http://site.com VS http://www.site.com

Which is better? With or without "www" in front of the domain?

For example:

http://site.com

or

http://www.site.com

 

Personally for 90% of my domains I use www. Usually the ones that fall in that category for me are longer names or ones that need to be professional in nature. For domains that are short, and you're trying to save space (bit.ly for example) I'd drop the www. completely.

Of course It's always best to choose whichever one you're going to use and force it, if not for keeping cookies straight to avoid duplicate content on Google.

 

I'm in the US and most sites start with the WWW. But then many in the UK don't. Whichever you chose, set it up in Webmaster tools and stick with it for ever. You internal linking will get really screwed up if you don't. That will then impact your PR calculation.

 

I don't think it actually makes much of a difference. Just a matter of opinion.

 

The www or no www choice is up to you. From an SEO perspective, neither has any inherent advantage. It's your preference.

As others have said, in the US most sites use www. Whatever you choose is fine. Just be sure to put 301 redirects in place to avoid creating URL canonicalization issues.

If you are hosted on an Apache platform you can fix this by adding on simple rewrite rule to your .htaccess file in the root of your web.

If you prefer to use the www form of your URLs as your canonical URL then you can add the following to the root folder's .htaccess file:

If you prefer the non-www version of your URLs to be your canonical form then add the following to your root folder's .htaccess file:

 

I prefer www, it's more beautiful

 

Hi,

I think these 2 forms for domain would not have any difference for SEO purpose. But, we need to pick up one form and 301 redirection the other form the one we have chosen.

have a nice day,

 

I also use of www is better

 

i think with www its easy to write , so me too like www

 

i don't like www. i never write it.