Why http:// and not http://www.?

[Ahmed]

google.com -> www.google.com
'nuff said

In all serious though, I like the www. It balances out the .com on the other side of the domain, which is why I think it 'looks better'.

Yep.

 

[JVCode]

google.com -> www.google.com
'nuff said

In all serious though, I like the www. It balances out the .com on the other side of the domain, which is why I think it 'looks better'.

Agreed.

 

[Been Told]

www.xenforo.com -> xenforo.com

'nuff said.

 

[RickM]

I'm a 'www' guy myself. Obviously I redirect (301) all non www links though

Although its a matter of personal preference - I've never seen any evidence to suggest either way would improve or damage your SEO.

 

[Onimua]

I'm a 'www' guy myself. Obviously I redirect (301) all non www links though

Although its a matter of personal preference - I've never seen any evidence to suggest either way would improve or damage your SEO.

As long as you stick to one and not switch between them on your site I believe it's okay.

 

[Biker]

If I recall, it's still needed, however your browser throws it in silently (if you omit it) when you press enter.

 

[Cezz]

If I recall, it's still needed, however your browser throws it in silently (if you omit it) when you press enter.

I am afraid this isn't true http:// is still needed but www. Is just a sub-domain just like forum.domain.com or admin.domain.com

Originally domain.com identified the network then www. Identified the web server.... this isn't the case with servers any more with propper dns setup etc...

 

[Christopher]

There are a few valid reasons for keeping www above and beyond that of pure preference. Two that spring to mind:

• Cookie control. Cookies set on non-www are accessible on every sub-domain you might have later.
• Ability to CNAME www (for example to a CDN). This way you can still keep other important records on the domain (SOA and NS in particular), which you couldn't do if you CNAME'd the domain.

 

[Cezz]

There are a few valid reasons for keeping www above and beyond that of pure preference. Two that spring to mind:

• Cookie control. Cookies set on non-www are accessible on every sub-domain you might have later.
• Ability to CNAME www (for example to a CDN). This way you can still keep other important records on the domain (SOA and NS in particular), which you couldn't do if you CNAME'd the domain.

I see these equally as downsides as much as up... ie sometimes I want my cookie to share ie if I am running the main site at domain.com but want each user to have their own profile at username.domain.com

I would never set www. As ny CDN I would use static.domain.com or something like that... also you can direct domain.com to a CDN if you wanted while still having ns1. Or mail. Going elsewhere.

 

[feldon30]

Technically www.servername and servername are two different entries in the DNS table.

I use .htaccess scripts to redirect the user if they are on the wrong one (www when it's supposed to be no www, or vice versa) just to solve the cookie issue.

 

[Enigma]

Well, http://www.xenforo.com/community/threads/why-http-and-not-http-www.798/ redirects with a 301 to http://xenforo.com/community/threads/why-http-and-not-http-www.798/ which means they've already thought about this and decided on the non-www version.

 

[Enigma]

BTW, I never considered www as a subdomain, is it?

Yes, it is.

 

[Enigma]

I would never set www. As ny CDN I would use static.domain.com or something like that... also you can direct domain.com to a CDN if you wanted while still having ns1. Or mail. Going elsewhere.

If you set your cookie domain to example.com, then you would need a different domain name for your CDN to avoid sending cookies with all requests for static content.

 

[Freddie]

I didn't realize that there was a "kill www" crowd about. Guess I am too old, "www" is quaint.

 

[Eric J.]

Yeah, not a fan of www myself. Of course, even when it's in a URL I don't type it, and I never pay attention to the address bar unless I have a good reason, so either way it's not bothering me.

 

[Mikey]

Check this out

It is an unnecessary addition to a url, you will find on all my sites, www. redirects to http://
http://www.socialsig.me for example, will not work, simply redirect to the no-www url. This is very deliberate on my part.

 

[Floren]

Well, http://www.xenforo.com/community/threads/why-http-and-not-http-www.798/ redirects with a 301 to http://xenforo.com/community/threads/why-http-and-not-http-www.798/ which means they've already thought about this and decided on the non-www version.

Is their choice, on my site it will be the other way around. I do this at server level, with Nginx.

 

[Erik]

Check this out

It is an unnecessary addition to a url, you will find on all my sites, www. redirects to http://
http://www.socialsig.me for example, will not work, simply redirect to the no-www url. This is very deliberate on my part.

From the site:

In fact, several websites choose to forward traffic from domain.com to www.domain.com for branding reasons and that's just fine with us. As long as they don't simply block all HTTP traffic on the bare domain name, they're OK in our book.

 

[Private_Ale]

On my site I force www through htaccess. I do like it, and like someone else noted, it balances out the ".com" so even if someone enters the address without it, it will automagically switch to the www

After I change my site around I'm moving the forum to a subdomain, forum.domain.tld. Regardless, the main landing page will still have the www.domain.tld

 

[Ahmed]

The question is:
Is there any real advantages using (http://domain.tld) over (http://www.domain.tld)?