Why no WWW?

[The Dark Wizard]

I think this is the correct forum to talk about the site, if not I apologize. Someone please move it to the correct area.

@Mike, @Kier, @Ashley,

I am curious to know why you guys do not use www. for the site, and just have it be http://xenforo.com

Since you guys are way more experienced, I thought I'd ask you. Is it a personal preference or is there an actual advantage?

 

[Mike]

Just preference/choice.

 

[rdn]

Nice question and nice answer @Mike

 

[silence]

www adds bulk to the URL and IMHO makes it look ugly. It is YOUR website, and without the WWW, it accentuates that!

 

[Vohn]

There is really no general consensus on how the addition of adding www sub-domain is the right way, it's more like a old school style than the actual implementation that are happens right now. It's just easy to remember by naming your overall domain name as short as possible. Although by few lines of config changes in httpd, it's easy to add various of additional sub-domains (including www) to redirects into main domain.

 

[MikeMpls]

Old habits die hard. I can't think of any good reason why I still use it on most of my sites. It really serves no useful purpose, except that my fingers are trained to type "www." before my brain kicks in.

& my 'droid has a "www" key that requires exercise.

 

[Matthew Hawley]

Why doesn't xenforo have a SSL Certificate?

 

[Walter]

Most important for me: if you advertise your URL offline, the www makes clear it is a URL.

 

[Jeremy]

Why doesn't xenforo have a SSL Certificate?

Has no real relation to this topic, but read this:
http://xenforo.com/community/threads/renew-your-ssl.50720/

 

[TLMD]

Isn't it the case that most browsers don't show the "www." anyway, even if it is there?

 

[Liam W]

Isn't it the case that most browsers don't show the "www." anyway, even if it is there?

All the ones that I use show it. I think you're thinking of the protocol text

Also, I use www. because a domain doesn't look right without 3 levels/4 levels for a 2 level extension...

 

[Slavik]

I used to like www.

However, in more recent years, just seemed like an annoyance that serves no purpose... so dropped it.

 

[TLMD]

All the ones that I use show it.

Oh yes, you are right! They grey it out though, maybe that's why I didn't recognize it anymore.

 

[x3sphere]

There is really no general consensus on how the addition of adding www sub-domain is the right way, it's more like a old school style than the actual implementation that are happens right now. It's just easy to remember by naming your overall domain name as short as possible. Although by few lines of config changes in httpd, it's easy to add various of additional sub-domains (including www) to redirects into main domain.

If you host your site behind a CDN or DDOS protection service generally CNAMEs are required so you have to use www. That's why I use it on my site personally.

 

[D.O.A.]

I'm just gonna type domain.com in chrome anyway so www is redundant in the world between my ears

 

[sweetpotato]

Google, Facebook always have www

 

[Divvens]

Most important for me: if you advertise your URL offline, the www makes clear it is a URL.

Hasn't the internet already grown enough for everyone to realize a that it's a link regardless of the www?

 

[Walter]

Hasn't the internet already grown enough for everyone to realize a that it's a link regardless of the www?

Strongly depends on your niche and your audience.