Discuss website design for ecommerce sites, useability, navigation and other development considerations. To get feedback on your t-shirt design(s) or website, please post a request in our Site Reviews and Design Reviews section here.
I'm not sure you what you mean exactly ... "exact same" in terms of what? And what problem did you have before? Do you mean like www dot tdott dot com and tdott dot com (sorry couldn't figure out how to display the actually URL, the post kept inserting the title of the page (argghhh!))? Why would this NOT be ok? The only differences that I know of between the two deal with SSL certificates and DNS servers. -Tom
It really shouldnt matter if you just want people to come to your site. www[.]mysite[.]com and mysite[.]com is pretty much the same usually.
when it comes to SSL certificates though, you have to use the right prefix (www or whatever) that you registered it with unless you buy a wildcard certificate (which works on *[.]mysite[.]com).
What I tend to do with SSL is do a dedicated subdomain for SSL like secure[.]mysite[.]com or checkout[.]mysite[.]com
Course I couldve misunderstood the question and wasted time typing stuff you care note about, but I can't sleep so whateva
well, I read an article a few years ago that basicaly said that if you have a URL WWW-DOMAIN-COM and also DOMAIN-COM, the content on that page/URL is exactly the same. So, by having 2 URL's that have the same exact content is a waste of webspace, it will also DUPlicate the entire site, the same site/content for the WWW-SITE as for the NO-WWW-SITE.
so if you have 500 page site, now you have 1000 page site because of the WWW and NO-WWW Duplicate-issue.
some call this web polution because it was/is not necessary and more work for the indexing bots, more URL's to crawl.
I was just curious if this is still the same problem today or if any new developments have come to light without manualy doing 301 Redirects, server side redirects type thing as Kent mentioned.
Hmm, not sure what article you read, but that sounds pretty dumb coming from "professionals" lol. It's the same site no matter how you access it. Nowadays you don't have to put www before everything because 1) servers are setup to handle it, and 2) browsers sometimes do it for you.
So it's not "pollution", you just access the site a different way. For example:
On a side note to this, where I work, they have blocked certain sites like youtube and such. If you don't put the "www" in front, you can bypass the system and access the sites. Hmmm.
__________________
The original Thread Killah!™ Heavy Metal Art and more @ www.deathisgain.com
I agree that my IT department sucks. Especialy when I need something done. I found this out from an individual who works for Home Depot and they do the same thing.
__________________
The original Thread Killah!™ Heavy Metal Art and more @ www.deathisgain.com
www.yoursite.com and yoursite.com are the same. I guess Google has to treat the 2 different because the possibility of home.yoursite.com and www.yoursite.com, at least according to that article.
__________________ vMatches.com - Social networking and dating site.
It seems like there might be slightly more problem with this than I would've guessed, based on some of the SEO discussion I've seen about it. I still don't think it's really essential to have http://---.--- redirect to http://www.---.--- (or vice-versa), but you might as well. Just one more small step that might help your rankings slightly.
Is the WWW and NO-WWW still a problem ? 
Re: Is the WWW and NO-WWW still a problem ? 
