www

[ArtWilliams]

I remember a thread here, some time ago, where it was discussed that the PR was different for a site with and without the www. I suspect that based on this that some webmasters decided it would be advantageous to insist on one or the other.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by artwilliams

I remember a thread here, some time ago, where it was discussed that the PR was different for a site with and without the www. I suspect that based on this that some webmasters decided it would be advantageous to insist on one or the other.

I remember that too. I use .htaccess to redirect all traffic (and presumably PR) to my WWW subdomain. If you link to me without the www, visitors will still end up in the www.

Originally Posted by ladydesigner

The one quick way to identify them (since they used different ips, emails, domains and submit names) was by the fact that they didn't include the "www" in their url's.

I have to admit, that is a very clever way to deal with that type of problem.

[dunc]

From what I have read - I think it is better to use one or the other becuase the search engines now see:

www.domain.com

&

domain.com

as to seperate entities and therefore duplicate content.

I don't think it matters which you use so long as your consistant with links, internal links, recips and so on