

Ask HN: New project – go with www.projectname.com or just projectname.com - xyby

What do you guys think? Does it matter? Companies seem to handle it about 50% this way and 50% that way:<p><pre><code>    twitter.com
    www.airbnb.com
    balsamiq.com
    www.reddit.com
    jsfiddle.net
    ...</code></pre>
======
davismwfl
I generally go without the www personally.

There is no SEO difference that I am aware of as long as you do proper
redirects. One person pointed out to me that with a naked domain you lose the
ability to scope cookies to the www hostname. But does that really matter?
Doesn't to me, at least yet.

In the past, I know some DNS providers had issues with naked domains and
redirects, so that may come into play if you have one of those providers. By
now though, I would think they all support it properly.

------
chatmasta
The only important part (in terms of SEO) is that you pick one and stick with
it. Setup a 301 redirect from the other one. Google interprets the www as
different sub domains, and therefore different domains. (Search for "one way
street" SEO theory -- top level domain can pass juice down, but not vice
versa. That's why places like hubspot don't suffer from spammy subdomains)

------
storborg
There are two advantages to using www.* for a main web site.

1\. As luaks points out, you can use a CNAME to alias just the webserver,
without affecting MX configuration, etc.

2\. You can have use alternate subdomains (like static.example.com or
cdn.example.com) for handling static content and prevent cookies from being
sent with those HTTP requests. This is a slight performance gain.

~~~
xyby
Good summary. I tended to go without the www. Now I'm not so sure anymore.

------
luaks
For a new project it will probably not matter at all. The thing with www
though is, that you can use CNAMEs for aliasing on the DNS level. Technically
you can use CNAMEs on domain root to alias the whole domain to another one,
thus leading to you not being able to add other records (for example MX) to
this domain, which you probably want to do.

------
atmosx
Hm, I like subdomains more than url stubs. I like more 'atmosx.github.com'
than 'github.com/atmosx'. So I like having mail.domain.com, www.domain.com,
ftp.domain.com, shop.domain.com, blog.domain.com, etc.

But I don't think it's such a big deal. Especially if you're not planning to
use all these subdomains... Then [http://domain.com](http://domain.com) is
more than fine, as long as you setup a rdr.

------
brandonhsiao
I say without the www looks more appealing.

The www was included for a time when browsers were not the primary way people
used the internet, and so you needed to specify www the way you specify, say,
ftp. Nowadays everyone assumes something.com means port 80.

As long as you redirect www to @ you should be fine for SEO, right?

~~~
theoh
The protocol was never inferred from the hostname. The reason web servers were
called "www" is that they were first introduced on institutional IP networks
among other servers and workstations. www was typically an alias for one of
the multi-purpose servers, as ftp or smtp were.

~~~
brandonhsiao
I meant that humans inferred the protocol from the hostname, and that now most
people by default just thinks of a host as a url to put into a browser.

~~~
theoh
Ok, but remember that URL syntax was invented with the web. Before the URL
existed it was conventional to write "available via FTP from quiz.baz.com" (or
"via gopher" or whatever.) In the pre-"eternal september" days people were
happy to use that formula even though it was a bit long-winded. I can't figure
out a way to check for exceptions to that rule but it was the prevalent form
of words.

------
anarchitect
It's slightly more convenient to use www for the reasons luaks points out, but
it's more about what you prefer.

For SEO just ensure you do 301 redirects from your non-preferred one to your
preferred one (same goes with HTTP and HTTPS if that is a factor for you).

------
TheDom
Check out [http://www.yes-www.org/why-use-www/](http://www.yes-www.org/why-
use-www/) if you're not aware of it already. I agree with all the points
raised there and would use www myself.

