3 ms·
URLs without www look uglier to me. The www gives you a visual filler space between the cryptic http:// http:// and the domain, but, again, who cares about URLs
by kolev 12y ago
URLs without www look uglier to me. The www gives you a visual filler space between the cryptic http:// http:// and the domain, but, again, who cares about URLs nowadays? Also, www makes easy to parse out URLs in text. In addition, people will always try www even if your canonical domain is without it resulting possibly in a redundant redirect and/or dual versions of URL being in existence. Lastly, just like www, .com is here to stay. After so much investment in www and .com from advertising, education, etc., don't expect billions to switch away so easily.
- qu4z-2 12y agoPersonally I find www. no less cryptic than http:// http://. Additionally http:// http:// is hidden in many browsers these days, so you're left with just {,www.}example.com/ and don't need the filler. Regarding "who cares about urls nowadays?", clearly the people in this thread making passionate arguments for and against a leading www. care :)
- kolev 12y agoI agree most people probably cannot decode WWW, but, as I said, years have been invested to educate the populace that a web address starts with www. and ends with .com. So, when you see www.hello.com, I don't need to put labels and stuff - people know this is an address. If I put "computer.systems", you won't know unless I label.