Comments on: Why using “www” might not be such a bad idea

By: Tiyo Kamtiyono

Tiyo Kamtiyono — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:57:05 +0000

Don’t make me doubt please, I have just already added www to my domain, I don’t want to change it again :P

By: Richard X. Thripp

Richard X. Thripp — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:43:45 +0000

I don’t like www even if a lot of people type it. What’s even worse is www on subdomains. I used to host with Netfirms, and they wouldn’t allow second-level subdomains, so http://www.richardxthripp.thripp.com wouldn’t work. Since a lot of my traffic was from print marketing, I lost probably 5% of visitors from mistyping. URLs are long enough already; they don’t need www to weigh them down.

The only time I use www is on Twitter, if the site redirects. It saves 3 characters over http://, and Twitter knows to add http:// automatically.

By: Walkingby

Walkingby — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:32:36 +0000

I’ve been seeking information on how to properly link internally back to my homepage. http://www.homepage.com or simply index.html? …or does it matter either way?

By: Wouter

Wouter — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:24:03 +0000

As described on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Www#WWW_prefix_in_Web_addresses
the www stands for the name of the service the host provides, like many hosts use the ftp subdomain for ftp transfer. Technically it isn’t necessary but I think it looks more professional. I use www for the website the whole world wide web may see and for private stuff I use the password protected subdomain ‘private’. So I don’t only use the subdomain I use the whole domain, only the world may only see a little part of it, the www part.

By: DutchSEO

DutchSEO — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:21:26 +0000

Uhh, right…

Never blog whilst doing your taxes. Yet another thing you can learn from this :-)

By: Alain

Alain — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:41:53 +0000

One in six, really. 60k links in total, 10k pointing to www ;)