Comments on: Time to get rid of www.? http://almaer.com/blog/time-to-get-rid-of-www blogging about life, the universe, and everything tech Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:06:53 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: holloway http://almaer.com/blog/time-to-get-rid-of-www/comment-page-1#comment-40057 holloway Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:04:16 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/time-to-get-rid-of-www#comment-40057 ousted allready ass him no dougbt ousted allready ass him no dougbt

]]> By: Michael Mahemoff http://almaer.com/blog/time-to-get-rid-of-www/comment-page-1#comment-32226 Michael Mahemoff Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:46:36 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/time-to-get-rid-of-www#comment-32226 Agree. Dreamhost actually has an option to do it (in either direction) on their panel. It's better for search engines as it concentrates your goodness - I'd rather have one high rank than two low ranks! Some search engines also look for general signs of savviness, e.g. do you have a robots.txt, do you have neat URLs. This is one of those signs. A single domain is key for cookies too. Trivia: We were doing this for a website in 1997. It was a .com.au, so it was complicated enough and we didn't want the "www" as well. Only, we found a lot of people at the time couldn't actually believe it was a legitimate web address without "www". Agree. Dreamhost actually has an option to do it (in either direction) on their panel. It’s better for search engines as it concentrates your goodness – I’d rather have one high rank than two low ranks! Some search engines also look for general signs of savviness, e.g. do you have a robots.txt, do you have neat URLs. This is one of those signs.

A single domain is key for cookies too.

Trivia: We were doing this for a website in 1997. It was a .com.au, so it was complicated enough and we didn’t want the “www” as well. Only, we found a lot of people at the time couldn’t actually believe it was a legitimate web address without “www”.

]]> By: Tom http://almaer.com/blog/time-to-get-rid-of-www/comment-page-1#comment-32225 Tom Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:53:28 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/time-to-get-rid-of-www#comment-32225 Just happened across this site by accident, and I remembered your post: http://no-www.org/ Just happened across this site by accident, and I remembered your post:

http://no-www.org/

]]> By: Floyd Marinescu http://almaer.com/blog/time-to-get-rid-of-www/comment-page-1#comment-32224 Floyd Marinescu Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:46:11 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/time-to-get-rid-of-www#comment-32224 Agreed! www is so late 90's! Agreed! www is so late 90’s!

]]> By: Todd Huss http://almaer.com/blog/time-to-get-rid-of-www/comment-page-1#comment-32223 Todd Huss Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:46:27 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/time-to-get-rid-of-www#comment-32223 I think it's long overdue. The www is extraneous and as long as you have a redirect in there you're good. I'm always surprised to find some sites letting me visit with or without a www or via .org, .net, etc... without redirecting me which is terrible for SEO in terms of inbound linking consistency and duplicate content. I generally put the redirects under the one virtual host entry for the domain using a serveralias and redirect but the effect is the same. I also re-append the request to the redirect in-case someone has memorized a URL and types it in with a www on the front: <VirtualHost *> ServerName domain.com ServerAlias www.domain.com DocumentRoot /var/www/domain RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^.*\.domain\.com RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://domain.com$1 [R=301,L] </VirtualHost> I think it’s long overdue. The www is extraneous and as long as you have a redirect in there you’re good. I’m always surprised to find some sites letting me visit with or without a www or via .org, .net, etc… without redirecting me which is terrible for SEO in terms of inbound linking consistency and duplicate content.

I generally put the redirects under the one virtual host entry for the domain using a serveralias and redirect but the effect is the same. I also re-append the request to the redirect in-case someone has memorized a URL and types it in with a www on the front:

<VirtualHost *>
ServerName domain.com
ServerAlias http://www.domain.com
DocumentRoot /var/www/domain
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^.*\.domain\.com
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://domain.com$1 [R=301,L]
</VirtualHost>

]]> By: Brent Ashley http://almaer.com/blog/time-to-get-rid-of-www/comment-page-1#comment-32222 Brent Ashley Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:08:04 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/time-to-get-rid-of-www#comment-32222 I have had difficulties with using my bare domain name where my web server is not at the same address as my mail server. Some SMTP clients (rightly or wrongly - I am not clear from the RFC) use the bare domain name as the mail server if they fail through MX lookups. The result has meant for me that I have to run Apache on my mail server as well with mod_rewrite so any bare domain name http attempts get redirected back to the right place. I have had difficulties with using my bare domain name where my web server is not at the same address as my mail server. Some SMTP clients (rightly or wrongly – I am not clear from the RFC) use the bare domain name as the mail server if they fail through MX lookups. The result has meant for me that I have to run Apache on my mail server as well with mod_rewrite so any bare domain name http attempts get redirected back to the right place.

]]> By: Koen http://almaer.com/blog/time-to-get-rid-of-www/comment-page-1#comment-32221 Koen Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:36:36 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/time-to-get-rid-of-www#comment-32221 In Opera that's something you can configure. ;) In Opera that’s something you can configure. ;)

]]>