the no-www Class-B compliance camp.

    This classification helps remind users that, while the www subdomain is accepted, it is not necessary. In Class B, http://www.example.net is a valid address, but it redirects all traffic to example.net.

  • http://www.mikehealy.com.au cranial-bore

    There are other reasons to do away with the ‘www’ prefix—the fact that it takes forever to say, for instance.

    Who needs to say it? Quote your URLs when speaking without the WWW (e.g 99designs.com) and have the site redirect to www (or not). Then it doesn’t matter whether the user types it.

    Personally I like the www. Visually it balances the tld at the other end of the URL and is a lot less clinical and sparse than a bare protocol butting up against the schmick domain name.

    Depending on the context (business card for example) the www can also help signify a website address without needing an introduction.

  • cogg

    WWW

    For primarily security reasons. If you drop the www then any cookies will be visible to all subdomains. Since subdomains are sometimes used for partnerships, this is undesirable.

  • http://www.sitepoint.com AlexW

    Obviously a URL should be as unbreakable as is practical.

    In terms of what I usually type:

    1) Type ‘sitepoint’ in the address bar
    2) Hold down ‘CTRL’ and hit ENTER.

    You can’t type ‘.com’ quicker than that, and you get the ‘www.’ thrown in for free.

  • Peter Lovatt

    We have a support site ( call it support.domain.com )

    So many users have tried to go to http://www.support.domain.com that I ended up making it work as http://www.support.domain.com too, just to avoid users getting confused.

    It may be trendy to drop the www, but it will just confuse many users, particulaly non technical ones who expect websites to begin with www.

    I always make standard sites work with and without www – it just makes them easlier to reach – surely usability is the most important thing?

    Peter

  • palgrave

    Google works with 2 w’s i.e. ww.google!

  • http://www.karpie.net Karpie

    I’m in the www camp.

    When I type URLs, I always type without the www (laziness more than anything else), and it does surprise me how often such big sites don’t work this way.

    However, with my own websites, I prefer the visual appearance of the www in the address bar (as AndrewCharron said, it makes the domain name look ‘even’ with padding on both sides) and so my non-www redirects to the www version.

  • http://www.270labs.com Travis Stone

    Here’s a vote for non-www…

    Unless everybody’s willing to start saying “go to triple-dub dot mysite dot com”

    In which case I vote for Triple Dub

  • http://www.digitalgreenlight.com busy

    Unless everybody’s willing to start saying “go to triple-dub dot mysite dot com”

    For a minute I tried duba-duba-duba-dot site dot com, but it never caught on.

  • Lakshmi Mareddy

    I prefer without the www. Why?
    A: It reduces typing effort.
    B: The http:// protocol should preclude the www concept.

    But from a user point of view, webmasters should redirect in either direction. That goes without saying..

    -Lakshmi Mareddy

  • Joshu

    WWW.

    It adds a certain touch to it – feels like the page you’r visiting has so much more to serve then just HTTP.

    Though, i never actually type WWW myself, so redirection ether way is, IMO, required.

  • NotesTracker

    Definitely the www should be dropped as the default. It’s a historical artefact, as Kevin points out, and these days is unnecessary as well as being non-streamlined (effort needed to type those four extra characters each time) so why insist on it? I get intensely irritated when for example I get an e-mail from somebody I don’t know, and decide to see if they have a Web site by copying-and-pasting the sender’s e-mail domain name — the string following the @ symbol, without www of course — into the browser’s address bar, and too often get the dreaded “Server not found” message spat back at me. It’s simply not “kewl” to insist on the www prefix. For my own web sites I’ve ensured that if you enter the www prefix the server comes back with the www prefix, and if you omit the www prefix it comes back with the prefix omitted, which is consistent. But I’ve noticed that when, for example, you enter ibm.com or microsoft.com or sitepoint.com then the respective server always fires back a URL containing the www prefix which to my mind this is not just inconsistent but worse it’s unsettling.

  • http://www.disassociated.com/ Jyhrus

    Personally I prefer the www prefix, but it’s no biggie either way. And not to be too pedantic, but the Twitter (a site launching without the www prefix?!) URL you refer to, in fact reads http://www.twitter.com ;)

  • Dozza

    No to www!

    It’s always infuriated me that to say “www” takes longer to say than what it is an abbreviation for, but tell someone to point their browser at “world wide web dot domain dot com” and back comes the reply “you mean write it out in full?”

    www can go jump

  • cob

    I agree with Parkin. The general public really doesn’t have a grasp on this issue and dropping a well know convention could lead to some serious confusion.

    I personally use both on all my sites. DOes the trick.

  • http://www.chrisphillips.com/ chrisphillips

    I prefer the WWW, because I think it leads to less confusion as others have said. Either way (www or non-www) will work as long it is set up correctly.

    I always use WWW on my sites, use canonical 301 redirects, and set my preference in Google’s Webmaster Tools.

  • CyArena

    i usually prefer www because after i type the sitename i Hold down ‘CTRL’ and hit ENTER. It’s much faster than no www

  • http://wwjdl.com ewker

    For me it depends on the name of the domain, how it reads, and what it looks like. For instance on my domain wwjdl.com I don’t use www. That’s way too many w’s to pronounce. It’s hard enough to tell people about the site, because they usually respond with something like “oh ok, so it’s jdl.com?”

  • Stevie D

    Yes, Ctrl+Enter is fine if the site you want is .com … but no good if it’s .co.uk, or .gov, or .fr, or any of the other multitude of TLDs. Then you’re definitely better off if the site works without the Ws.

    [I'd still rather stick with Opera, press Enter without the Ctrl and have it try a long list of TLDs til it finds a match. (I'd prefer it still if I could blacklist Sedo and other cybersquatters...)]

    I agree that it’s depressing when you tell people to type in an address and they prepend it with www – no, if I wanted you to type www, I would have told you to type www! But not as bad as the way some companies advertise their website, especially those that promote a website without the Ws, but require them to be entered in the URL.

    I think the best two I’ve seen for dodgy advertising are:
    “Thomas Cook.com” on the side of an aeroplane, and
    “www.barrathomes/staynorhall.co.uk” on a billboard. (Reassuringly, neither of those sites do need the www).

  • http://www.aarontgrogg.com aarontgrogg

    i could go either way, but my concern is, as stated above, many neophytes believe a website address MUST have the www (i mean, i cant tell you how many times i’ve had people tell me their website address is john@yahoo.com

    while this sounds like a good reason to make things simpler, i would argue that the generation(s) that finds “the web” confusing would be only more confused by URLs sans the http://www...

    as such, i have also had clients make a stink if i set their site up without it.

    i personally have both working, but think keeping the www around a little while longer really makes sense. as the younger generations grow, they will understand the change easier…

    Atg

  • Chris

    For me,I’m definately a fan of no Ws.

    Now days, whenever I type a URL I’ll leave off the Ws. Then, if it doesn’t work I’ll try putting them in. It’st just easier to type, and to say.

    But I agree that you’d be an idiot not to register both domains, and having the one you don’t use redirect to the one you do is a must too.

  • http://www.digitalgreenlight.com busy

    But I agree that you’d be an idiot not to register both domains, and having the one you don’t use redirect to the one you do is a must too.

    Actually, you don’t even need to register both. The www is a subdomain, so anyone who has a domain can set it up to show the Ws, or always redirect to the non-w version.

    I’m a little confused by people that say users will have a problem with the lack of Ws becuause they’re used to them. Isn’t that what the redirect is for until everyone gets used to the more logical (no W) way?

  • bennerg

    I’m a little confused by people that say users will have a problem with the lack of Ws becuause they’re used to them. Isn’t that what the redirect is for until everyone gets used to the more logical (no W) way?

    I believe that the average user relies upon the “www” as a mechanism for pattern recognition for what is a URL. To say that the non-www is a “more logical way” works only for those of use who understand the technology – and context. A far greater number of Internet users have no other way than simple “patterns” such as the “www” prefix.

    The “www” pattern is fairly entrenched now in the psyche of the masses, and to try and diminish it’s use, purely for some minor technical inconvenience, is rather arrogant.

    I’m just now contemplating a future where I’m having to explain to my non-technical wife, the reasons why URL’s now don’t start with “www” – the response I’m sure will be something like “that’s totally stupid!! How am I expected to know what is a URL and what’s not!!” … but in perhaps more colourful terms.

    Have fun, but don’t neglect the little people.

    Gary

  • http://www.digitalgreenlight.com busy

    I believe that the average user relies upon the “www” as a mechanism for pattern recognition for what is a URL. To say that the non-www is a “more logical way” works only for those of use who understand the technology – and context. A far greater number of Internet users have no other way than simple “patterns” such as the “www” prefix.

    The “www” pattern is fairly entrenched now in the psyche of the masses, and to try and diminish it’s use, purely for some minor technical inconvenience, is rather arrogant.

    I can see some sense in the pattern recognition argument, except that it ignores the more well established “.com” “.net”, etc pattern that is much more consistant. You can try this out, ask 10 of the *little people* what they would call a hypothetical website. I’d be willing to bet that a couple might mention www, but some won’t, and ALL of them will have a dot something at the end.

    From my experience with non-technical people, they couldn’t care less about stuff like this. Assuming that a few letters that they don’t know what they mean are somehow helping them is IMO arrogant, when it’s just as plausible to assume that non-techies use the www for the sole reason that they don’t know what it’s there for but they think they’re supposed to use it.

    If the latter is the case then the use of it is not a technical inconvenience, but yet another tiny barrier that makes computers more confusing to them. Another aspect of the crazy internet that they don’t understand.

    Don’t worry about explaining anything to your wife. As long as everyone uses redirects until this silly custom disappears she won’t even notice that they’re gone, and if she does the answer, “they don’t actually do anything so people got rid of them” will more than please her.

  • bennerg

    I can see some sense in the pattern recognition argument, except that it ignores the more well established “.com” “.net”, etc pattern that is much more consistant.

    From my personal experience I don’t think one is more prevalent than the other.

    From my experience with non-technical people, they couldn’t care less about stuff like this.

    Of course they don’t – it is us technical types who “worry”. My point is that the masses already recognise the “www” pattern ( as evidenced here in NZ that advertising types exploit the “dub dub dub” term all the time ) and to change a well established convention for mainstream websites seems a little pointless and confusing.

    Gary

  • Busy

    Another easy experiment to see how the non-technical users think:

    Check your webstats to see how many people googled you by searchig “domain.com” vs “www.domain.com”

    I’ll also recognize that the Ws might by played on by advertising more heavily on your side of the world, I haven’t noticed that here in the US. But then again I think I remember hearing that an Australian site called 99designs thought it was a good idea to launch without them… :P

  • bennerg

    Check your webstats to see how many people googled you by searchig “domain.com” vs “www.domain.com”

    A google search item would normally be for a name or a service rather than a URL. A more relevant value would be the “referrer” (for internal links) or other value that returns the actual URL the site visitor enters into their browser address bar. What you use depends on your website statistics package. FYI with our larger sites our web application(s) keep these stats.

    But then again I think I remember hearing that an Australian site called 99designs thought it was a good idea to launch without them…

    If you know the order of things “downunder”, that’s like saying the USA should do things the way Canada does, or the English should speak French!!

    Oh, and BTW http://www.99designs.com also works. And once you get to the site, it looks so beautiful – and obvious that it is 99 Designs – who’s going to care about what’s in the browser address bar.

    Gary

  • http://www.digitalgreenlight.com busy

    A google search item would normally be for a name or a service rather than a URL

    Are you kidding??? Yes, I know that’s how it’s intended to be used, but non-technical people type urls into google all the time to find a site. Don’t forget about the little people :)

    If you know the order of things “downunder”, that’s like saying the USA should do things the way Canada does, or the English should speak French!!

    You got my point backwards, and you’re trying to put the American stereotype on me (that’s a cheap shot BTW). You were talking about how advertisers in NZ play on the Ws and using that as a reason for keeping them. I was just pointing out that maybe that’s just a NZ thing, so it’s not a strong argument for an issue that would affect the whole world.

    Oh, and BTW http://www.99designs.com also works.

    Yes, it redirects to the non W version, which is what the anti-W people are suggesting to do until it fades from the collective memory.

    …and obvious that it is 99 Designs – who’s going to care about what’s in the browser address bar.

    Exactly :)

  • jonas-e

    HEAR HEAR, bschilt!
    Let’s get rid of the “http://” ..!
    (although that might be more up to the client software ..?)

  • Ates Goral

    In the past, it was expected that companies would have different servers (and thus different hostnames) for each of the Internet services they would provide. http://www.example.com for their web sites, http://ftp.example.com for their file transfer services, and mail.example.com for their email services.

    As things turned out, many small companies can’t afford to have a separate server for each of their services, so they run many of them on the same box. As a result, the above naming convention doesn’t really make much sense in most cases.

    I think it still makes sense to follow the convention of multiple subdomains even if all the services are running on the same box and on the same IP. It’s a preparation for when a company can eventually afford to host their services on their own dedicated servers, on their own dedicated IPs. Instead of creating the need to alert the users to start using mail.example.com instead of http://www.example.com when accessing the POP3 server or http://ftp.example.com instead of http://www.example.com when accessing the FTP server, you pave the way properly once and never have to worry about it again.

    Besides, I personally find it odd and unintuitive to access a www subdomain for any purpose other than WWW.

  • DangerMouse1981

    The www. subdomain has the benefit of allowing you to maintain brand whilst quickly switching out against any penalities the SEs may impose.

  • msquared.id.au

    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”.

  • http://www.digitalgreenlight.com busy

    Oh, look at that. http://no-www.org actually posted something new to the site. I thought it was dead for good.

  • Alan Haggai Alavi

    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.

  • rundmw

    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.

  • schwoortz

    @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?

  • okparrothead

    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.

  • http://www.digitalgreenlight.com busy

    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?

  • rundmw

    @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.

  • Aarem

    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?

  • http://www.2blogtips.net Felix

    Thank you, that’s great articles. We cannot compare to those Dig,twitter,… (Social Networking). They already have a huge of support and they working together with many people. I have recently added www. but I haven’t find out what going to be usefull about non or www.