[apple007]

I've heard that using "www" in one's web site links is both unnecessary/outdated and can cause "splitting the vote" for web-ranking purposes (i.e., if some hits are to mydomain.com and others are to www.mydomain.com, that can hurt web ranking).

However, I've also noticed that sites I try to visit without using the "www" are often found slower or sometimes not at all. (This phenomenon seems especially apparent here in Mexico.)

Do you guys recommend using the "www" in links or not? Thanks.

[turtle]

In my sites I don't use "www" other than it's an alias to my public_html folder. This way if you go to "mysite.com" or "www.mysite.com" you end up on the same page.

[ghoti]

I wouldn't use it because it's entirely redundant. When you type a domain name into a browser, it's obvious what you're looking for.

But whether you want to use it or not, you should be consistent. You should have a permanent redirect for www to non-www (or the other way around), so that no matter what people use, they will not only end up on the same page, but also on the same URL. That's especially important for search engine rankings, that otherwise might get split (Google webmaster tools let you set one as the main one, and then count both as the same).

[torifile]

I never use www. When people say "www.mydomain.com", I think "luddite".

[apple007]

Thanks for the feedback; confirmed what I was thinking.

However, can anyone explain the "slower to find non-www sites" phenomenon? Is that a router issue, a bad-internet-connection-in-Mexico issue, etc.?

Thanks.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by apple007 Thanks for the feedback; confirmed what I was thinking. However, can anyone explain the "slower to find non-www sites" phenomenon? Is that a router issue, a bad-internet-connection-in-Mexico issue, etc.? Thanks.

It's probably a DNS issue but it shouldn't be related to whether or not you've got the "www" on there. The only thing I can think is that a hosting company may put more of their server "power" where they host www domains since those are most likely to be hit. Other subdomains may be on slower servers so they'll seem slower.

[chucker]

Whether you choose www or not shouldn't matter. However, please provide a redirect. Ideally, set up a mod_rewrite rule so http://www.example.com/foo/bar/path/...ers&more=stuff correctly redirects to http://example.com/foo/bar/path/to/y...ers&more=stuff.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by torifile I never use www. When people say "www.mydomain.com", I think "luddite".

I think that too, but social habits aren't really the primary context here. In fact it's also backward (especially in the literal anachronistic sense) to think of the web as the master network service, more deserving of a naked domain than any other.

From the admin standpoint it's about convenience and consistency. The more metadata you have, the easier it is to work with. That's why I'd tell mod_rewrite to redirect mydomain to www.mydomain instead of the other way around.

[Gargoyle]

Originally Posted by torifile I never use www. When people say "www.mydomain.com", I think "luddite".

I fail to see what knowing the difference between a full host name and a domain name has to do with 19th century textile workers.

No seriously, I would use "www" or "w3" or even "mybigsuperwebserver" . somedomain.tld since technically you are trying to identify a specific machine or resource in your domain and not the domain itself!

[Gargoyle]

Originally Posted by Eugene That's why I'd tell mod_rewrite to redirect mydomain to www.mydomain instead of the other way around.

You could use ServerAlias instead!

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Gargoyle You could use ServerAlias instead!

That doesn't do any redirecting. It merely tells Apache to treat bost hostnames the same configuration-wise. You should be doing that either way, but you should set up a mod_rewrite rule in addition.

Please.

[ghoti]

Originally Posted by Gargoyle No seriously, I would use "www" or "w3" or even "mybigsuperwebserver" . somedomain.tld since technically you are trying to identify a specific machine or resource in your domain and not the domain itself!

That would be like sending an email to someone@mail.domain.com. It's too bad email is the only service that has a special entry in DNS - it would really make a lot of sense for other services as well, including HTTP. Because, as I said above, it's redundant: unless I specify a specific server or subdomain, it's obvious what a browser is looking for when pointed at a domain.

[Taskiss]

the node "www" seems a great place to park a load leveler for your domain to me.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Eugene From the admin standpoint it's about convenience and consistency. The more metadata you have, the easier it is to work with. That's why I'd tell mod_rewrite to redirect mydomain to www.mydomain instead of the other way around.

Could you explain the above in a little more detail? Not sure what you mean re: "more metadata" and the preference of www.mydomain.com instead of mydomain.com. Thanks.

[Gargoyle]

Originally Posted by ghoti That would be like sending an email to someone@mail.domain.com. It's too bad email is the only service that has a special entry in DNS - it would really make a lot of sense for other services as well, including HTTP. Because, as I said above, it's redundant: unless I specify a specific server or subdomain, it's obvious what a browser is looking for when pointed at a domain.

It's not like email at all. A URL by its very definition is a specific location for a resource. You are basically saying give me this file from this server. Whereas in email, you are saying this person at this domain - it's not your job to know how that domain manages its email.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Eugene From the admin standpoint it's about convenience and consistency. The more metadata you have, the easier it is to work with. That's why I'd tell mod_rewrite to redirect mydomain to www.mydomain instead of the other way around.

Originally Posted by apple007 Could you explain the above in a little more detail? Not sure what you mean re: "more metadata" and the preference of www.mydomain.com instead of mydomain.com. Thanks.

Bumping re: the above, for 'Eugene' or anyone else who might be able to explain this. Thanks.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by apple007 Bumping re: the above, for 'Eugene' or anyone else who might be able to explain this. Thanks.

I think he's saying the more information given by a URL, the better, but I don't want to put words in his mouth if I'm wrong.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by apple007 Thanks for the feedback; confirmed what I was thinking. However, can anyone explain the "slower to find non-www sites" phenomenon? Is that a router issue, a bad-internet-connection-in-Mexico issue, etc.? Thanks.

Originally Posted by ghoti I wouldn't use it because it's entirely redundant.

I agree with ghoti, apple007.

I happen to be using public computers at present. (I use the computer lab at a local city rec center.)

I have been using the computers at this lab for a while now (due to my PowerBook hard drive problems), and am familiar with their normal quirks and weirdnesses.

However, two months ago, an IT person from the city came to fix a certain problem that had been cropping up in these lab computers (i.e. they would spontaneously, out of the blue, announce via pop-up message that they were shutting themselves off within 60 seconds ), and ever since then, none of these computers have been able to link to the city website.

These are city computers. But, suddenly, they are unable to link to the city website.

Oops! UNLESS, by some miracle, it occurs to you to type "www" into the address.

In this lab, typing www is NOT required for any *other* web address in the entire universe (apparently). Just the address for... yep... our very own city.

And even then, when I do remember to type in www, I'll get the city site, but I am completely unable to access the city's *Public Library* link. (The only city link I ever use. ) But only when using the computers in THIS lab.

I normally use the library link a LOT, because I have lots of stuff checked out from the public library. But now I can't use that link to check due dates and renew all my stuff online... Grrr... thanks to the IT geniuses employed by the city, who manage to fix one problem and create yet another. *seethe*

Anyway, sorry for the rant/digression about my library woes, but I really really would NOT use www if I were you. It just provides the potential for needless complications when it comes to ease of use. Just my opinion.

[autodata]

It depends on the site, but it's often best to redirect no-www to www. The www provides better link recognition for both software and humans. Example:

google.com
www.google.com

Redirecting no-www to www doesn't prevent you from verbally saying "check us out at example.com", so that's really a moot point.

Anyway, the fact is that the vast majority of users don't notice or care about the www. Still, if you and your site's audience do care, then go no-www with the awareness that it might lead to some link recognition issues. Be aware that with google web dev tools you can set your preferred domain, so you do have some level of control there.

[apple007]

Thanks for the feedback. I had thought the "www" had been unnecessary for a while now, but then I came to Mexico for work and noticed sites that I have bookmarked without the "www" often load slower (i.e., are found slower) or completely fail to load at all. So that started making me think the "www" is not as unnecessary or redundant as I had thought.

(This isn't an isolated incident. It seems no matter where I am in Mexico, if I open eight tabs at the same time, and four have the "www" and four don't, the four that don't are *always* found slower or time out.)

[chucker]

Carol, your rant is based on the assumption that there wouldn't be a redirect, which there should (should!) always be anyway.