Comments on: www. is NOT deprecated

By: Wordpress SEO (Search engine optimization) (Arama motoru optimizasyonu) | Wordpress | rooteto.com - Ertuğrul SAĞLAM

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:36:09 +0000

[...] geçemeyeceğim internette yes-www ve no-www savaşı yapılıyor. Herkezin haklı tarafı var benim şahsen www kullandığım site [...]

By: Jack Aviado

Jack Aviado — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:58:30 +0000

I work in tech support. I work with the sort of people who will be most affected by cessation of the www subdomain.

This is how the beginning of most calls will go:

“Blah blah hello thank you for calling blah blah etc., to get started let’s open Internet Explorer”

. . .

“Now go to sub.example.com”

Besides typing it into the search bar, the most common error is going to http://www.sub.example.com. I have to remind the customer at this point that I said sub.example.com, not http://www.sub.example.com. http://www.sub.example.com redirects to a page nowhere near where we are trying to go. This happens regularly.

In this most significant portion of my experience, unquestioning reliance on the validity of any web address with www in front of it causes nothing but trouble. I find myself agreeing with the no-www position: That we should preserve www subdomains for those who end up typing them, but teach the general internet user base that it is unnecessary and does not go arbitrarily at the beginning of every web address. To this end I will be redirecting http://www.jack.is to jack.is.

By: raphidae

raphidae — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:11:56 +0000

I don’t like not using www. for a website. Hostnames like ‘irc’, ‘mail’ and also ‘www’ are key elements in a proper and logical URI. Screwing with that is stupid and creates only confusion.

The www host is a way to tell strangers that if they want general information, they should look on the machine where it is CNAME’d to. CNAMEs are really handy and that’s why lots of people use them. But because it is new and exciting to leave the www. out nowadays there are enough idiots that copy the CNAME into @. Which works about 80% of the time because as I remember it putting a CNAME into @ will give different results depending on the client querying, and can so go unnoticed for a long time.

All this bullshit is screwing up DNS. If it is a webserver: label it as such, lazy bastards. You all know the internet is well over 98% complete idiots, so why propose something that is likely to confuse >5% of those 98% at one point or another, screws up DNS in the process and also creates a political discussion about it worldwide? I must now use at least a couple hundered non-www hosts to compensate for the time I took to write this comment, otherwise I don’t even win time!

Basically if you want .www to go you are an idiot and should get off the internet and step away from the computer. Step away sir!

By: GadgetViper

GadgetViper — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:59:58 +0000

Rene said – “Another reason you might want to use a subdomain is SSL. If you host several subdomains on one IP address, you can use a wildcard like *.example.org in your SSL certificate, and the certificate will be valid for all of them. If you use example.org as the CN in your SSL certificate, the certificate will not be valid for e.g. someuser.example.org.”

That’s not true is it?

I have 10 sub-domain and only 1 has a SSL, I was I could only have 1 per IP address?

By: javex.org

javex.org — Sat, 30 May 2009 05:34:25 +0000

Nowadays having ‘www’ or not is purely a preference, ‘www’ is in fact depreciated.

‘www’ used to depict an internet server, while without ‘www’ would be an intranet server.

‘www’ is defined by:
‘[i]The complete set of documents residing on all Internet servers that use the HTTP protocol, accessible to users via

a simple point-and-click system.[/i]‘

Web browsers nowadays automatically prepend ‘http://’ onto the requested URL. ‘www’ is now just a useless subdomain.

‘www’ can be for offline advertising, when someone hears ‘double-you-double-you-double-you’ they immediately know

you’re talking about a website. This is fine, as you can 301 redirect all requests for http://www.example.com to example.com.

Other than that, the only reason to keep www dot is if you have a large established site with a high pagerank. Your

backlinks may become invalid if you go from with-www to without-www, or vice versa.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:24:59 +0000

If you dont need www, dont put it up. If you do, do! My site will accept both, but google only displays one. I think it is necessity… I also think that if people go no-www compliant, they should still have the www subdomain work, for people who still try and use it…. just my thoughts…

By: thelaw.com

thelaw.com — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:54:15 +0000

Regardless of whether people want to prevent the early onset of carpal tunnel syndrome and claim that the www has no use, so long as a significant number of people and computers find a need for the www, it’s here to stay. I was shocked to find out that the folks at Wordpress had removed the www entirely from usage, which I found absurd. As someone else pointed out, search engines view http://www.domain.com and http://domain.com as two completely different sites. Now if your site has been running for a long time using a “www” and you’ve set pathways for your site to use it, e.g. src=http://www.domain.com” then you’ve got a heck of a task in trying to find all those instances to “correct” them. Then you’ve got the stand in typed text like you do here — http://www.domain.com is automatically hyperlinked in text in many blogs, such as Wordpress. Simple domain.com entries are NOT hyperlinked. By that feature alone, Wordpress contradicts itself in forcing you to use the “no-www” method because they are telling you to NOT use it yet they have a plugin recognizing that people will use it and it is useful. We haven’t even talked about the other search engines which will continue to look at www and non-www sites as separate sites… You got the point. The no-www people are self-righteous and just ought to give it up already and deal with typing the characters.

By: SB

SB — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:54:50 +0000

Being a lazy surfer I prefer to type omit the www and just type the domain name. However, I am also of the opinion that this should just be a shortcut to the website and that the server should instruct the browser to redirect to the www subdomain. Further, it is my opinion that the file should also be included, as, technically, the page you are viewing is a resource and not a domain/subdomain. Therefore, typing in “example.com” would resolve to “www.example.com/index.html”. This also has the advantage of ensuring that search engines crawl a single resource, as each variation (ie example.com, example.com/index.html, http://www.example.com and http://www.example.com/index.html) is regarded as a unique URL and, thereby, reduces the pages rankings (if accessed using multiple variations).

By: noox bloggt! » Blog Archive » Domainname mit oder ohne www.

noox bloggt! » Blog Archive » Domainname mit oder ohne www. — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:30:17 +0000

[...] das ist die große Frage. Im Web gibt es dazu einige Kontroversen. Es gibt eigene Seiten pro www aber auch kontra www. Und manchen gefällt das www so sehr, dass sie sogar für zwei www, also [...]

By: Uncle Che

Uncle Che — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:51:54 +0000

I am not a techie, so i don’t understand most of the terms you guys use here. All I know is www is a subdomain and i will not set a subdomain as the prefered url of my site. I rather use theworldahead.com than http://www.theworldahead.com