Business Web site - dropping the "www." prefix?
Discussion
It seems to be happening more and more, and it's the default setting for the new host/software that I'm trying out. The most obvious case for dropping the prefix is here: https://dropwww.com/ (although none of the reasons are compelling).
In my case, customers come from Google search results (lucky enough to be in the top 5) or else they are returning customers who would either have bookmarked the site, or who would start typing into the address bar and they would most likely (it seems) start typing the domain without the "www." prefix.
I don't really mind, although after all of these years. I think it looks a bit strange to see "https://domain.com" in the address bar once a site has loaded.
In my case, customers come from Google search results (lucky enough to be in the top 5) or else they are returning customers who would either have bookmarked the site, or who would start typing into the address bar and they would most likely (it seems) start typing the domain without the "www." prefix.
I don't really mind, although after all of these years. I think it looks a bit strange to see "https://domain.com" in the address bar once a site has loaded.
The thread title is a question but your post is a statement so I'm not sure what responses you are seeking. Suffice to say these days it's the norm for DNS to be configured to point both host.com and www.host.com to the web server such that either will work.
Edited by 48k on Wednesday 10th July 20:18
48k said:
Suffice to say these days it's the norm for DNS to be configured to point both host.com and www.host.com to the web server such that either will work.
Correct.48k said:
The thread title is a question but your post is a statement so I'm not sure what responses you are seeking. Suffice to say these days it's the norm for DNS to be configured to point both host.com and www.host.com to the web server such that either will work.
Thanks. You are right - I'm minded to say that it's all OK, but I was after a reality check, in case of unexpected consequences, I suppose. Edited by 48k on Wednesday 10th July 20:18
There is a Q about is old URLs with "www." prefixes and what Google does with its database and site ranking if/when those pages move host to a website with no prefix. I need to read a bit more, I think. Perhaps it needs 301 redirects for each old URL to the non-www equivalent? Not sure if there's a site-wide setting...
I have no context.
However, personally, if my web site was in any way important to my business, I'd make sure that..
www.gump.com
gump.com
gump.co
(and if possible / relevant) gump.co.uk
..pointed to my chosen URL.
There was a thread on here last year where the OP had let one of his lapse, and a direct competitor replaced his webpage with a note saying "sorry we are facing issues and are unable to take on new business at this point" (or similar). His ex-webpage somwhoe outranked the good one on google.
Thread (from memory) showed it was really hard to combat - not blatant passing off / instant win, so a court job. OP didn't have the time / money / willpower for a big court battle which would end one of the 2 companies just in lawyers fees...
However, personally, if my web site was in any way important to my business, I'd make sure that..
www.gump.com
gump.com
gump.co
(and if possible / relevant) gump.co.uk
..pointed to my chosen URL.
There was a thread on here last year where the OP had let one of his lapse, and a direct competitor replaced his webpage with a note saying "sorry we are facing issues and are unable to take on new business at this point" (or similar). His ex-webpage somwhoe outranked the good one on google.
Thread (from memory) showed it was really hard to combat - not blatant passing off / instant win, so a court job. OP didn't have the time / money / willpower for a big court battle which would end one of the 2 companies just in lawyers fees...
Escapegoat said:
Thanks. You are right - I'm minded to say that it's all OK, but I was after a reality check, in case of unexpected consequences, I suppose.
There is a Q about is old URLs with "www." prefixes and what Google does with its database and site ranking if/when those pages move host to a website with no prefix. I need to read a bit more, I think. Perhaps it needs 301 redirects for each old URL to the non-www equivalent? Not sure if there's a site-wide setting...
You don't need redirects. The 'site wide setting' is DNS. You'd simply have two entries in your DNS record one for domain host.com and the other for sub domain www.host.com, both pointing to the ip address of the Web server. Then either will work.There is a Q about is old URLs with "www." prefixes and what Google does with its database and site ranking if/when those pages move host to a website with no prefix. I need to read a bit more, I think. Perhaps it needs 301 redirects for each old URL to the non-www equivalent? Not sure if there's a site-wide setting...
You need to try and avoid duplicate content issues - having exact same content available on different URLs. Search engines dont like it. Lookup canonical domain / urls, and then see how to configure for your web server software. IIS for example has a template rewrite rule for just that purpose.
48k said:
You don't need redirects. The 'site wide setting' is DNS. You'd simply have two entries in your DNS record one for domain host.com and the other for sub domain www.host.com, both pointing to the ip address of the Web server. Then either will work.
Not the best SEO set-up.48k said:
You don't need redirects. The 'site wide setting' is DNS. You'd simply have two entries in your DNS record one for domain host.com and the other for sub domain www.host.com, both pointing to the ip address of the Web server. Then either will work.
Excellent - thanks. I'll go check the domain/hosting control panel for that.Some Gump said:
I have no context.
However, personally, if my web site was in any way important to my business, I'd make sure that..
www.gump.com
gump.com
gump.co
(and if possible / relevant) gump.co.uk
..pointed to my chosen URL.
Yup - that's what I'll do now. At the moment, I have the ".co.uk" version as a back-up (separate registrar and separate hosting) just in case of some giant outage at the ".com" host. There's a holding page at the moment which points customers (i.e. only those who guessed a ".co.uk" ending) to the ".com". However, personally, if my web site was in any way important to my business, I'd make sure that..
www.gump.com
gump.com
gump.co
(and if possible / relevant) gump.co.uk
..pointed to my chosen URL.
in terms of having a preferred option - Google tends to prefer you to not have both...
so, DNS will allow you to set either to work, e.g.:
A record -> ip address
C NAME -> www -> non-www url
is the basics...
but, you really want to pick one or the other and have the site end up on that whichever you enter - otherwise you can have links elsewhere to both and Google can see it as duplicate data - so you do this either at a server level, or through .htaccess files e.g.
RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.(.*)$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://%1/$1 [R=301,L]
of course it then gets more complex if you also allow for http / https / etc.
so, DNS will allow you to set either to work, e.g.:
A record -> ip address
C NAME -> www -> non-www url
is the basics...
but, you really want to pick one or the other and have the site end up on that whichever you enter - otherwise you can have links elsewhere to both and Google can see it as duplicate data - so you do this either at a server level, or through .htaccess files e.g.
RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.(.*)$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://%1/$1 [R=301,L]
of course it then gets more complex if you also allow for http / https / etc.
jammy-git said:
Does anyone have any evidence that Google doesn't like or even penalises have both www and non-www, for duplicate content?
pretty sure it was a comment they made once on one of their blogs...either way - makes sense to operate as above - website always accepts www / non-www, but only ever presents pages the way you choose
jammy-git said:
Does anyone have any evidence that Google doesn't like or even penalises have both www and non-www, for duplicate content?
Realistically on anything but the oldest websites non-www and www will point to the same site. The only reason for using a re-write rule 301 as mentioned above is for backlinks when changing from one to the other.Just to clarify something mentioned above. Don't 301 redirect individual URL's through htaccess in this circumstance (assuming the page urls stay the same). You will break your website with redirect loops
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff