This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > April 2006 > only use the www
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Disco Octopus 2006-04-26, 3:52 am |
| Hi,
I have noticed lately that some sites are only being deployed when the
'www' subdomain is used.
eg, example.com (for example) will not be displayed, but www.example.com
will be displayed.
I have always used both (eg choicebeefjerky.com.au and
www.choicebeefjerky.com.au).
Does anyone here have any comments or suggestions on best practices for
this?
Thanks
--
dont pick your nose if it is sore
| |
| Chris Hope 2006-04-26, 3:52 am |
| Disco Octopus wrote:
> I have noticed lately that some sites are only being deployed when the
> 'www' subdomain is used.
>
> eg, example.com (for example) will not be displayed, but
> www.example.com will be displayed.
>
> I have always used both (eg choicebeefjerky.com.au and
> www.choicebeefjerky.com.au).
>
> Does anyone here have any comments or suggestions on best practices
> for this?
I always enable both but do a 301 redirect from one to the other.
--
Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2006-04-26, 3:52 am |
| Disco Octopus wrote:
> eg, example.com (for example) will not be displayed, but
> www.example.com will be displayed.
The web sites for example.com/net/org disappeared some short while ago.
I noticed they were missing a week or so ago.
They are still registered, though.
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
| |
| Mark Parnell 2006-04-26, 3:52 am |
| Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Disco Octopus
<discooctopus@yahoo.com> declared in alt.www.webmaster:
> Does anyone here have any comments or suggestions on best practices for
> this?
http://no-www.org
Not saying I entirely agree, but it's an interesting point of view.
--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
| |
| Barbara de Zoete 2006-04-26, 3:52 am |
| On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 05:03:23 +0200, Disco Octopus <discooctopus@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I have noticed lately that some sites are only being deployed when the
> 'www' subdomain is used.
>
> eg, example.com (for example) will not be displayed, but www.example.com
> will be displayed.
>
> I have always used both (eg choicebeefjerky.com.au and
> www.choicebeefjerky.com.au).
>
> Does anyone here have any comments or suggestions on best practices for
> this?
I think it is a good thing to have only one domain (or subdomain)
available (301 redirect the other to this one domain). The advantages are:
- No misunderstandings about which you prefer to be your main (sub)domain,
so people know where to go or link to;
- Search engines and their bots will 'know'[1] that there is actually only
one site, and therefore will 'not think' you have duplicated your content
and (in case of Google) will direct all PR at one site only; all presumed
to be beneficial.
I redirected my 'example.com' to the subdomain 'www.example.com' for those
reasons.
[1] Neither search engines, nor their bots, have learned to think or know
of course.
--
______PretLetters:
| weblog | http://www.pretletters.net/weblog/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://www.pretletters.net/html/vliegen.html |
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2006-04-26, 6:51 am |
| Disco Octopus wrote
> Hi,
>
> I have noticed lately that some sites are only being deployed when the
> 'www' subdomain is used.
>
> eg, example.com (for example) will not be displayed, but
www.example.com
> will be displayed.
>
> I have always used both (eg choicebeefjerky.com.au and
> www.choicebeefjerky.com.au).
>
> Does anyone here have any comments or suggestions on best practices
for
> this?
To my mind, the "www" is superfluous. I understand this was a
convention when you had a seperate server for each service, i.e a mail
server, a web server, an ftp server etc.
I always allow both to be used (with or without www) so the surfer can
always get the site. Many people (it seems to me) think you *have* to
put www before a web address, so I allow for those who will enter it.
I took a decision to drop the wwws, but have a redirect for those who
still enter it.
I find it very annoying when I can't get a site, then realise that I
have to enter www.
The main reason I don't use the superfluous wwws is for advertising.
Word of mouth, signage etc. The www takes up more room, and is
something more to remember.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Dylan Parry 2006-04-26, 6:51 am |
| Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", Charles
Sweeney finally proclaimed:
> The main reason I don't use the superfluous wwws is for advertising.
> Word of mouth, signage etc. The www takes up more room, and is
> something more to remember.
Indeed. Plus there's the fact that in many print adverts you pay per
word/character that you include, so the extra "www." will cost you a
little more. In other printed media, the inclusion of "www." might be
the difference between being able to use a large font for your URL and
not having the horizontal space to do so. Then there's radio/TV, where
the actor having to say "double-u, double-u, double-u, dot" will take at
least an extra 2 or 3 seconds of previous time, which will also cost.
--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
| |
|
|
| Charles Sweeney 2006-04-26, 6:51 am |
| Dylan Parry wrote
> Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", Charles
> Sweeney finally proclaimed:
>
>
> Indeed. Plus there's the fact that in many print adverts you pay per
> word/character that you include, so the extra "www." will cost you a
> little more. In other printed media, the inclusion of "www." might be
> the difference between being able to use a large font for your URL and
> not having the horizontal space to do so. Then there's radio/TV, where
> the actor having to say "double-u, double-u, double-u, dot" will take
at
> least an extra 2 or 3 seconds of previous time, which will also cost.
:o)
I cringe every time I hear an actor say "double-u, double-u, double-u,
dot"!
I contemplate suicide when they say "log on to"!
Speaking of signage, have a look at my van, there's no room for wwws
there!
http://charlessweeney.com/images/van.jpg
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Dylan Parry 2006-04-26, 6:51 am |
| Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", William Tasso
finally proclaimed:
>
> where can I buy some of that?
LOL, well that was obviously a silly typo on my part :) Of course, if
you are *really* interested, I am sure I can hook you up with a
supplier!
--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", Charles
> Sweeney finally proclaimed:
>
>
> Indeed. Plus there's the fact that in many print adverts you pay per
> word/character that you include, so the extra "www." will cost you a
> little more. In other printed media, the inclusion of "www." might be
> the difference between being able to use a large font for your URL and
> not having the horizontal space to do so. Then there's radio/TV, where
> the actor having to say "double-u, double-u, double-u, dot" will take
> at least an extra 2 or 3 seconds of previous time, which will also
> cost.
If you cant afford to pay the extra should you really be advertising?
| |
|
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Dylan Parry wrote
>
>
>
> I cringe every time I hear an actor say "double-u, double-u, double-u,
> dot"!
>
> I contemplate suicide when they say "log on to"!
>
> Speaking of signage, have a look at my van, there's no room for wwws
> there!
>
> http://charlessweeney.com/images/van.jpg
You own free.com?
| |
| Dylan Parry 2006-04-26, 7:09 pm |
| Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", Viper finally
proclaimed:
> If you cant afford to pay the extra should you really be advertising?
It depends. If the extra letters in a printed advert would mean moving
up from a small advert in a single column of a newspaper to a
half-page-spread, then the step up in price would be unaffordable for
many start-ups.
Now with filming an advert for TV, every second of film could take
minutes of work to produce. Think about your average 20 minute TV show -
they take days to film. Now with a budget advert for a small company,
you want to get the whole thing done as quickly and cheaply as possible
with little room to screw up. Having the actor say a few extra words
could be the difference between getting it right first time, with every
minute hiking up your production costs!
--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
| |
| Martin Harran 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
|
"Chris Hope" <blackhole@electrictoolbox.com> wrote in message
news:444ee588@news.orcon.net.nz...
> Disco Octopus wrote:
>
>
> I always enable both but do a 301 redirect from one to the other.
Just out of curiosity, is the need for a redirect an Apache thing?
I know nothing about Apache, all my stuff runs on IIS and it's a simple case
of adding in the two http headers in the site properties so that both go to
it. Same applies to extra headers, useful when you have name registered with
different TLD's for example I have one site set up as www.example.com,
example.com, www.example.net, example.net and they all go straight to the
same page.
| |
|
|
Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Speaking of signage, have a look at my van, there's no room for wwws
> there!
>
> http://charlessweeney.com/images/van.jpg
But apparently your domain name *does* have spaces and newlines in it,
at least as represented on the van.
--
Dan
| |
| Ken Sims 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
| Hi Barbara -
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:39:25 +0200, "Barbara de Zoete"
<trashbin@pretletters.net> wrote:
>I redirected my 'example.com' to the subdomain 'www.example.com' for those
>reasons.
I do the same thing.
I prefer to use the www. because:
1. www is the host handling my primary website for the domain.
2. I do have other special purpose hosts with other names.
3. Some of my domains don't include any email handling in or out.
These domains have no MX records. But if there is an 'example.com' A
record, it is valid to attempt to send email for the 'example.com'
domain to the server at that IP address.
By not having an A record for 'example.com' and only for
'www.example.com' it eliminates the possibility of any email to that
domain except for spamming software that is specifically programmed to
resolve an A record for 'www.example.com' if it can't find anything
else. So far I've never seen any email attempts on that basis.
This does mean that if someone tries to go to 'example.com' in their
browser it isn't going to resolve, but since all of the references in
search engines, etc. are going to have 'www.example.com', that
*shouldn't* really be a problem.
--
Ken
http://www.kensims.net/
| |
| William Tasso 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
| Fleeing from the madness of the jungle
Martin Harran <nospam@martinharran.com> stumbled into
news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:
>
> "Chris Hope" <blackhole@electrictoolbox.com> wrote in message
> news:444ee588@news.orcon.net.nz...
>
> Just out of curiosity, is the need for a redirect an Apache thing?
no - 301 Moved Permanently is part of the HTTP specification
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html
[and anyone that wants to nit-f*cking-pick about whether that is a
specification or a standard or a recommendation or even just a load of
hot-air can shut-the-f*ck-up right now before they start.]
> I know nothing about Apache, all my stuff runs on IIS and it's a simple
> case
> of adding in the two http headers in the site properties so that both go
> to
> it.
Yes - the problem (if it's a problem for you) with doing that is content
and link dilution - search engines have no way of knowing that these are
supposed to be the same site and even if they did there's no way they can
tell which of the duplicates should be ignored.
> Same applies to extra headers, useful when you have name registered with
> different TLD's for example I have one site set up as www.example.com,
> example.com, www.example.net, example.net and they all go straight to the
> same page.
ok - two solutions ...
option #1
create a site in IIS to handle just the primary hostname
create another for all the additional hostnames and use the redirect
facilities - maek it as permanent.
option #2
create a site in IIS to handle just the primary hostname
create a default site on your server to handle any and all oddball
requests - make a default script to 301-redirect known hostnames to their
proper targets.
variation on option #2 - build a script that strips "www." from the
beginning of all hostnames before doing the 301-redirect - warning: this
could leave your server open to traffic abuse.
I've used all the above techniques at different times - each is effective
in its own way.
--
William Tasso
http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp
| |
| William Tasso 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
| Fleeing from the madness of the Posted via Supernews,
http://www.supernews.com jungle
Ken Sims <ng3122@kensims.#nospam#.net.invalid> stumbled into
news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:
> Hi Barbara -
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:39:25 +0200, "Barbara de Zoete"
> <trashbin@pretletters.net> wrote:
>
>
> I do the same thing.
>
> I prefer to use the www. because:
>
> 1. www is the host handling my primary website for the domain.
>
> 2. I do have other special purpose hosts with other names.
yes - I've noticed that several large/busy domains doe the redirect /to/
the www version.
> 3. Some of my domains don't include any email handling in or out.
> These domains have no MX records. But if there is an 'example.com' A
> record, it is valid to attempt to send email for the 'example.com'
> domain to the server at that IP address.
>
> By not having an A record for 'example.com' and only for
> 'www.example.com' it eliminates the possibility of any email to that
> domain except for spamming software that is specifically programmed to
> resolve an A record for 'www.example.com' if it can't find anything
> else. So far I've never seen any email attempts on that basis.
>
> This does mean that if someone tries to go to 'example.com' in their
> browser it isn't going to resolve, but since all of the references in
> search engines, etc. are going to have 'www.example.com', that
> *shouldn't* really be a problem.
aye - just the spoken word may catch out a few.
would using a CNAME solve the problem for you?
If not, I suppose it's no real headache to set the MX to localhost.
--
William Tasso
http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp
| |
| Auggie 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97B16AFF1E5C4mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
>
> The main reason I don't use the superfluous wwws is for advertising.
> Word of mouth, signage etc. The www takes up more room, and is
> something more to remember.
It was because of print advertising that I pretty much had to include the
"www."
Going back to one of my first big contracts for my restaurant ordering
system, they were a chain of 275 restaurants in the southwest USA and had a
website already and wanted to keep it independant of the online ordering
system.
So what we did was register a domain name that was just like theirs but with
the word "ORDER" before it, like OrderExampleRestaurants.com
We had promotional material done up and shipped it out to the restaurants at
our own expense of about $70 per restaurant (gave them a banner, flyers, pop
signage and table tents).
So what happened was all the promo material read
"OrderExampleRestaurant.com" but even though there was no space in there,
customers were reading it as "Order ExampleRestaurant.com" or more like:
"Order (at) (www.)ExampleRestaurant.com"
For the first month and a half orders were just trickling in. We'd been
expecting something along the lines of 50,000+ orders per month (about 200
orders per month per restaurant) to start us off and give us something to
build upon, but we were getting more like 8,000 orders per month.
The company was getting alot of complaints from customers, along the lines
of "I received this coupon that says I get a discount of _________ but I
have to order online to get it... I went to your website at
www.ExampleRestaurant.com and I can't find the link to order online!"
We redesigned the promo material for all the restaurants with the leading
"www." to make sure people knew that the "ORDER" was part of the domain name
to use and not an instruction to order at their site... we shipped out new
boxes to all the restaurants and it took about 2-3 weeks for all the boxes
to get to the restaurants. Sure enough, online ordering spiked heavily at
first (due to the couponing) and then settled to about where we expected it,
well above 8,000 orders a month.
| |
| dingbat@codesmiths.com 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
|
Martin Harran wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, is the need for a redirect an Apache thing?
No, the _opportunity_ for an easy redirect is an Apache thing. 8-)
> I know nothing about Apache, all my stuff runs on IIS
I'm so sorry.
> it's a simple case of adding in the two http headers in the site properties
> so that both go to it.
Remember kids, this is why IIS is bad!
Always have only one site, and have the other site "respond" by sending
a 301. I'd pump the www. traffic across to the bare name, but this is
really your choice.
The downside of doing it by responding equally to both names is that it
creates two entirely separate sites, as far as the web is concerned -
and that includes Google and its pagerank. You don't want two sites,
you want two names for the same site (presumably) and the way you
achieve this on the web is to use a redirect, not to respond
transparently.
| |
| Mark Goodge 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:02:53 -0400, Viper put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
>You own free.com?
No, he owns sellyourhouseforfree.com
Back on the original subject, one aspect of using www is that many
mail and news clients will assume that a string starting with www and
containing one or more dots is a website address and make it clickable
by default. That can be useful when writing your site in an email or
news posting. But, on the other hand, sometimes it can be a pain in
the neck!
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!
| |
| Martin Harran 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
|
"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:op.s8md6zl3m9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com...
> Fleeing from the madness of the jungle
> Martin Harran <nospam@martinharran.com> stumbled into
> news:alt.www.webmaster
> and said:
>
>
> Yes - the problem (if it's a problem for you) with doing that is content
> and link dilution - search engines have no way of knowing that these are
> supposed to be the same site and even if they did there's no way they can
> tell which of the duplicates should be ignored.
Maybe I'm being stupid here but I can't see how the link dilution or search
engine problem comes about. AFAIU the search engine will only see
www.example.com but I don't really care whether the search engine sees it
as example.com or www.example.com , as long as it does see it and return it
in appropraite searches.
>
> ok - two solutions ...
>
> option #1
> create a site in IIS to handle just the primary hostname
> create another for all the additional hostnames and use the redirect
> facilities - maek it as permanent.
> option #2
> create a site in IIS to handle just the primary hostname
> create a default site on your server to handle any and all oddball
> requests - make a default script to 301-redirect known hostnames to their
> proper targets.
>
> variation on option #2 - build a script that strips "www." from the
> beginning of all hostnames before doing the 301-redirect - warning: this
> could leave your server open to traffic abuse.
>
> I've used all the above techniques at different times - each is effective
> in its own way.
I still don't see the advantage of using this any of these compared to just
including the different hostnames in the primary site - as I said, maybe I'm
just having one of my stupid days.
| |
| Chris Hope 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
| Martin Harran wrote:
>=20
> Maybe I'm being stupid here but I can't see how the link dilution or
> search engine problem comes about. AFAIU the search engine will only
> see www.example.com but I =A0don't really care whether the search eng=
ine
> sees it as example.com or www.example.com , as long as it does see it=
> and return it in appropraite searches.
There are (at least) a couple of ways a search engine can find your
site. If you have both "www.example.com" and "example.com" pointing to
your site and not one 301 redirecting to the other as I (and several
others) have suggested the search engine will see them as two different=
sites. Here are two ways they can find your site:
1) Someone might do a type in of the address into their browser bar
using "example.com" and someone else might do it using
"www.example.com". Let's say they have the Google toolbar installed. So=
Google now knows there is a site at each address and will index each as=
a separate site.
2) Another example, is someone links to your site using "example.com"
and someone else links to it using "www.example.com". Again, a search
engine bot will discover what it considers to be two different sites
and will index each.
Now the issue you have is it will be indexed twice, and you have people=
linking to two different domains. Incoming links are an important
factor in Google's search algorithms and you've just split incoming
links between two different domains. This is a bad thing.
[snip]
--=20
Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
| Dan wrote
>
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
> But apparently your domain name *does* have spaces and newlines in it,
> at least as represented on the van.
Give me a break Dan!
Seriously. I couldn't think of a better way to do it. Plus I am relying
on people knowing that a domain name does not have spaces or line breaks in
it.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
| Auggie wrote
>
> "Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97B16AFF1E5C4mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
>
> It was because of print advertising that I pretty much had to include
> the "www."
>
> Going back to one of my first big contracts for my restaurant ordering
> system, they were a chain of 275 restaurants in the southwest USA and
> had a website already and wanted to keep it independant of the online
> ordering system.
>
> So what we did was register a domain name that was just like theirs
> but with the word "ORDER" before it, like OrderExampleRestaurants.com
>
> We had promotional material done up and shipped it out to the
> restaurants at our own expense of about $70 per restaurant (gave them
> a banner, flyers, pop signage and table tents).
>
> So what happened was all the promo material read
> "OrderExampleRestaurant.com" but even though there was no space in
> there, customers were reading it as "Order ExampleRestaurant.com" or
> more like: "Order (at) (www.)ExampleRestaurant.com"
>
> For the first month and a half orders were just trickling in. We'd
> been expecting something along the lines of 50,000+ orders per month
> (about 200 orders per month per restaurant) to start us off and give
> us something to build upon, but we were getting more like 8,000 orders
> per month.
>
> The company was getting alot of complaints from customers, along the
> lines of "I received this coupon that says I get a discount of
> _________ but I have to order online to get it... I went to your
> website at www.ExampleRestaurant.com and I can't find the link to
> order online!"
>
> We redesigned the promo material for all the restaurants with the
> leading "www." to make sure people knew that the "ORDER" was part of
> the domain name to use and not an instruction to order at their
> site... we shipped out new boxes to all the restaurants and it took
> about 2-3 weeks for all the boxes to get to the restaurants. Sure
> enough, online ordering spiked heavily at first (due to the couponing)
> and then settled to about where we expected it, well above 8,000
> orders a month.
Interesting. Obviously an exception to the rule.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
| Mark Goodge wrote
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:02:53 -0400, Viper put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>
> No, he owns sellyourhouseforfree.com
He knows that, Mark, he's just being awkward.
> Back on the original subject, one aspect of using www is that many
> mail and news clients will assume that a string starting with www and
> containing one or more dots is a website address and make it clickable
> by default. That can be useful when writing your site in an email or
> news posting. But, on the other hand, sometimes it can be a pain in
> the neck!
"http://" does the trick!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Martin Harran 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
|
"Chris Hope" <blackhole@electrictoolbox.com> wrote in message
news:444fc782@news.orcon.net.nz...
Martin Harran wrote:
>Now the issue you have is it will be indexed twice, and you have people
>linking to two different domains. Incoming links are an important
>factor in Google's search algorithms and you've just split incoming
>links between two different domains. This is a bad thing.
>[snip]
Right, got it now, thanks.
I thought that having both in site headers was same thing, obviously it's
not.
| |
| Martin Harran 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97B1D4B312FD7mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
> Seriously. I couldn't think of a better way to do it. Plus I am relying
> on people knowing that a domain name does not have spaces or line breaks
> in
> it.
Tut, tut, Charles, all those years in computing and you still expect users
to do the intelligent thing?
I'm disappointed in you ;)
| |
| Mark Parnell 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
| Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ken Sims
<ng3122@kensims.#nospam#.net.invalid> declared in alt.www.webmaster:
> This does mean that if someone tries to go to 'example.com' in their
> browser it isn't going to resolve, but since all of the references in
> search engines, etc. are going to have 'www.example.com', that
> *shouldn't* really be a problem.
FWIW, I almost always type in a URL without the www. It's frustrating
when it doesn't work.
--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
| |
| Mark Parnell 2006-04-26, 7:10 pm |
| Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Dylan Parry
<usenet@dylanparry.com> declared in alt.www.webmaster:
> Then there's radio/TV, where
> the actor having to say "double-u, double-u, double-u, dot"
The radio station I listen to when advertising their web site always
"the double-u-s dot ..."
--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
| |
| Martin Harran 2006-04-26, 10:52 pm |
|
"Mark Parnell" <webmaster@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in message
news:xuocosg0b3ky.dlg@markparnell.com.au...
> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ken Sims
> <ng3122@kensims.#nospam#.net.invalid> declared in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> FWIW, I almost always type in a URL without the www. It's frustrating
> when it doesn't work.
If I know it's a dot com, I simply type the name and CTRL, RETURN - IE adds
the http://www. and the .com.
| |
| Mark Parnell 2006-04-26, 10:52 pm |
| Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Martin Harran
<nospam@martinharran.com> declared in alt.www.webmaster:
> If I know it's a dot com, I simply type the name and CTRL, RETURN - IE adds
> the http://www. and the .com.
I'm more often visiting .com.au sites. Plus I don't use IE. :-)
Firefox will automatically do a Google "I'm feeling lucky" search if you
just type the word in - can be useful occasionally, but it's annoying
more often than not IMHO.
--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
| |
| Chris Hope 2006-04-26, 10:52 pm |
| Mark Parnell wrote:
> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Dylan Parry
> <usenet@dylanparry.com> declared in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> The radio station I listen to when advertising their web site always
> "the double-u-s dot ..."
I like to say "dub dub dub"
--
Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
| |
| Disco Octopus 2006-04-26, 10:52 pm |
| Disco Octopus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have noticed lately that some sites are only being deployed when the
> 'www' subdomain is used.
>
> eg, example.com (for example) will not be displayed, but www.example.com
> will be displayed.
>
> I have always used both (eg choicebeefjerky.com.au and
> www.choicebeefjerky.com.au).
>
> Does anyone here have any comments or suggestions on best practices for
> this?
>
> Thanks
OK. Thanks all for input on this one.
I will look into redirecting the non-www to the www using 301 redirects.
--
if the oil light is on, dont think it will just go away
| |
| Ken Sims 2006-04-27, 3:52 am |
| Hi William -
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:30:32 +0100, "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>aye - just the spoken word may catch out a few.
Most of my domains that don't do email are obsolete domains where I
keep the 'www.example.com' with various redirects just because too
many webmasters never check their external links. One is just a
similar domain name that no one should ever actually use.
The one with a www. that actually has real content is so long and
convuluted that I would never try to say it to anyone anyway. I'd
direct them to my main domain (which does have an A record without the
www. and a 301 to the www) and tell them what links to click.
>would using a CNAME solve the problem for you?
Theoretically yes, but in practicality, I doubt it. Spamware writers
probably just use a resolver library that will automatically follow
the CNAME and return the IP address(es) of the referenced host.
>If not, I suppose it's no real headache to set the MX to localhost.
I don't know if the interface for the third-party name servers I use
will allow that. I know that it *won't* allow an null MX record
because I tried it.
--
Ken
http://www.kensims.net/
| |
| Ken Sims 2006-04-27, 3:52 am |
| Hi Mark -
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:53:55 +1000, Mark Parnell
<webmaster@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
>Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ken Sims
><ng3122@kensims.#nospam#.net.invalid> declared in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
>FWIW, I almost always type in a URL without the www. It's frustrating
>when it doesn't work.
See my response to William.
--
Ken
http://www.kensims.net/
| |
| Dylan Parry 2006-04-27, 6:57 am |
| Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", Chris Hope
finally proclaimed:
> I like to say "dub dub dub"
Three men in a tub? :\
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2006-04-27, 6:57 am |
| Martin Harran wrote
>
> "Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97B1D4B312FD7mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
>
>
> Tut, tut, Charles, all those years in computing and you still expect
> users to do the intelligent thing?
>
> I'm disappointed in you ;)
:o)
The most common response I get to the ad is "how do you make money from
that?"!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2006-04-27, 6:57 am |
| Disco Octopus wrote
> I will look into redirecting the non-www to the www using 301
redirects.
I do it the other way around. For me the wwws are totally superfluous.
Do you have the code for the redirect? In PHP I use this:
if((substr($HTTP_HOST,0,4)) == "www.")
{
$domain = substr($HTTP_HOST,4);
header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently");
header("Location: http://$domain$REQUEST_URI");
}
This will work for the domain:
www.example.com
And for URIs:
www.example.com/this/that.htm
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Dylan Parry 2006-04-27, 6:57 am |
| Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", Charles
Sweeney finally proclaimed:
> if((substr($HTTP_HOST,0,4)) == "www.")
> {
> $domain = substr($HTTP_HOST,4);
> header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently");
> header("Location: http://$domain$REQUEST_URI");
> }
I do a similar thing, but using .htaccess instead:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.electricfreedom\.org
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://electricfreedom.org/$1 [R=301,L]
In addition to a whole bunch of other redirects I have set up to
internally translate requests like "/artist/example" (with and without a
trailing slash) to "/artist.php?id=example"
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
| |
| Disco Octopus 2006-04-27, 6:57 am |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Disco Octopus wrote
>
>
> I do it the other way around. For me the wwws are totally superfluous.
>
> Do you have the code for the redirect? In PHP I use this:
>
> if((substr($HTTP_HOST,0,4)) == "www.")
....probably do something that is case insesitive maybe.
> {
>
> $domain = substr($HTTP_HOST,4);
>
> header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently");
> header("Location: http://$domain$REQUEST_URI");
>
> }
>
> This will work for the domain:
>
> www.example.com
>
> And for URIs:
>
> www.example.com/this/that.htm
I would probably sooner do this type of thing using rewrite rules in my
..htaccess file. Just seems the more /proper/ place for this type of thing.
like Dylan suggests.
Although, I am now at odds with myself deciding on whether to keep or ditch
the www.
The reasons for doing this are clear to me, but deciding on which way to go
is now the headache.
--
Cook with the kids, then eat with the kids. Its heaps of fun.
| |
|
| In <1859vu0j0ugxc.cgoqlhpa92jp.dlg@40tude.net>,
Disco Octopus <discooctopus@yahoo.com> mentions:
>Hi,
>
>I have noticed lately that some sites are only being deployed when the
>'www' subdomain is used.
>
>eg, example.com (for example) will not be displayed, but www.example.com
>will be displayed.
>
>I have always used both (eg choicebeefjerky.com.au and
>www.choicebeefjerky.com.au).
>
>Does anyone here have any comments or suggestions on best practices for
>this?
I'd say "best practice" is to limit to www.example.com and just shut
off any web server on example.com, (so that you can't access a web
server there)
However...
I get annoyed at sites that require a .www, it's a hassle and I seldom
use it.
I guess the reason one should always use a www (or other subdomain, I kind of
like http myself) is that, imagine a time in the future when some new tech
takes over, making HTTP as antiquated as gopher. Then we might regret not
using www.host.com. (routers and load balancers and all that jazz probably
make this not such a huge concern, really.. but we're talking "best practices"
here)
In the meanwhile, I'd rather make it easy for people to find me, so
I frequently just use geniegate.com
One thing I've read about, seems like an incredible hack to me though.. is
using: http://SessionID.www.example.com/ to deal with browser cookie
issues. (what I read made it sound like some sort of advanced super-guru
thing to do.. but.. seems to me like just a good way of making a mess)
Jamie
--
http://www.geniegate.com Custom web programming
guhzo_42@lnubb.pbz (rot13) User Management Solutions
| |
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|