To WWW or to not WWW; That is the question?

OK well URL canonicalization is all the rage and I was just wondering which way people opt for "www.sitename.com" or "sitename.com"?

I'm assuming there is no benefit either way outside user functionality - so which do you think your standard user prefers?

 

www is better unless you are a tech site full of digg/slashdot geeks.

 

www its better to use this as standard format, unlike without "www"

 

lately ive been using no www. (ie http://domain.com), along with a www. to non-www. redirect.

mainly because it keeps the url that bit shorter.

 

domain with www. is better than without www. you should use 301 redirect to www.

 

It really depends of site name. Sometimes site with 3w looks better, sometimes not.

 

I have become a little wary of people with the word SEO in their user names because of this exact reason. Please enlighten us on how and/or why using the www. in the url is any better than than not having it?

If you have PR on one and not on the other, redirect to whichever has PR. Since you're doing a 301, it really doesn't matter which you choose and there is no SEO benefit to it.

It's these types of comments that spawn a countless number of threads asking the same question over and over.

 

I prefer using www as most people think all websites need to start with www. At the end of the day as long as you choose one and stick to it it doesn't really matter.

 

Does it matter? Both will rank

 

if you dont redirect to one, your site will be indexed under www and non www

also if you're tracking urls with a web analytics tool it can get a bit messy when you have two exact URLs but one www and one non www

 

first of all... if your site is suppose with www. (i can't type url due to some restrictions on the forum) and if Person "A" likes your site and he/she wanna give link to your site to his forum or blog then most of the people will type your site with www. not without. (mind it i'm saying most not all)
if your site is redirected to without www. then it will be a big waste of backlinking with www. in it. lol don't think with your brain all the time in terms of SEO but sometimes people should think via other people's brain.

Please let me know if you wanna clerify more. Pe@ce man.

and for the Pr thing its you who have to maintain all the SEO basics

 

301 redirects pass page rank. So the backlink in your example does not go to waste.

Personally I prefer non-www (3w redirected to non-www) for "mainstream" tlds like .coms, .nets, and .orgs. However in future I will probably use www, with non-www redirected to www, for uncommon tlds like .info and cctlds. This is because it makes it easy for non techies to recognize the url.

 

Ummm ya...please clarify why a 301 redirect from the www to the non-www. (or vice versa) won't pass page rank and back links?

 

I doubt that most peopel realize you do not use the www and will simply put the shorter answer where they need to.

 

*Agrees* it will pass.

 

*Agrees* Buddy.

 

I try to stay away from www since it is shorter and it is a bit better looking (with my domains at least).

But, on forums and when I talk to people about the sites, I tend to write www.domain.com since it looks like a true website, and not some cheap name domain.com... Like stated above, most have developed the concept of using www. at all times. (I still see people who absolutely HAVE TO type the www. before any website they type into browser, otherwise in their brain it won't work).

Now let's face it, if you know about computers, you know about the www being worthless, you know about not clicking stupid ads. You want to appeal to the people who don't know much about computers and will click ads, at the end of the day they being the ones who seem to be attracted to www.


*wrote sloppy and messy but the point is clear I think. sry. its 11:30 at night here from a long day of work.

 

Whats the difference if you don't used www or not it still work it is in the URL. Is there something that i don't know?


CARS * AUTOMOBILES

USED CARS

 

The only difference is with regard to page rank. Sometimes if both www and nowww versions of a site are indexed by google it will result in a split page rank with different pr for each version. To avoid this you choose one version and redirect from the other one so all page rank passes to the version you chose. Which version you choose is more or less the subject of this thread.

 

For some reaons I just think that a site with a WWW makes it look more neat and professional. When really it's easier not the include it at all.

Doesn't really matter anyway. Normally each host/server allows you to use a www or not to access your site automatically. So it's just a preference to the user.

Mark