URLs With or Without “WWW”: Which is Best?
Recently reader Kathy Frederick asked:
“When I type in “www.junkdrawerblog.com” I notice that the URL field content changes to the URL, minus the WWW. What’s up with that? Is it bad?”
Well Kathy, personally I don’t think that it really matters if you make your URL address with or without the “www“. I see no evidence that it makes any difference with the search engines, unless you happen think it looks esthetically better one way or the other. BUT…
What is really important is that you are consistent with your URL structure.
So why is this is important? Because even the slightest changes in your URL structure can confuse the search engines.
There’s an excellent post written by Matt Cutts from Google on URL Canonicalization with examples and I recommend that your read it.
Here is an example of inconsistent use of a url. Take a look at the following:
http://www.blogbloke.com … and http://www.blogbloke.com/
Can you tell the difference between the two? No?
Take a closer look and you will see that the second url has a trailing slash, and the first one does not. Believe it or not Google sees them as being two different addresses, and it could possibly split your pagerank value.
There was a time when it was said that all roads led to Rome, and if I had to choose which direction to follow I would stick to the road that is the most travelled.
So which way is better Bloke? The vast majority of blogs out there are using ”www“. Heck, even Google uses it so if it’s good enough for them…
Using “www” is also the internet standard for subdomains, but many users are in the habit of keying an address in their browser without “www” to shorten a URL. That is why you should make it work both ways.
So here is how you do it in Wordpress. In your “General Options” menu you will find a box where you can tell Wordpress how to format your urls. You do it like so:
For Blogger Custom Domain users, you need only to follow my directions in my post Blogger Custom Domains: Best Setup for Optimizing your Blog Pagerank!
So now you know. 
Don't Miss Another Blog Tip and Subscribe to the Newsfeed Today! 
Now tell me what you think. Please leave a Comment and join the conversation ... no charge
What's a Newsfeed?
Moving Blogger Over to Wordpress: The Good, Bad and the Ugly
Thanks, Bloke! I see where I had the URL listed without the http://WWW. Never thought to look there for some reason. Thanks! I’m all better now!
[Reply to this]
This can also assist your site’s ranking since some pages might be ranked with or without the link. I’d add that you should probably add a mod rewrite to your site to automatically bring the people to the same:
http://www.douglaskarr.com/2007/04/07/google-pagerank/
As well, be sure to go to Google Webmasters and set a preference for your site so they index them both the same!
[Reply to this]
You are most welcome Kathy.
[Reply to this]
Hi Doug. That’s good advice re “Google Webmasters”. But I would add that although a mod rewrite might be a good idea in Kathy’s case, it shouldn’t be necessary for new bloggers who don’t need to make changes to their existing url structure.
[Reply to this]
Hm.. come to think of it, I never gave it much thought until I read your post!
Now that you pointed out that it has an effect on the page rank, I will make a conscience effort to be consistent with my blog URL.
[Reply to this]
Hey there, just wanted to touch base and say your site is looking real good. I’m still plugging away with Blogger.
Take care and come visit. Teri
[Reply to this]
I have seen some discussion around making sure that sites are reachable whether a user types in the “www” or not. But sadly, old timer’s disease has struck again and I can’t find the article. I’m not even sure what the total rationale was, but the author was almost having a stroke trying to make the point that “www” is superfluous and should never be needed to reach a page.
[Reply to this]
Thanks for dropping by Shamelle and please do so again soon.
@ Tica … my good friend, I’m sorry that I haven’t had time to drop by lately. I’ve been so busy tweaking the new template. We will catch up soon. Promise.
@ Lee, like I said it doesn’t really matter either way, but if you follow the directions here when you key in the url without the “www” it should default to it. That way you will have “consistency” with your blog address.
That is what is most important.
[Reply to this]
Never really thought about it till now Bloke. I am using www prefix so if its good with Google, ok then. My page rank seems the same both ways.
[Reply to this]
Sounds like your setup is good Curtis.
[Reply to this]
Yea, I might be buying a host account with ASO today!
[Reply to this]
Have you looked at Dream Host?
[Reply to this]
I considered them but I didn’t want to pay that much as my blog is under 200 posts right now and all my images are on flickr(pro).
I ordered the tiny orange with 75 megs on space and 3 gigs transfer.
[Reply to this]
You should have grabbed the $10 for life deal at BlueFur like I did
[Reply to this]
Today I found a very unusual example today at Radio Saudi Arabia
This straignt forward URL http://saudiradio.net/ gives you an error
But this one with a www loads quick: http://www.saudiradio.net/
??!
[Reply to this]
Must have got lost in the translation
[Reply to this]
Ooh thanks for the tip. I just noticed that our blog (http://blog.funadvice.com) has no www, but our site (http://www.funadvice.com) has http://www. Uh oh…
[Reply to this]
Hi Dara.
What you want is one of your urls to automatically default to the other. Unfortunately the way your setup is right now it will split your rank which is not a good thing. So you need to fix it pronto.
Thanks for dropping by and I look forward to hearing from you again.
[Reply to this]
You must ensure that your hosting is setup to have a blank sub domain before you decide if you wish to drop the www from the way you send out your written url. In some instances blank sub domains have not been setup (example http://www.safestore.co.uk - try removing the www).
[Reply to this]
I can also ensure page ranking will not be effected by using the folder deliminator “/” after the URL. This really is not a problem at all.
[Reply to this]
I didn’t think there was a difference until five or six years ago. I tried typing in an address without the www and nothing came out. And I once came across an address that began with “www2.” Pretty weird, huh?
[Reply to this]
You can use pretty much anything you want for a subdomain. You are only limited by your imagination but “www” is the internet standard. The optimal setup is to make it work with or without the “www”. Thanks for dropping by Jen.
[Reply to this]
I have to say that although it does not matter too much, URLs with WWW on the front are much better. The WWW makes no difference from an SEO point of view but rather from a programming point of view.
Sometimes you get plain text that is not in HTML format, but has urls through it. Ok so the programmer finds all the text containing .com, .net and every tld and converts it to a link.
The problem is that this does not work. If I talk about example.com, is that a web address? Should it be automatically turned into a click-able link? No. Example.com is a com file on a windows system. The only way to make sure only proper URLs are converted is to make sure they all have www in them.
This would not affect me you think? Wrong. If you ever submit an article to be freely reprinted, most sites only accept them in plain text. Their programs look for the www in the text and automatically links it.
[Reply to this]
That’s a good point Mary. “WWW” differentiates the URL so that there can be no misunderstanding as to what it’s purpose is for. Just another good reason for using it.
[Reply to this]
Bloke, thanks for this blog. Remember http://www. is basically a ’sub domain’ representing a folder inside the ‘user name’. www2 is the same. I agree with the trip to Google Webmaster Central. I’m excited about the Great Blogging Giveaway, Bloke:
Geoff
[Reply to this]
Yes Geoff, I’m aware that it’s a subdomain and is also an acronym for the
wild, wild, west… er, I mean the world, wide, web.[Reply to this]
I totally agree that the www & non-www domains should both resolve into the same domain.
”
However I prefer the non-www version myself. Adding “www.” to the domain name is unnecessarily redundant and just adds 4 more characters to URLs (which can get pretty stinking long some times all ready).
I still print my marketing collateral with my business blog listed as http://www. mycompanyname. com because it looks cleaner in print. But when people type that into their browsers it resolves to http:// mycompanyname. com and leaves off the excess characters for a cleaner, shorter URL.
[Reply to this]
I noticed when I tried to get my names on Blogger a long time ago, it was more difficult to get one with a http://www. That’s why I ended up with so many strange names for my blogs! I wanted my www!
Just checking back in with ya…your blog’s looking good!
[Reply to this]
You need to read my post:
http://www.blogbloke.com/custom-domain-blogger-dns-seo-godaddy-blogger-custom-domains-best-setup-for-optimizing-your-blog-pagerank/
It will show how to get your Custom Domain working with and without the “WWW”.
Gad to see you back in the game again Kuanyin. Please send me a health update.
[Reply to this]
Hi Chris, from an aesthetics point of view a URL without “WWW” seems to be missing something. But that’s just me I suppose.
[Reply to this]
I can see that, Bloke. They do look different without the http://www. I imagine having looked at URL’s as long as you have they look downright strange.
[Reply to this]
Do I detect sarcasm in that comment? Just wondering Chris because your other comments http://www.blogbloke.com/pro-blogger-definition-setting-the-record-straight/#comment-4228 are bordering on personal attacks which is against the TOS for this blog. I hope I’m wrong.
[Reply to this]
@Blog Bloke: But I would add that although a mod rewrite might be a good idea in Kathy’s case, it shouldn’t be necessary for new bloggers who don’t need to make changes to their existing url structure.
Well….not exactly. It’s not the lack of existing URLs that are the issue, it’s the fact that some people will type the “www” and other’s won’t so over time she is likely to find that people have bookmarked her pages using (at least) two different URLs for each page thus splitting her page rank. So it is best practice to pick one and redirect to it from the other, even for a new blog.
Also, Mary Nichole Hicks has an excellent point that extends beyond plain text; for example word processors like MS-Word and email clients like MS-Outlook can recognize URLs that are preceeded by “www.” and convert them to links but (typically) can’t do so for the ones without a “www.” prefix. And this can be a concern for others who are not the domain owner so choosing not to use a leading “www.” has downsides that domain owners should consider in addition to their personal preference of which looks better to them.
[Reply to this]
Hi Mike.
I think you have misunderstood me. I have already pointed out in this post as well as others about the importance of a well structured url, consistency and redirection so as not to split pagerank or be penalized for duplicate content.
So you and I have no argument there. My quote that you copied is only in reference to the fact that Kathy is a brand new blogger and a mod rewrite is not critical in her case.
You make a good point about MS software, BUT in a perfect world we shouldn’t even be using those products now should we?
Thanks for dropping by.
[Reply to this]
Sorry if I misunderstood. I frequently find people have opinions on URLs that are not based on fact and I guess that makes me quick to interject. Well, if anyone else misunderstands like me then my comment and your reply will be sure to clarify.
As for should we not be using MS? Since I don’t join in on the anti-Microsoft bashing and instead focus on a pragmatic view, I’d say there are not generally-applicable good reasons why we shouldn’t be using MS software; most often its just anti-MS angst that fuels those sentiments.
What’s more on the web I’m more concerned about those things that affect others, and ~90% of people use MS products. Ignoring concerns of MS software users would be like publishing a blog to work only with Opera, Safara, and Firefox; all others not welcome. Though it might make those who dislike MS feel good it would be limiting their own audience and rendering inaccessible their content to people who have perfectly valid reasons for choosing to browse with IE (for example, because their company only supports IE or because they are a newbie who bought a new PC with IE installed and are not comfortable installing Firefox.)
FWIW
[Reply to this]
I appreciate you offering to help Mike and maybe next time you will catch the Bloke with his foot in it.
As for me, my opinion is both pragmatic and biased. MS products are notoriously buggy and security riskware, and my company was one of the first casualties by Bill Gates back in the 80s.
So I feel that I am justified in my fear and loathing.
Cheers!
[Reply to this]
As a (former?) software developer I, like all software developers, have written code with a bug or two so I’ve learned not to throw stones. “Bugs” are like needles in haystacks; writing bugfree software is like proving there is NOT a needle in that there haystack; very hard indeed.
Of course a lawyer would probably just see those potential bugs as a “great opportunity.”
As for casualties of Bill Gates, I’d have to say that given free markets and free will its rarely fair to say a company is a causualty of another; instead I’d argue that they are a causualty of their own lack of execution and/or poor decisions.
I ran a company for 12 years that was once listed in the Inc 500 and though it still exists I’m not running it and it is a shell of it’s former self. Why? I could say we were a causualty of our VC-backed competitor or that we were a causualty of Google making our value proposition less compelling but I will say instead it was my inability to execute a proper plan in the face of a changing world. (I of course learned a lot from that experience and am a better business person than I was at the time but I will still say that I could have been a better CEO back then.)
[Reply to this]
I started my illustrious career programming mainframes before there were desktop computers or Apples and DOS. In my company’s case we were flogging a CPM based Japanese desktop. When Gates hoodwinked his borrowed operating system to IBM our hardware literally became flying toasters overnight (no, we didn’t make the screen saver).
I hear what you are saying about being victims of our own ineptitude but somehow I still find a measure of solace in my self pitty.
It sounds like you have had an interesting a career Mike. Perhaps you might consider being a guest writer here @ Blog Bloke sometime? I’m always on the lookout for seasoned talent.
[Reply to this]
I look at it holistically; Gates efforts to succeed is the same thing that any red-blooded capitalist would have done, he was just a lot better at it than most. Frankly, I wish I had his skills and connections at the time so I could do have done the same instead of him!
My first programming job was as an engineering co-op programming Pascal on an Apple II with a Z80 CP/M card. My boss suggested we buy an IBM PC and I argued against it, but shortly after using it I realized how much better it was than what I was using. And the rest is history…
As for self-pity, I do have that but keep it to myself mostly; when I post on someone’s else blog I figure it’s best to be as honest with myself as I can be, and I know it was my decisions that were at fault. Otherwise I might get called on it by someone that was there!
Lastly, thanks for offering a guest writer spot, I’m honored, but I’m currently so far behind I don’t have time to blog at my own blog, or time to convert it to WordPress. My only reason I have time to comment on your blog is I have the flu and this is easier than working.
[Reply to this]
Ah, the trusty Apple 11 plus. That brings back memories. It was my first desktop, but I cheated and made my own clone. (Please don’t tell Jobs ’cause I hear he has a lot of gunslinger lawyers on staff and he’s still smarting over that one).
Anyhow, I will have to respectfully disagree over Billy boy. He played a little too dirty for my liking. He didn’t get where he is by being a nice guy. If that’s capitalism then I guess I was smart to get out of the game.
If you should change your mind about writing shoot me an email and I will create a guest account for you.
It was my honour and joy to talk with you today. I wish you a speedy recovery from the flu (I’m fighting it off myself).
Cheers!
[Reply to this]
Ah, I never said Gates was nice! Though I think the ruthlessness comes as much from Balmer as from Gates. They are just red-blooded capitalists, you know the type that have done so well during W’s reign…
Ditto to you regarding our exchange and recovering from the flu.
[Reply to this]
Thanks for the tip.. a good reminder for a person trying to build a site like me..
[Reply to this]
You are most welcome Animemagnet.
[Reply to this]
thanks for the tip bloke..all these days it was redirecting to the nonwww version of my site which i suspect has caused me to lose my pr
and also the number of indexed pages in my site is goin nuts and changes dramatically everyday,hopefully with this redirection it should be ok,thanks again.
luq’s last blog post..How to remove your New Blogger Navigation Bar
[Reply to this]
No worries Luq and thanks for dropping by.
[Reply to this]
I followed your advice for redirecting my non-www URL to my http://www.agoodhusband.net URL, but it still doesn’t work. Contacted GoDaddy and they said it wasn’t their problem. Any suggestions?
cory huff’s last blog post..Dealing With That Time of the Month
[Reply to this]
Cory, since you are using Blogger you need to follow my directions here:
http://www.blogbloke.com/custom-domain-blogger-dns-seo-godaddy-blogger-custom-domains-best-setup-for-optimizing-your-blog-pagerank/
[Reply to this]
Hi
Why we discussed here about www and with out www site, because we scared about PR share. We all know that google is the provider of PR and they solved Canonical issue. So not need to scared about it. Google insert a small tool into their Webmaster tool section. It is called “Preferred Domain”. You can mention here how google will show your domain. That means with www or with out http://www. After fix this google always see your website as per your Preference and will give all value to that domain.
Shimul
Shimul >> Web Design Blog’s last blog post..Site Links – Some Suggestions for your website
[Reply to this]
That’s right Shimul.
[Reply to this]
Shimul, that is why my comment above does not mention Google. From my point of view, it is not about Google. It is all about the most used CMS platforms for websites and how they convert plain text into click-able urls.
Here is an example. I am going to use Chris Crees domain as an example as he seems to like no-www. Any links in this post is added by the blog software. Also note that this is for the current software on this blog and this many not work or look right in the future.
Chris Crees domain is successcreeations[dot]com and I would not expect him to get any links when I talk about his domain at successcreeations.com
I am Mary Nicole Hicks and my domain is www[dot]marynicolehicks[dot]com and I would expect to get a link to my domain when I talk about it at http://www.marynicolehicks.com (Server software added click-able link and http)
Also note that we should be able to talk about a *.com file such as example[dot]com without it turning into a domain: example.com
[Reply to this]
Many thanks to you, I’ve been looking for this info for so long till I dropped by your site.
[Reply to this]
Glad you like it Ismail.
[Reply to this]
Blog Bloke reply on May 20, 2008 9:50 pm:
Nice Site!
[Reply to this]