opinion What do you like www or nowww?

[Shaan Chopra]

Over time I am seeing that a lot of sites use www and a lot of them don't, for example,

• www in NamePros

• www in Facebook

• www in Epik

• nowww in Twitter

• nowww in Sedo

• nowww in Medium

It doesn't matter much, but still, I want to know what is you prefer WWW or NOWWW?

 

[Kai W.]

I like nowww.
Www is just a subnet and is not necessary. With the convenience of browser access and intelligent input methods, I believe that more websites will choose to use NoWWW,IMQ

 

[Pay.My.id]

Actually www is a subdomain of root main domain, some of many users usually type www in search for or their browser. But its doesn't matter when we speak on SEO result page as long as every link build well. Personally I would like use www than non www, sometime setting up on non www.

 

[Hypersot]

Better switch to a poll.. it'd be easier for people if they only have to vote instead of posting.
NOwww supporter here

 

[BrandCollectors.com]

it depends of the name and the type of project.
twitter looks great without www, short twits short domain
facebook looks strong with www

 

[Shaan Chopra]

Better switch to a poll.. it'd be easier for people if they only have to vote instead of posting.
NOwww supporter here

I tried to make a poll but just couldn't figure out how to start one

 

[Bob Hawkes]

In general I think the world is moving away from www and I like the cleaner shorter look. Even for domains that use www, like NamePros in your list, my Google Chrome browser shows at the top the name without www.

For cases where you are using a domain name in a social media marketing campaign, the www totally ruins it. For example on Twitter I could write "See our new collection of funny.claims from the insurance business" and on Twitter the funny.claims would be a live link (not at NamePros) simply by including the dot. Contrast that with saying "See our new collection of www.funny.claims from the insurance business." Research shows that links that look professional and elegant get clicked more often in social media.

If I am stating the main website for a business, however, I see nothing wrong with including the www. In some cases, for example less well known TLDs, it is probably important to do so.

Bob

 

[branding]

Here's a nice read on this subject:
https://bjornjohansen.no/www-or-not

I bookmarked it some years ago but it should be quite accurate.

Personally I prefer non www in most cases. Whatever you do, make sure both www and non www actually resolve.

 

[bmugford]

Unless you have some obscure extension there is really no reason to use "www" in my opinion.

It might be needed if you have something that doesn't look like a domain, where the extension is not recognizable.

Brad

 

[Chacha Wixard]

Www is indicating that following words is a web address. It was years ago. Then .com become the indicator, so many websites dropping the www and people still know that it is most likely web adddress. We are in time where users dropping dot com and just type dots between words to indicate it is a web address. Many apps, pages, will directly convert words connected with dots to be a web link.

I prefer nowww

 

[topdom]

I don't like www but sometimes it makes sense. If you have many subdomains, and subdomains of subdomains, then while editing contents of one type of page in bulk, having www (or something else, like home) can makes sense. For example if you want to edit the homepage and "similar pages", but not "subdomains", then having a nonempty subdomain may help, otherwise you would have to modify all pages of the site. I mean, it happened to us, we used www on a few pages "for simplicity".

 

[7363824]

Nowww. The www is unnecessary. I never type in with it.

 

[Chacha Wixard]

Just FYI, there is domain www.com It was free email website. I had an account with them [email protected]. I dont know when they closed the website since I did not regularly used that email.

 

[Sutruk]

I prefer non www. And I really don't understand the willing to use the www. of some big companies. Totally useless, in my opinion.

It might be needed if you have something that doesn't look like a domain, where the extension is not recognizable.

Indeed, the www. is only necessary to explain that what you have is a domain, as happens for example with the new gtlds.

 

[DanSanchez]

I think WWW is only required for AOL users, so no.

The World Wide Web context is no longer needed.

 

[pb]

http://no-www.org/

I prefer no www and on my sites I always redirect www.site.tld to site.tld

The only drawback is that you need a separate domain (and not a subdomain) for static content (if your site is big enough for it to start making a difference).

It might be needed if you have something that doesn't look like a domain, where the extension is not recognizable.

Then people will just add .com at the end, www or not.

 

[Grego85]

I thought that was supposed to be one of the main arguments for why .com will always be king. Don't need any www, yet many companies use it anyway, even in 2020

 

[vincew]

no www, better looking and shorter too

 

[twiki]

Well, how about this:

• Google : www.google.com
• Amazon: www.amazon.com
• Ebay: www.ebay.com
• Apple: www.apple.com
• Microsoft: www.microsoft.com

and the list can go on and on and on... see the pattern here?

The reason why biggest companies are sticking to the www is not by preference.

Web developers know that there are minute but very significant differences between the two, and the www option provides more control and better granularity. See this article: https://sitechecker.pro/www-vs-non-www/ , the cookie issue is a significant one. A better explanation is here: https://cognitiveseo.com/blog/20422/www-vs-non-www-seo/

This is why the www option is here to stay, and my sites always use www. Switching between the two can definitely crash years of SEO work (yeah, don't buy the BS that google feeds you about switching sites, urls and the sorts).

For most small websites though, it doesn't really matter, so you can go on safely with non-www as it will be shorter.

But instead, if your site has the likelihood to become a major platform, you'd better start right off with the www version.

 

[Indianad]

In general I think the world is moving away from www and I like the cleaner shorter look. Even for domains that use www, like NamePros in your list, my Google Chrome browser shows at the top the name without www.

For cases where you are using a domain name in a social media marketing campaign, the www totally ruins it. For example on Twitter I could write "See our new collection of funny.claims from the insurance business" and on Twitter the funny.claims would be a live link (not at NamePros) simply by including the dot. Contrast that with saying "See our new collection of www.funny.claims from the insurance business." Research shows that links that look professional and elegant get clicked more often in social media.

If I am stating the main website for a business, however, I see nothing wrong with including the www. In some cases, for example less well known TLDs, it is probably important to do so.

Bob

@bobhawkes. Always a delicious nugget to write down. Thanks!