= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
arundelo comments on CFAR website launched - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (77)
I agree (in the sense that this is what I do with my own sites), but here's a pro-www argument. (More accurately it's an argument against using a "bare" domain name in web addresses; that link itself does not start with "www.", but it does start with "faq.".)
The arguments are good, but as you say they do not support 'www' as opposed to any other prefix. 'www' should be consigned to the flames.
There is one advantage of "www" -- if you write the website address without "http://" part, only the "www.appliedrationality.org", some softwares will recognize that it is a web link and will make it clickable; the same thing will not happen with "appliedrationality.org". (For example if you write that in an e-mail, or a comment on a web page.)
I don't know how much this is useful in real life. Could possibly generate a few extra links and higher pagerank.
Either way, some people will write the "www" part even if it's not there, so if it is not the official one, it should redirect.