www. or not?

[DNLingo]

I am trying to figure out if it is better to advertise your site with or without the www. in front of your URL? When it says enter your URL, which is better...?

http://??? or http://www.???

I know they will land on the same page, but eventually they will show backlinks. Do they get indexed differently in search engines? Does it even matter?

 

[death001]

You should pick which one then redirect the other to it, that way search engines only index it a one link instead of two...
so if you decided to use www. then redirect the nonwww to the www address 301 style

as to which one you should pick well.. it doesn't really make much difference...

 

[Albino]

I prefer http://??? really, looks cleaner, and the www is unecessary

 

[Daniel]

I hate it.

http://www.namepros.com/2191759-post3.html

That should help! :tu:

 

[iulianh]

http://www is the best way , looks clean an professional .

 

[JustForShow]

I totally agree with the person above me.
:]
CLEAN AND PROFESSIONAL IS THE WAY TO GO.

 

[Albino]

why does www look more clean and professional?

 

[shockie]

i would advertise without it but have links with it, and all non-www's redirected to www.

 

[domainco.us]

no-www.org for more on this

 

[Daniel]

I totally agree with the person above me.
:]
CLEAN AND PROFESSIONAL IS THE WAY TO GO.

It's longer and unneeded, in my head that does not equate "Clean". And it definitely doesn't need caps to promote it's point.

 

[Porte]

Peter, a fellow member recently explained how to redirect www. to non www. and vice versa. This is what you need to do. But speaking about which one to promote. I say http://domain without www. It's an extra un-needed space.

 

[garpiya]

I think there is no need to use www.

 

[murpo]

not www, wastes time typing three words also http _> looks better

 

[mwzd]

w/o

even the http:// should be made redundant in browsers imho...

just my 0.02

 

[SiberForum]

I'd suggest you both with 301 redirect.

 

[mtorregiani]

w/o

even the http:// should be made redundant in browsers imho...

just my 0.02

Agreed.

I just type namepros.com if I have to log in here, there's no need for http://www.
Why use it?

 

[sOliver]

I am trying to figure out if it is better to advertise your site with or without the www. in front of your URL? When it says enter your URL, which is better...?

http://??? or http://www.???

I know they will land on the same page, but eventually they will show backlinks. Do they get indexed differently in search engines? Does it even matter?

You forgot another way to advertise a site:
www.name.com

Most companies with an older target group go for www.name.com simply because the average person doesn't know it's working without www in front of the name.
Of course nobody here is typing http://www.namepros.com, we simply use namepros.com and that's it, so if your target group is familiar with the internet then I'd go for http://name.com

Edit: And never do it both ways, that's very bad for SEO..

 

[Barrucadu]

even the http:// should be made redundant in browsers imho...

just my 0.02

I completely disagree with you there, http:// indicates the protocol to be used. If it was not there, how would you be able to tell what it was? The www. is a useless subdomain, but http:// actually serves a purpose.

 

[mwzd]

I completely disagree with you there, http:// indicates the protocol to be used. If it was not there, how would you be able to tell what it was? The www. is a useless subdomain, but http:// actually serves a purpose.

What's the purpose?

Are you trying to tell me that will all the advances in browser technology a browser HAS to show http:// in order to understand the protocol of the page served?

It won't be able to differentiate between http:// and ftp:// or even https:// w/o showing that in the address bar?

As far as I'm concerned the small lock icon is enough when serving a secure page.

The whole idea is to make it simple for the surfer. There are already about a 100million names there, why add to typos like 'http:/' or htp://? I've been using the internet for 10 yrs now and I thought the whole thing is about advancement.

So I'll stand by what I said.

 

[jimlast]

Without www can be confusing with domains like .fm, .info or .ws. Alot of users won't instantly know that's a domain name.

I don't use it in links, but I do in printed material. Most people expect to see it, the www could be what catches the eye. Why risk it for matter of principle?

 

[Albino]

www is an outdated principle in terms of the web industry. as stated above, I prefer it without.

however, it completely depends on what context you mean.

basic users of the web (ie, people who use it every now and again, don't really have a lot of knowledge of pcs/the internet), have no idea what www means, and still associate it with web addressess. The majority of them would not infact thisnk the address would work, without the www.

 

[antic]

I don't see any reason to write www before the domain.

 

[unknownserv]

I have my sites redirect www. to just the domain (with http:// of course), but in print advertising I normally add www. anyway because the general public immediately asscoiate this with a website.

 

[TheBes7]

I always use :

http://???

Because ( like first post ) they are landing on the same page.
Never used http://www , old fashion .. :D

 

[alanpaladka]

Excluding www from url would look great. There is no need for www(Although in some hosts, its required).