4 ms·
> There is real, measurable value to no-www. Citation needed. > I would be willing to bet there is a strong inverse correlation between link size and likeliho
by hamandcheese 9y ago
> There is real, measurable value to no-www.
Citation needed.
> I would be willing to bet there is a strong inverse correlation between link size and likelihood of being clicked.
4 extra characters (www.) is a pretty small fraction of the total link length most of the time, when people link to individual blog posts or what have you. I'd argue that readability of the link is far more important, and www does not harm that.
- morecoffee 9y agoCitation isn't needed. If you read one sentence later in my comment you can see I asked readers to look at their logs to confirm my statement. The next sentence after is confirming with my own data that visitor of my site preferred the no-www. The reason to not use www is in your logs.
- hamandcheese 9y agoJust because your users don't use www doesn't mean that there's any value there above if you had a www only site.