digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

It’s Time to Drop the “www”

dmiessler.com — It’s no longer necessary to use “www” when referring to websites. It’s a waste of storage, a waste of ink, and it takes 2-5 times as long to pronounce as saying the domain by itself. Enter no-www.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tippmann1, on 10/10/2007, -9/+469why the hell cant my computer just read my mind yet?
    • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -1/+42Actually it can.
      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/brain.html
      • nakani, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Wow, that was an amazingly interesting read!
        • GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16I'll second that and get buried right along with ya. Yes I see the green thumb, shut up.
      • eTronicGaming, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26You used www! =O
      • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2those aren't thoughts
    • coollettuce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+77Gosh darn blog spam.
      http://www.no-www.org/ (don't forget the www)
    • Archon810, on 10/10/2007, -6/+80Here's a trick (IE and FF):

      Type into the browser bar: digg, ctrl-Enter. OMG, it's a miracle!
      • jcaino, on 10/10/2007, -3/+43hell, just type 'digg' and hit enter

        firefox will automaticall pull up google's first result.
        • Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2just type di and safari autocompletes the rest from your history. Can't be the only browser to do this, surely.

          likewises, just typing 'n' on my machine brings up news.bbc.co.uk
      • mikeon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24Don't forget the keyword shortcuts in firefox! Right click on a bookmark, go down to it's properties and add a keyword for it. Type that keyword in and bam, you get to that site. E.G. yt= youtube for me.
        • kodek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Heh. I have that same keyword shortcut. That along with WP for wikipedia and google for Yahoo (just kidding) is how I do 99% of my web browsing.
        • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Me too... its appalling to see how many people rely on browser saved history instead
        • MikeMcG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Better yet: Add keywords to a websites search if it has one. I have y assigned to YouTube so I can type 'y cute kittens' and search for cute kitten videos.
        • illogicz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I do the same for searches, saves so much time:
          g my search; to search google
          yt my search; for youtube.
          wp my search; for wikipedia
          tpb for pirate bay
          etc etc.

          One of my absolute favorite firefox features.
          • neau, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Same for Opera.
          • spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I also have:
            map for Google Maps
            gs for gamespot
            mailinator to check the specified email address
            filext to check the specified file extension
            whois for DNS lookup

            and more! I love love love this feature!
        • KicktheDonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow... I never knew about the Keyword thing... thanks!
        • Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Comment system screwed this one up. Sorry guys.
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Safari will add the http://www. and try a .com if you just enter a word. If that doesn't work it pulls up a google search box

        Soooooo damn handy
        • Kevinb1577, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6double post, digg down...


          or up!
        • Kevinb1577, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11yeah, firefox does the same
        • doshindude, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3not really.
        • thunderer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6You can also do "google/images" in Safari and it'll know to pull up http://www.google.com/images.
        • Yoshi39, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Firefox dosn't do that but rather it goes to the "I'm feeling lucky" result on google (which IMHO is even better)
          Example: to go to newgrounds.com simply type grounds and hit enter
          • sinembarg0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1type google into the adress bar and ironically it will search for google. It does not always use the I' feeling lucky approach.
      • kingfoot, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5OR apple+enter if you use a mac :D
        • trunkster, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Not sure why you are getting dugg down.. that is the shortcut in osx.
      • EntangledPhysx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Why the hell cant Firefox just automatically add those suffixes by just pressing enter? SERIOUSLY. wtf???
        • temporalbassist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0...Try searching through a directory, like your C: for example. Your computer would implode if you went to http://www.C..com
      • N10E, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This reminds me of a hilarious story. I was over a friends place with a couple of my friends there. One of my friends was looking on how to spell something. My friend told him to go to the computer open Firefox and "Put in Dick and Press down". He really meant for him to type 'dic' so the address bar would bring up Dictionary dot com.
      • Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This trick (ctrl enter) works in Opera as well, I am pleased to say
    • donwilson2, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4Chamillionaire, a rapper (oh no!), says "three-w's". Still unnecessary, but still.
      • alpha2omega, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2wu tang clan ain't nuthin to ***** wit
      • JoshuaH, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9It saves him time, so he can get back to ridin' dirty.
    • JefffN, on 10/10/2007, -3/+164 "The World Wide Web is the only thing I know of whose shortened form takes three times longer to say than its long form."

      – Douglas Adams, The Independent on Sunday, 1999
      • starseed420, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38R.I.P.
      • stenhard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14That in itself is reason enough to keep it. It helps me weed out the telepone sanitizers of this world (and any other).
      • superpotential, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6a lot of people say "dub dub dub"
        • nicko68, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I propose saying "3dub". Anyone with me? :)
        • stevecole, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Silly me: I've been reading it all along. So, it's not "wuhwuhwuh"?
    • po43292, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I type "gmail" in my URL bar and it goes straight to my inbox. Yes Google stole my soul.
      • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9nope.. just like any Faustian pact you had to willingly surrender it.
      • Endemoniada, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I just have to type 'gm' to get there. Firefox keywords to the rescue!
    • Mjolniir, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2It can totally read your mind. That's why it crashes all the time. Naughty.
    • slicky803, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16That would be dangerous. A hot co-worker walks by and BOOM..porn site.
    • michaelb1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11How will the computer know which global system of networked computers we want to access digg on?
    • linuxrebel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Patience please tippmann1.... we finally got our flying cars the other day. ;)
    • yaddayaddayoda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You are not thinking in Russian. Remember: you must think in Russian!
      • Battlecry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Firefox. Sweet. I get it :)
        • toonworld, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1referring of course to the movie released in 1982 starring Clint Eastwood, in case some of you didn't know.
    • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Yes I agree the www in most cases is totally unnecessary, for example in UCLA they have www.ursa.ucla.edu. The "www" is totally a waste.
      There are cases though when "www" is a good idea. For example by having "www.address.com", "ftp.address.com" etc etc. You can easilly split traffic to separate servers, that can be even located in other sides of the globe.

      Anyway, the reason why "www" was used, was because anything before the domain, was a name of the computer you wanted to connect. Many companies had dedicated servers for www, so that's how they called their computers.
    • Nodren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9www has alot of uses... for instance a site with secure and unsecure pages(pretty much any ecommerce site) if they use a wildcard certificate (matches *.domain.com) it wont match just domain.com so you need something before it.. in those cases its alot easier to use www.domain.com instead of just having domain.com and then switching over to secure.domain.com on a ssl page, and back again to domain.com (i work for a site that does exactly what i'm talking about)

      either way, theres no reason to drop the www... if its really a big deal, dont enter it... its up to the site itself to direct you appropriately if you enter it or not.
      • etruscan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My site redirects the no "www." to the "www." version. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the Googlebot choke over having to crawl two apparently unique pages with identical content.
      • jhshukla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you still have to switch between www.domain.com and secure.domain.com
  • twrife, on 10/10/2007, -16/+113People still use that?
    • Roger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+119You know http://www.[site].com isn't the same as http://[site].com ?
      • nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3how so?
        • SiRwhilms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16They are two separate DNS records: www as what we think of as a "subdomain", and just the plain domain. When you register a domain, it automatically sets the record for "www".
        • mikeon, on 10/10/2007, -20/+1Because they are different? What I've seen done is sites with the www.[site].com will buy up the [site].com domain as well and have [site].com redirect to www.[site].com. Otherwise, someone else will go in and buy up [site].com and have a completely different content than www.[site].com. Or they might just park on it and sell it.
          • mikesherov, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16um, no. If you own www.[site].com, you own [site].com. Now if you meant to say that people buy www[no dot][site].com, then you're right. This type of typosquatting has been around a long time.
          • tomi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Do you realise how much sense that doesn't make?
          • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@mikesharov:
            not necesairly, but if you own [site].com you own www.[site].com
            "www" of www.[site].com can be delegated to other people, and they can have complete access over it and other subdomains of that.
        • kinghajj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11@mikeon

          That's not how domains work. When you buy [site].com, you automatically get options to create any subdomain you want. At least that's my understanding. Subdomains are meant, in most cases, to distinguish services, like "www" or "ftp".
          • PathDaemon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And there's a point here. The old, hard core web people would want to keep the www to distinguish it from other services offered through alternate subdomains.
            The new school thinks that, as www is the most common use for domains, it should be the default.

            Everyone else has no idea what any of this means.

            Me, I'm sad that Digg is only Class A.
        • mark_1581, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4@kinghajj For the most part you are right. Subdomains are meant do distinguish one host (or server) from another. The http:// and ftp:// tell the browser that you are using to use a certain protocol (http vs ftp).
          • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It also alowed to easily have dedicated servers for those services.
        • mark_1581, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Damn this comment system plus alcohol is a lethal combination when trying to write a coherent thought.
          • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2thought + alcohol = - coherency .... much like www you can leave the comment system out
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I'm a fan of misconfigured sites where they're not. Or, better yet, when one doesn't redirect to the other. My old school did this - leave out the WWW and it times out (even when you're on their network), put it on and it comes right up.
        • sinkhead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I hate it when websites do that because I never put the www.
      • InetRoadkill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Because it's two distinct entries in the DNS name server. "www.domain.com" is a subdomain to "domain.com". However, a lot of sites will equate www.whatever.com to whatever.com. But some don't. It's rather annoying. Whenever I set up a DNS name server, I always set both the www and non-www to the same ip address for convenience. There's usually no reason not to.
        • mark_1581, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's not the site itself that equates www.domain.com to domain.com (although if properly configured and has correct DNS entries it can), but how the entries are entered in DNS. Some ISPs that offer DNS hosting don't support defaulting domain.com forwarding to www.domain.com, while others do.
        • spiffytech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7It's even better when you set Apache to redirect www.site.com to site.com (or vice-verse) so that all visitors get the same links.
          • Niten, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And this in turn helps your Google standings, as you won't have links to the www and non-www 'versions' of your site competing against one another for PageRank.
      • selrahc, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4 They both take me to the same page. Obviously they are the same.
      • superpotential, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3http://mit.edu/ and http://web.mit.edu/ are the same, but http://www.mit.edu/ is a different server entirely.
        try for example
        http://mit.edu/~sipb/
        and
        http://www.mit.edu/~sipb/
        which will take you to different places.
        • doskir, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1uhm yeah because the link WITH the www doesnt remove the ~ making the link unusable http://www.mit.edu/sipb/ see it works with the www too so basically same server but someone at mit ***** up the settings...
      • Rukaribe, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1I use www. and always will because it is syntaxily correct. That's just how the world works and if you don't like it I hope evolution kills you off for your lazyness because your living space is extremely dirty and infecteous.
    • Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12People still use it, and quite a few people still expect it.
      I made a web site for a client of mine that let him add associates. The associate would pick a name, say "example" and if you went to example.client.com you got their customizable page. A problem arose when a LOT of potential customers couldn't get to any of the associates' pages. It turns out that either the associate would tell someone to go to www.example.client.com, or they'd say it the correct way and the customer would add the www. on their own. I just had no idea that people automatically assume that the www has to be there.
      • cruxop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The fact that www.example.client.com did not automatically redirect to example.client.com is the server administrators problem.
        He didn't know or wasn't paid to know that a redirection listing was needed. Admins can redirect any subdomain or any domain to any other domain/subdomain.
      • h4ppydotcom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, cruxop, you can do this, but the point is that it is funny how people have become programmed by their computers to carry out a conditioned response to a given web address. This "assuming I need to add www" thing is very common, especially amongst people that do not have much computer experience.
    • ewsherm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I dont even type ,com anymore, i just use firefox's nifty ctr + enter.
      • h4ppydotcom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Internet Exploder always had this feature too, it is incredible how many people don't know about it and still slavishly type in the full h-t-t-p-:-/-/-w-w-w-.-[domainname]-.-c-o-m . Especially since the people that don't know about it are usually the slowest typers!
    • jugger74, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Ahhh ya 10 years ago called and it wants its idea back. Who doesn't omit the www. on the internets anymore?
      • orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, 20 years ago called and it wants its joke back, too.
    • Chongo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Unfortunately in the print industry, WWW is still used in things like catalogs, etc. You have to write this stuff for the lowest common denominator. That way when you are NOT using WWW (like in Lunacy's example) then the reader should know what to do. It has been brought up at the office alot though. Its very annoying to fit in WWW when you have space restrictions.
    • h4ppydotcom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The other problem is that email programs do not always recognise addresses that do not start with www as being links. So you either have to put http:// in front or www. in front.
      • RipRapRob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So true! I was waiting for someone to point this out.

        And what do you think is easier on the eye:::

        www.digg.com
        or
        http://digg.com

        And as someone else pointed out: A lot of people type "www." i front of all web adresses, regardless.
      • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Honestly I think http://digg.com looks better.
    • Rustbelt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It's important to remember that there are people, lots of people in fact, that only use the internet for work. This may shock a lot of us but I actually know people who don't have the internet at home. Yes, I was flabbergasted myself. They use the internet but don't have much use for it outside of work. Some of them don't even know what a browser is. They just click on the big "E" and type in their addresses with www in front. And why not? Every advertisement for a website they've ever seen in their life told them to.

      On the other hand, I know a throttle body assembly is important for my car to run but when it breaks I go to my mechanic. Just because I'm familiar with my car doesn't mean I know every little thing about how it works.
  • crapplebees2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+292The site no-www.org has not had a post since 2005. This is stupid.
    • MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -46/+3Stupid?
      THIS IS SPARTAAA!!!
      I couldn't help myself

      sorry
    • Bobski, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29I still think the best site name in the world is http://www.com - too bad it's never been developed into anything useful.
      • jiub, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I like www.dotcom.com

        • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Ever tried saying slashdot's address?

          h t t p colon slash slash slash dot dot org


          • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5write "/." (without quotes) in firefox and see where it takes you :)
          • mmortal03, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7It froze firefox for a couple seconds and then didn't go anywhere.
          • DerekJ212, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That goes to my / directory listing in Ubuntu
          • changyang1230, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It doesn't work on my firefox 2.0.0.5. I think it used to work, they might have taken it out.
    • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4http://no-www.org/ doesn't need new posts.... "www. is deprecated" is sufficient!!
    • djpants428, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1extremely simple apache config file change ftw!!
  • sgtkwol, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2You mean the genious of a customer I had one time that said affa-affa-affa adelphia.net instead of www.adelphia.net. That really is a waste of time.
    • jlgosse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18What!? How does www look anything like affa-affa-affa?
      • elint6, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1the guy had a stuttering problem when vowels are the first syllables.
    • seether166, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16I feel safe in the knowledge that a "genious" such as yourself was probably well-equipped to set said moron straight.
  • buggles, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7910 years overdue
  • tnatharik, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17It has been there ever since it has been there.
  • RubberBand, on 10/10/2007, -16/+49Everyone knows that the only reason people say 'www' before the actual address is to sound tech-savvy to the computer-illiterate.
    • Bobski, on 10/10/2007, -17/+9No, moron - it is because sometimes addresses begin with ftp.site.com. or mail.site.com, or such - which are NOT web sites. The Web IS NOT the Internt - ass.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Um, no.

        There is nothing stopping you from putting a web server at the IP address mail.site.com points to. That is kinda the reason we put different services on different ports.
        • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Maybe in your home server you're fine with one IP, but some companies prefer to have dedicated servers for given services.
      • prockcore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's true, the web isn't the internet, but the http:// is what indicates a web page, not the www... and in a web browser, http:// is implied.
    • ilyasishak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0i couldnt agree more :)
  • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -7/+123If you set up a web server, it's your responsibility to make sure that the WWW is effectively optional but allowed.

    Bad: Requires the lead 'www'
    Worse: Breaks when someone uses 'www'
    • HigherLogic, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24Better: Redirects to 'www' if someone doesn't add it.

      Sorry, website URLs feel naked to me without the leading www. Besides, I'm so used to typing in a domain without the TLD and hitting CTRL + Enter, where it automatically adds the .com and www.
      • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2It only looks naked if there aren't multiple language versions of the page... I've noticed www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmoset looks rather ugly.
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7What about .org and .net? Half the sites I frequent aren't on .com.
        • tomi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16net = shift
          org = ctrl+shift
        • tomi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18This comment isn't really here, you've just had to much to drink. You shall now digg both comments. You will not remember this comment or any instruction I have given you.
        • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5what about pl, us, eu, cc, tk, ru, hk, jp, gov, mil, biz, info, aero, museum, int, arpa, xxx (ok that one didn't pass :))
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6So Digg is naked? Look up.
        • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hey!
          Half of the digg users just started to mastrubate :P
    • Kypt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I personally like www, it tells me exactly what I'm doing. For example, I can go to ftp.mydomain.com and know this is for my ftp, I have irc.mydomain.com and I know that's for my irc server, so it makes sense that www.mydomain.com is for my page. Like you said, I like to give the option but like HigherLogic's way better, put it in there if they forget.
      • Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3So what is mydomain.com (without any prefix) for? Why not make it so no prefix defaults to www?
      • salmonmoose, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7the http:// doesn't give it away?
        • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1www is shorter and easier to type than http://
          • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's not the reason. Think about having dedicated servers just for www. Dedicated for ftp, mail etc.
            Most ISPs actually does that.
        • superpotential, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1if ftp is used with ftp.mydomain.com, i would prefer http.mydomain.com instead of www.mydomain.com
    • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5even better: www redirects user to second level domain

      comically better: www redirects user to a re-education page about www

    • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I follow the no-www "class b" guideline... You can use any way on my site, but the URL will be rewritten for the www-less variant, to inform the user that it's not necessary.
    • intense321, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Hi. I own a webserver, but I have no idea how to set it up so that I can just go to example.com versus www.example.com. I am using Apache. How do I set this up?
    • kinerry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2uiowa.edu versus www.uiowa.edu

      try it, I dare you
      • Flanker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah it's absolutely amazing to me how many sites that get reasonably high traffic still don't have their servers configured to allow no-www! I hate you mednet.ucla.edu. I mean www.sonofabitch.mednet.ucla.edu
  • drewfer, on 10/10/2007, -6/+90I rarely ever type www. , maybe only when the website doesn't work.
    • Slog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Try Ctrl+Enter. Eliminate the need for typing .com as well.

      Also, try Ctrl+Shift+Enter for .org or Alt+Shift+Enter for .net if needed.
      • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4yes, because holding down three keys is so much more convenient than tapping four in a row
        • aceallways, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6yes...it is
        • Slog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You have to hit enter anyway so adding 1 key instead of 4 seems much more convenient.
    • kaylavy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0yeah I never type www only when websites won't load or something.
    • burnswhenipee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0...and that would fix things how? o_0

  • aazn, on 10/10/2007, -42/+27What about the pages that need www in the subdomain to work, you ***** retard?
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -27/+10Don't worry, hes probably a freaking mac user that thinks that even the single button that apple let him keep on his mouse should be removed because it confuses people too much.
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Go ***** yourself you stereotyping wanker

        Sorry if that was harsh, but it was definitely fun to say
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Jesus christ now I know why I blocked you. Why the ***** are your ***** comments showing up again?
      • yagidem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Couldn't agree more, sad to see this comment dugg down...
        If only people would think.
    • d03boy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16The only pages that "need" www to work are the ones that are configured to only work like that. In other words, cut the crap and stop requiring the www.
      • pucky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't forget that those of us that don't have static IP's for our site and have to use things like dynamic DNS or the FQDN's that our service providers provide us...... you can't CNAME domain.com.

        the following works:
        www.domain.com IN CNAME ghs.google.com.

        while the following doesn't:

        domain.com IN CNAME ghs.google.com.

        normally the domain has to have and IP address, for example godaddy assigns the domain.com IN A record to a parked server.


        So we need www, just because WEB 2.0 says it looks sexy and less typing does not mean it works for every occasion.

        I use amazon EC2 for my hosting servers (note: hosting not domaining)
    • MrSketch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Those sites should be taken off the web and shot.
    • zendin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0if it's a subdomain wouldn't it *replace* the www in the URL?
    • crapmatic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I had no idea the word "retard" was still in vogue. I thought it died out with the 10-year olds back in the 1980s.
      • jobney76, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0The kids today over use the word "gay" in place of stupid or retarded. I've been trying to get my co-workers to grow out of it but it's not working.
    • legendxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2aazn you are an idiot
  • jkizzle, on 10/10/2007, -13/+48sorry, but quoting wikipedia doesn't make you credible.
    • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5what??? truth isn't a function of consensus??!
    • psiDevil98, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And all these years I thought Loose Change was credible...
    • DarkDragon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3[Citation Needed]
    • PunkRampant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4My elephant friends beg to differ. Their population has recently tripled.
  • JordanM85, on 10/10/2007, -13/+73www is here to stay. No amount of diggs or lame website can change that.
  • AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -12/+60The "www" is necessary in an environment where you want to differentiate your web server from, say, your mail server (or servers for other services) without having any ambiguity. Now that the web is mush more popular than most other services (how long since anyone's used gopher, for instance?), it may seem superfluous, but it still has it's uses.
    • zeromancer, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8"Now that the web is mush more popular"

      i pictured a funny image of a little asian guy with his hands together and a one of those shroom cap hats when i read that. with his eyes closed of course. and smiling. and bowing. lol
    • mikes1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Agree.

      The poster, and the article, are both clearly clueless about how DNS works, and the difference between a host name and a domain name. Damn noobs.
      • Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Disagree.

        You seem to think you are knowledgable about how DNS works, and the difference between a host name and a domain name. www.digg.com is a host name. digg.com is a host name. com is a domain name (a Top Level Domain to be exact). The difference between a host name and a domain name is the association of an IP address. "www.domain.com" refers to the www host, and you can tell it should have a web server. "ftp.domain.com" refers to the ftp host, and you can tell it should have an FTP server. "domain.com" has historically not referred to anything, but there is really no technical reason you couldn't use it to refer to www. How many FTP servers do you know that don't use ftp.? How many mail servers do you know that don't use mail.(or equivalent)? Now, how many web servers do you know of that don't use www.? Having no third level domain has already been associated with www for quite a while now, and I can think of no reason we shouldn't just take this all the way.
        Yes, we should still keep www for naming conventions, but requiring it is entirely unnecessary.
        • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Belive me, I tried to call my server domain.com I couldn't find a good way to do it while playing with DNS so I needed to do hostname.domain.com and the domain.com is just an alias that Apache was configured to recognize.
          My server works when is called domain.com but internally it always claims itself to be hostname.domain.com
          • Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Set up domain.com the same way as www.domain.com, it's just another subdomain. It's really no different at all.
            You can either use an A record or a cname to www (Personally I use the cname).
            I don't have much experience with IIS, but I know Apache is extremely easy to set up this way, as you said it's just an alias.

            Your server works when it is called domain.com, that's great! That's ALL I want. I don't care what's going on internally behind the scenes, just as long as I don't have to type/say/stutter www when going there or telling others about it.
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Hardly. No prefix implies www; a mail, pop, imap, ftp, or something else to that general effect implies the subdomain is for the same name - mail is often for http/s webmail, pop, imap, and ftp for client-side software access of that protocol.
    • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7NNNnnooo... that's what the protocol is for

      "http://" + "www" : "www" is redundant in the URL.
      • jiggawhat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6That's a protocol. That should have nothing to do with the hostname.

        I really wish people would realize the internet might be a huge commercial machine, it still needs a bit of old fashioned nerdy organization to not become even more of a mess than it is.
        • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1read it again, but this time let it sink in: "www" is redundant in the URL
          • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1no it is not, www tells you not what protocol to access but which computer. If the domain is only for www and is only for one computer then I agree.

            I don't know if you noticed, some big companes not only have www but also www1 www2 www3 etc. etc. They have separate farm of servers for each of them and this alows them to split traffic on them without having one central machine with a huge bandwidth.
        • fortezza, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You are correct. If I know the domain name is domain.org, then I should have to put www.domain.org for the Web site. The root domain may be directed to a DNS server, mail server, or somethign else. So, just putting http://domain.org may have unintended results.
        • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1**emphasis** on URL
        • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"That's a protocol. That should have nothing to do with the hostname."

          Says who...?
        • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1:sigh: http://digg.com/offbeat_news/It_s_Time_to_Drop_the_www/all?t=8064758#c8064758
    • russelbutt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i love mush..
    • etnu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5No it isn't. Do you run your mail server on port 80 or something?
      • IRbaboon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2DNS queries don't go to your http or mail server. They go to a seperate DNS server run on port 53. The difference between mail and http domains is made by classifying them in seperate classes. Mail servers are under the MX class and other domains under the A class.
  • ptron, on 10/10/2007, -3/+54I always thought it funny that "world wide web" had less syllables.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I just pronounce it dub-dub-dub
      • icebrk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2cnet tried to get that going a good 10 years ago, never took, still a waste.
        if subdomains ala blogspot ever get enough exposure people might take in, in the mean time, I hate web sites that punish me for skipping the www.
      • Bastian227, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I prefer "woo-woo-woo". It sounds more exciting.
      • prockcore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I've heard people pronounce it "wuh-wuh-wuh".
      • joebaloney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0tri-dub or 3dub
    • po43292, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13^3 to be exact
    • Klowner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2sextuple-u or triple-dub?
    • yahoofrom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I always thought it funny that there are people who use "it's" as a shortened form of "its" but "it's" is longer than "its"
      • orientis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"It's" is a shortened form of "it is".
      • todcreative, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1incorrect. "its" is a shortened form of "it is." "It's" is the posessive form for "it."

        example: Its a new watch. It's battery is already dead.
        • SteveHiggs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3incorrect. It's the other way around. "it is" is shortened to it's while its is possessive as in "its tale won't stop wagging" etc. :P the apostrophy is used to show that you have removed letters such as the case of removing the i from it is to become it's.
        • erasedgod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3incorrect. It's the other way around. "tale" is a story while "tail" is an appendage on the rear or bottom of something as in "Its tail won't stop wagging" etc. :P You got the its / it's correct though.
  • r0b1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+189Things are going way too fast. I'm still typing in http://
    • dvsbastard, on 10/10/2007, -2/+116I still put :80 on the end! :(
      • jackyyll, on 10/10/2007, -1/+36I still remember IP addresses :(
        • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I access google by gopher :)
          And have static routing.

          (I wonder who'll get dugg down first :)
        • Narwaffle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I still remember C-C-COMBO BREAKER
        • ultrafez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I still access the web via telnet :(
    • po43292, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12You're both fired. "Does not use time wisely."
    • controltheweb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Type the domain name and then Ctrl-Enter is the keyboard shortcut. Fills in http://www. and .com for you/
    • yahoofrom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I still have to turn on my PC and fire up Firefox just to visit digg.com :(
    • Shadic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And I'll type "www" until the day I die.
  • sundancekid503, on 10/10/2007, -6/+53I disagree, without the "www" how would I know not to to dial "digg.com" on my telephone?
    • frostieDude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Without the "www" it is very confusing. Sometimes I forget and think digg.com is actually a Gopher site.
  • onegoodsoul, on 10/10/2007, -13/+41I think everyone that agrees with this should do a little reading on the fundamentals of DNS and perhaps they will see fully qualified domain names are a "good" thing. Besides, most browsers today will automagically add WWW for the lazy people anyways.

    Say NO to "no www".
    • onegoodsoul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1a link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_system
    • cinder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4That's a lot of reading. Can't you just give us a summary of why "fully qualified domain names are a 'good' thing" (and yes, I know what DNS is and what it does)?

      And I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just asking a question because I don't know (it seems most people take questions as rhetorical insults on the Internet, so you always have to supply them with additional information--quite annoying really).
      • onegoodsoul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Simply put - DNS lookups that are not fully qualified (hostname.domain.root) are not supposed to resolve to a A record. This is by design as per DNS RFC documentation. Verisign just got their hand slapped by ICANN for something similiar to this. From Wikipedia...

        "Critics commonly claim abuse by monopolies or near-monopolies, such as VeriSign, Inc. Particularly noteworthy was the VeriSign Site Finder system which redirected all unregistered .com and .net domains to a VeriSign webpage. Despite widespread criticism, VeriSign only reluctantly removed it after the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) threatened to revoke its contract to administer the root name servers."
    • manixrock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1as cinder said reading the (fundamentals of) DNS is a lot of reading.. but I know how DNS works and I can say the no browser I am aware of automagically adds a "www" when you enter an address. For example: if you enter http://google.com/ you will see it then apears as http://www.google.com/ . This is NOT the browser adding the "www" but google sending a "HTTP/1.0 301 Moved Permanently" redirecting the browser to http://www.google.com/ .

      As for your claim that fully qualified domain names are a good thing, I have to disagree. The only reason I can see for that is that it explicitly states that the response SHOULD be a http response. But it's not a reliable indicator, and it's simply more typing for the user. Maybe you know a good reason for using it?
  • macguy815, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18my school's website requires the www.
    And to think I wondered why they couldn't configure their novel servers such that they didn't crash when an entire class logged in at the same time.
    • norcalscan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Because Novell can't frickin code their AFP client for multi-processors. So 30 Macs log in at once in a class, they all hit Processor 0 on the Novell server, and the server abends like nobody's business. When their AFP.nlm is written like a true genius, a novell server will scream in a mac environment. There's a reason why I had two Pale Ales tonight, I manage a bunch of Macs on a novell server - arrggggggg!!

      Yeah - digg me down for Novell and Mac.
  • mishaco, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Amen !
  • madstringer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I'm sure that WWW still has some technical use. Sort of like you have to put in the protocol type before you connect to anything...."ftp" "telnet" etc...
    • jcaino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2you get ssl cert errors if you dont use www (subdom/wildcard certs aside)
      • Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If you get ssl cert errors when not using www, that IS a subdomain cert. www = subdomain. If you register example.com with your cert, then you'd get an error for going to www.example.com
        In all actuality, "www" is pretty much obsolete. I agree we should keep it around for naming purposes, but requiring it to get to a web page is redundant nowadays.
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6www isn't a protocol; http is. You know, protocol://sub.domain.TLD/address.
      • 10001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow!! Are you the only other person here familiar with the definition of URL? :gasp:
      • madstringer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wasn't saying WWW was a protocol; I was comparing it to the protocols where you put in the protocol name before the "://"
    • cinder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, I think the port numbers sort that out. Just how I can go to my browser and type my domain.com in, and it goes to my web page because the browser connects to port 80 by default and the server listens on port 80 by default.

      If I open my FTP client and type domain.com, it goes to port 21 because that's the established default for FTP.
      • tehmoth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1because every service at domain.com runs off the same ip address.
        • cinder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So? If they all use different ports it doesn't matter (one computer listening on different ports). Right? Because all my services are from the same domain (meaning same IP) yet everything works fine.
          • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's about bandwidth and computer resources. Notice that your ISP has separate servers form ail, www, ftp news etc. That's where the "www" comes from.
          • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1^- this is simply not true, there are well used methods that load balance on the DNS level for this. They usually don't have just one single server serving all requests for the various protocols, so it's not as simple as to say "you need a separate subdomain for a separate host". Many hosts can serve one subdomain, and many hosts can serve one primary domain.
        • cinder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh, and I have to add: a lot of sub.domain.com's will point to one IP address, too. For example, ftp.domain.com and www.domain.com could all point to (the made up and impossible) IP address 1.2.3.600.

          In fact, I have many (~10) domains pointing to one IP address. The downside? Navigating to the http://(ip address here) doesn't work.
        • jiggawhat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1High traffic networks cant handle everything being on one server. Combining high traffic web and ftp on one server would be a nightmare. Just because YOUR server can handle what you're putting on it, doesn't mean they all can. It's best to maintain a consistent organization throughout a network, or inter-network. I don't see why people think these things are outmoded.
        • prockcore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sorry, high traffic networks use round-robin dns. High traffic sites also support leaving off the www... so www doesn't solve anything.
  • Laurent, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4I've been an anti-www in my URL for 2 years already...
  • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -5/+69Just so you know, here's the reasoning behind 'www.'

    In a DNS name www.domain.tld -- TLD is the 'Top Level Domain.' These are .com, .net, .org, etc.

    'domain' is the domain name, owned by the registrar.

    'www' is the hostname, and refers to the specific computer.

    Back in the day, when things were very simple, you would point your browser at http:// ("I am telling you to open a HyperText Transfer Protocol connection") www. ("on the computer named 'www'") domain. ("in the 'domain' domain") tld ("under the 'tld' top level domain").

    After a while, browsers were coded to presume those things - if you didn't specify http:// (as opposed to ftp:// or some other obscure protocols), it would presume you meant http://. If you didn't lead with www., it would presume you meant to.

    Now DNS is more robustly used than it was in the past, and the DNS names you use are basically masquerades of the host names that the machines use internally (especially in a Windows domain; I can't speak to *nix). People don't hand out their internal DNS structure to the public, because it's a security issue.
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If I recall correctly the guy with the coolest name in the World, Vint Cerf, once reckoned that they had made a mistake with domain structures in the early days and that they should be in reverse formation instead like most computer science naming conventions. eg. com.digg.www

      Im intrigued, anyone have any idea what the advantages of this would be?
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Other than following a logical tree structure I don't know. Cerf way had you starting at the root and working out along the branches. The current way has you starting at a leaf and working back towards the root.
      • ffleming, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I think it works better the way it is; it follow the adjective-noun convention in English and the givenname-surname format of English names. You say "Red ball" and "Bob Jones", so you go to "www" on "digg" on "com." I don't think that that's inherently better or worse than the other way, but since English is my first language, www.blah.com is easier for me.
        • mrigns, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5what you're saying makes no sense at all....
        • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"so you go to "www" on "digg" on "com.""

          That only makes most sense to you because that's what you're used to. You make no connection with that example to "red ball" and "bob jones". You'd go to com-redball-www with that system, and go to www-redball-com now. No difference in language usage, only a difference in how you're used typing in URL's.

          With the other system, you'd go to a commercial domain -> named redball -> using their WWW server. That sure makes sense to me.
        • ra2bk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think what he was trying to suggest was red on ball on com. The WWW being the adjective to the noun domain.
    • olliholliday, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4it would be a logical tree structure where each further bit of information you add guides you more specifically to your intended page. At the moment it is logical and it is a tree structure, it's just reversed compared to all the hierarchies that everybody has already got accustomed to

      Ie. the more information you add to your request... the more specific your request becomes. like phone numbers, directory structures, maths (the more number you add the more specific your result).


      e.g.
      i want a UK page... uk
      a company: uk.co
      called "dixons": uk.co.dixons
      and i want their sales department: http://uk.co.dixons/sales

      (ignoring the www debate, but it would go after dixons and before sales obv.)

      This would make the domain names follow the standard directory structure everybody's used to and probably be a lot easier to explain to people because of that.


  • Sun.Surfin, on 10/10/2007, -17/+2"dubbau dubbau dubbau dot you tube dot com"
    "no, it's dubbau dubba-u dubbau tube dot com..."
    "dubbau dubbau dubbau dot youtube dot com?
    "No... it's like, double u double u double u tube dot com"

    Will anybody get that reference?
  • iMaciMan1, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4my mom is the only one that i know that uses www, although, she also reads windows error messages
  • Muncher, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Who really cares, honestly? It's annoying when a site forces you to enter the "www," but if someone wants to type it out every time, then fine. It's not like it requires any appreciable effort to type the same letter three times.
  • byronm, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6i just use opendns and even if i misspell anything it takes me where i want to go
  • Gamblor24, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4The guy who posted this is a moron. People havent been using www for YEARS! Try and post a real story douche.
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually many people still do. And if you're like me and use the Ctrl-Enter shortcut in IE/Firefox, you're going to use www. I have noticed the trend that many TV commercials don't bother mentioning the www anymore.
      1998: "Point your web browser to http://www.abc.net.au"
      2003: "Log onto www.abc.net.au"
      2007: "Go to abc.net.au"

      Ultimately this is up to the server admins. For all my sites, I make them work with and without the www, but I redirect to the www version if you leave it out. One day I'll reverse that so I can shorten my URL's.
  • trendplex, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5http://duggmirror.com
  • jwolcott, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2.mobi sites don't require the "www.": http://BofA.mobi
    • them3nace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2no domain requires it. It is setup by the administrator of the server.

      I might add that all of this is pretty much pointless. Any business (that cares if people keep using them) is going to allow for both www and no www, (until they see ZERO requests for www for a number of years, and even then, they'll still probably allow it just in case). It takes very little extra work at all to setup both and redirect to www no matter what they type in.

      So seriously, why not? as long as no one gets an error page trying to get to your site. Thats what we all want right?
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Only mis/poorly configured sites require the "www".
  • CaptainSponge, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0Who has time for www? I just bookmark everything good.
    • KaneElson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I never got into bookmarks. I just have a huge history file.
    • Chandon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I can hit CTRL + L and type the address (including the www) faster than I can find anything in my bookmarks.
  • KyotoNils, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The Yomiuri Shinbun is the newspaper with the greatest circulation in Japan. Try getting to their online site without the "www".
    http://yomiuri.co.jp/
    http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/
    • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1I'd say more than half of japanese sites do this. I hate it.
      alc.co.jp has a pretty decent E->J dictionary, but you have to type out www.alc.co.jp to get to it. What a waste of a 3-letter domain name.
  • gotamd, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4www.no-www.org

    ;)
  • boxxa, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Problem is that people who dont have their servers setup right dont recgonize just mydomain.com which can cause problems for newer internet users.
  • oflaherty, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29CTRL ENTER
    • allan17, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I was starting to wonder if I was the only person who used that...
    • russelbutt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1shortcuts ftw!!!

      i was wonderiing when someone would post that..
    • doublsh0t, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I just bookmark my sites and set the keyword to "d" for digg, for example...works great
    • davecarlson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1haha i was thinking the saem thing!!
      Ctrl enter FTW!!!

      plus shift enter and ctrl shift enter in Firefox!!

      just wish there was one for .co.uk !
    • cbartlett, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Or Apple-Enter for those of using a real operating system.
      Go ahead, digg me down Windows fanboys.
      • erasedgod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg down for saying "digg me down". Don't invite it, then cry about it in the same sentence.
  • ErrorS, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Yeah, back in the day when the internet was first becoming really popular and they started advertizing it on television, a lot of us would make fun of people who didn't use "WWW" on their ads. It was a dumb trend and it didn't last long..

    So we've been through this before, WWW stays. It's good form, WWW defines a site as a webpage and most of us prefer to use it.

    nvidia.com doesn't work, one of many examples.
    • didroe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Dugg down because of this statement "most of us prefer to use it". Assuming everyone else thinks as you do with no facts or statistics to back it up is not a good thing.

      All advertising I have seen in at least the past year or so just says company.com. This is in the UK though so YMMV.
  • MavRevMatt, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1double you, double you, double you dot dee eye gee gee dot com

    Wow, lots of work. /sarcasm
    • allan17, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3dubya, dubya, dubya dot dubya dot com
  • onegoodsoul, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_system
  • BrokenCircle, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4www2, www3, www1?

    I run my porn/torrent servers off my work's website using www2 and www3 respectively.
  • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+38domain + Ctrl Enter = http://www.domain.com
    domain + Shift Enter = http://www.domain.net
    domain + Ctrl Shift Enter = http://www.domain.org
    • ElRayQuieres, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Thanks, I didn't know about the latter two.
    • KaneElson, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Doesn't work in IE :(
      • russelbutt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1IE7, you're right.. doesnt work with SHIFT ENTER, or CTRL SHIFT ENTER..
      • gotamd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They're Firefox-only shortcuts. IE and Opera only do ctrl+enter=www.x.com.
    • noPCtoday, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4it takes longer for me than to type it.
    • didroe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1In Firefox, most of the time I just type domain + Enter. That does a Google "I'm Feeling Lucky" which for 99% of things will take you where you want to go.
    • wibambau, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0These are extremely useful. My non-computer-literate friends use the first one almost exclusively. Safari doesn't support those yet and I wish it did. Ctrl-enter becomes second nature very quickly. Most everyone I've shown this to has found it useful.
  • mrblue182, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4www has a meaning and a point for existence, just like worms. its annoying but its there for a reason. if your too lazy to type www then learn firefox shortcuts and you might learn something interesting!

    and taking www out of telling someone verbally about a website, if you dont do that already, then shoot yourself
  • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That is the major concern in someones life, they even made a web site about it!
    why not worry about something more important like how its too hard to open a packet of biscuits now.
  • wattersm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6There's reasons for having www. domain.com IS NOT the same as www.domain.com, they could be entirely different servers. Most people have the www CNAME'd to just domain.com but not always.
  • pogfreak, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3I lump the "drop the www" people in with the tax protestors, eco terrorists, evangelicals, 9-11 conspiracy theorists, and muslims.
  • everfalling, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6be thankful we dont say 'aich tee-tee pee, colon, forward-slash, forward-slash, double-yew double-yew double-yew, dot...'
    • mrigns, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think the problem for some is that the W has a very long pronounciation in English. In German for example you say "wé" > "wé wé wé"
      • ikesauto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That's the least of it. U should try one of the Asian spelling....
  • broXc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I agree
  • celerityfm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I think the real story here is people just need to stop saying WWW out loud. All thats needed is to just say the domain name of the site. The DOT COM or DOT ORG or DOT XXX (o wai no .xxx yet) at the end will do the trick to indicate you're talking about a website.
  • jebaird, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3It doesn't matter if you like it or not www is here to stay. Why change / "fix it" if its not broken? I see no reason to.
    • Zhay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I see that you're one of the few that enjoys writing 50 page papers with paper and pen. Using pen and paper is not broken... technically speaking. Ever think that maybe it's a waste of time?
  • cklein121, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1some sites add the www once your on them, if you leave it out
    • jizzypop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3i set my sites up to do that. no www just looks ugly in my url bar.
    • Zhay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Do you want a cookie?
    • HigherLogic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Personally, no www feels naked to me. I don't care what you type in the address bar, I'll redirect you to the www version. This is also mainly because of SEO, and I don't need to get punished for duplicate content because both www.domain.com and domain.com both bring up the same thing.
    • Zackypooh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1All sites do that dumbass.
  • Continuum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeIxUYiDrXU

    the first minute deals with this exact issue.
  • s14sh3r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I rarely type "www". This is news?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 174 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.