www vs. non-www for branding, etc (not relating to SEO)?
I know the debate regarding using "www." in a URL when it comes to SEO. That's all fine and dandy. I'm not too concerned with that.
What I'm thinking about is the use of "www" in terms of website branding and what is considered correct.
Technically, the use of www is redundant. It's a relic of times long since past, where the "www" would signify a webserver. There is no need at all to use it in domains these days, although a lot of sites still use it as the primary URL and redirect non-www traffic to it.
I can't think of many major sites that use the non-www URL as the main one. Twitter is the only one I can think of off-hand. I looked through the Alexa top sites, and virtually every one but Twitter uses www.website.com as the canonical URL. I guess this has a lot to do with the fact that many of the biggest websites date back to the time when "www" was standard, but still, almost all new websites still use www.
What's the opinion on the use (or non use) of www for branding purposes? Even though it's outdated and redundant, do you think people still expect to see it there? I'm a proponent of getting rid of redundant and obsolete practices when it comes to computers/internet, but even I think it somehow looks wrong to not see a "www" in front of a domain. It somehow looks naked, or wrong.
On the other hand, it needlessly makes the url 4 characters longer, and is completely redundant.
Do you think a lack of www has an effect on visitors? Maybe they expect to see it there, and are somehow turned off or alarmed by it not being there? Also, while not really related to SEO, I wonder if it has an effect on clickthrough in search engines.
I think this is an interesting topic that I haven't seen discussed here. Lots of discussion about its effect on SEO, but not the effect on visitors, etc.
What I'm thinking about is the use of "www" in terms of website branding and what is considered correct.
Technically, the use of www is redundant. It's a relic of times long since past, where the "www" would signify a webserver. There is no need at all to use it in domains these days, although a lot of sites still use it as the primary URL and redirect non-www traffic to it.
I can't think of many major sites that use the non-www URL as the main one. Twitter is the only one I can think of off-hand. I looked through the Alexa top sites, and virtually every one but Twitter uses www.website.com as the canonical URL. I guess this has a lot to do with the fact that many of the biggest websites date back to the time when "www" was standard, but still, almost all new websites still use www.
What's the opinion on the use (or non use) of www for branding purposes? Even though it's outdated and redundant, do you think people still expect to see it there? I'm a proponent of getting rid of redundant and obsolete practices when it comes to computers/internet, but even I think it somehow looks wrong to not see a "www" in front of a domain. It somehow looks naked, or wrong.
On the other hand, it needlessly makes the url 4 characters longer, and is completely redundant.
Do you think a lack of www has an effect on visitors? Maybe they expect to see it there, and are somehow turned off or alarmed by it not being there? Also, while not really related to SEO, I wonder if it has an effect on clickthrough in search engines.
I think this is an interesting topic that I haven't seen discussed here. Lots of discussion about its effect on SEO, but not the effect on visitors, etc.
Call Center Fuel - High Volume Data
Delivering the highest quality leads in virtually all consumer verticals.
David Neale
Roger Davis
Cheers,
Elion Makkink
Become an SEO Hustler too at seohustlers.com
Grab a LIFETIME Discount off Elegant Themes
Grab a LIFETIME 40% Discount off The Best Spinner