Technical Argument to Prefer non-www to www?
-
I've been recommending using non-www vs. www as a preferable set up if a client is starting a site from scratch, and there aren't any pre-existing links to consider.
I'm wondering if this recommendation still holds?
I’ve been looking on the interwebs and I’m seeing far fewer articles arguing for the non-www version. In the two courts, I’m seeing highlighted:
Pro www: (ex: www.domain.com)
- Works better with CDN networks, where a domain needs to be specified (though that argument is 3 years old)
- Ability to restrict cookies to one hostname (www) or subdomain (info. blog. promo.) if using multiple subdomains
- IT people generally prefer it
Pro non-www (ex: domain.com)
- If you ever want to support or add https://, you don’t have to support 2 sets of urls/domains
- Mindset: fewer and fewer people think in terms of typing in www before a site url, the future is heading towards dropping that anyway. Though that is a bit of a cosmetic argument….
Is there a trend going back to www? Is there a technical argument to recommend non-www over www?
Thanks!
-
Thanks Cesar, I appreciate your detailed response.
Pick one, set up our redirects properly and we're good to go!
Thanks much!
-
I do not believe there really is a technical argument for this anymore because of the advancements we have now with HTML/Apache and so on. I have been developing for about 15 years and at this point it really doesn't matter. Just choose one and go with it.
Works better with CDN networks, where a domain needs to be specified (though that argument is 3 years old)
Not sure what you are meaning by "specifying a domain"?. Either way a domain has to be specified whether its www.example.com or example.com. Now the standard to specify a CDN any pretty much everything else is in this format. "//www.example.com" or "//example.com". The "//" now tells the browser to just go to that server and the server will do the rest and tell the client where they should go.
For instance say you setup your .htaccess file to redirect (301) everyone to https and www. The client only needs to worry about "//"
Ability to restrict cookies to one hostname (www) or subdomain (info. blog. promo.) if using multiple subdomains
Cookies should always be set for both just in case. You cant control how someone will type in your domain, but you can control the redirects to www.
**IT people generally prefer it **
Not true
If you ever want to support or add https://, you don’t have to support 2 sets of urls/domains
Again with just using "//" you don't have to worry about this anymore
Mindset: fewer and fewer people think in terms of typing in www before a site url, the future is heading towards dropping that anyway. Though that is a bit of a cosmetic argument….
As long as you setup your redirect, www or none-www does not matter, even if you had your domain for years before you implemented the change.
Here is the current trend
With the amount of mobile devices and how "on the go" we are the less we can type to get our answer, the better. So yes the most preferred is example.com. In fact people now will just type in the brand name/domain and let Google direct them.
All in all everyone should have a redirect to either www or none-www. All that matters to you is how do you want users to see your domain...www or none-www. Send them to whatever method you prefer. Since Google can determine the difference and you setup your 301 properly your Golden.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Site:www Issue - Homepage of the website is not showing in Google
Hello everyone, When I have manually search site:www.blinds4uk.co.uk in google.co.uk to know about webpages status, home page of the website is not showing in google search engine result pages. Please let me know, what is the reason behind this? because website crawling and indexing is good. Many Thanks.
Algorithm Updates | | Kuldeep-Sharma0 -
On page vs Off page vs Technical SEO: Priority, easy to handle, easy to measure.
Hi community, I am just trying to figure out which can be priority in on page, off page and technical SEO. Which one you prefer to go first? Which one is easy to handle? Which one is easy to measure? Your opinions and suggestions please. Expecting more realistic answers rather than usual check list. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Adding non-important folders to disallow in robots.txt file
Hi all, If we have many non-important folders like /category/ in blog.....these will multiply the links. These are strictly for users who access very rarely but not for bots. Can we add such to disallow list in robots to stop link juice passing from them, so internal linking will me minimised to an extent. Can we add any such paths or pages in disallow list? Is this going to work pure technical or any penalty? Thanks, Satish
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Its the 21st April, and my non responsive page is still ranking the same ?
Hi, As you know the new algorithm is due today, can anybody confirm why my site wouldn't appear to be affected as yet? Cheers
Algorithm Updates | | CFCU0 -
Https slower site Versus Non https faster site??
Hey all, I know that everyone is going on about https as a ranking signal (as far as I read it is not a very important ranking signal, but a low ranking signal) but Site speed is a ranking signal https is now a ranking signal as well https makes sites slower So in view of the above, what's better? An https site that is slower A non https site that is faster Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | bjs20100 -
Setup WordPress with www in General -> Settings to get benefits of old links or does it matter?
Hello, I looked through many other Q&A and couldn't find this answer exactly... We build all of our client's sites on WordPress which automatically assign the new websites with no www. at the beginning. Recently one of our customers was upset because his new site (non-www) had only 3 links to it and his old www.domain.com site had 548. Is the simplest way to fix this to go into the WordPress Settings -> General and just change the WordPress Address and Site Address to the www version? Does it even matter or does WordPress tell Google to look at both versions. We don't see any SERP impact by having the non-www version up, but if it is an easy fix to get the 548 link credit I'll take it! Reason I'm concerned is I do see the difference in OSE and would prefer to have 548 links vs. 3 also! Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks community!
Algorithm Updates | | Tosten0 -
Should I block non-informative pages from Google's index?
Our site has about 1000 pages indexed, and the vast majority of them are not useful, and/or contain little content. Some of these are: -Galleries
Algorithm Updates | | UnderRugSwept
-Pages of images with no text except for navigation
-Popup windows that contain further information about something but contain no navigation, and sometimes only a couple sentences My question is whether or not I should put a noindex in the meta tags. I think it would be good because the ratio of quality to low quality pages right now is not good at all. I am apprehensive because if I'm blocking more than half my site from Google, won't Google see that as a suspicious or bad practice?1 -
Duplicate Content & www.3quarksdaily.com, why no penalty?
Does anyone have a theory as to why this site does not get hit with a DC penalty? The site is great, and the information is good but I just cannot understand the reason that this site does not get hit with a duplicate content penalty as all articles are posted elsewhere. Any theories would be greatly appreciated!
Algorithm Updates | | KMack0