I had some years I thought the same way, however: From a DNS point of view: you can't have CNAME's on your root (can be useful, especially in some DNS load bal

I had some years I thought the same way, however: From a DNS point of view: you can't have CNAME's on your root (can be useful, especially in some DNS load balancing situations, or load balancing on third party providers) From HTTP point of view: A no-www domain might not be the best solution if you ever want a 'Cookie-free Domain' (static.) for images etc. which speeds up your site. If you start with a no-www domain you have to setup a different domain (no subdomain) for it: like sstatic.net for SO, ytimg.com for YT and yimg.com for Yahoo. When the browser makes a request for a static image and sends cookies together with the request, the server doesn't have any use for those cookies. So they only create network traffic for no good reason. You should make sure static components are requested with cookie-free requests. Create a subdomain and host all your static components there. If your domain is www.example.org, you can host your static components on static.example.org. However, if you've already set cookies on the top-level domain example.org as opposed to www.example.org, then all the requests to static.example.org will include those cookies. In this case, you can buy a whole new domain, host your static components there, and keep this domain cookie-free. https://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#cookie_free https://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#cookie_fr... in my view having a www record (and no-www redirect) has more benefits that a no-www