What is the best practice for domain live url www or non-www ?

[sum_yungai]

Doesn’t matter either way. Just make sure you have it set up so one redirects to the other of somebody types it in with/without.

[darkhorn]

I serve my web sites over https://example.com and redirect else to that address.

[WebLinkr]

There’s no SEO value either way. WWW is redundant – the other sub-domains that browsers used to (probably still can) like gopher. have all gone extinct, so using www is kind of silly except that people have a challenge with change. It has no SEO impact.

More importantly – you cannot build or gain trust with a search engine based purely on publishing…HTH and I think you’re conflating trust/authority/rank – which are really complex concepts although also pretty basic.

Trust is a very broad term and Google can only get partial views – like for example, if a site has been breached and loaded with Malware, Google can put up a warning and de-list the site. Thats a direct reaction to a single, isolated even though. Google can’t determine if a business is trustworthy. In fact, Google Ads was the number one way that hackers used to break into peoples computers with ransomware under the pretense that they were from Dell or Microsoft tech support – for a very long time!

There is a small signal for age of domain, age of presence, length of surface, age of topic etc – and the word “trust” is used loosely and not its totality of meaning.

[Neither-Emu7933]

Most modern browsers don’t even show https or www in the URL bar so it’s really a moot point, that and the plethora of different TLDs out there having www or .com isn’t that relevant for trust.

[Shuict]

There’s no significant SEO advantage to using one over the other, but non-www is considered as best practice and more consistent. I’ve listed some things why you should use non-www.

1. non-www links are easy to manage and you don’t have to think about www redirection links.
2. another drawback of using www is if you have used www links in your site and sometimes internal links or backlinks can be non-www so crawlers have to redirect from non-www to www.
3. sometimes automatic tools or in-built feature for sitemaps also only creates sitemap with only non-www links. Think you have a large site having more than 50000 pages. crawler comes to your sitemap and goes to non-www url1 and it says please go to www url1, then again it goes to non-www url2 and again it says to please go to www url2 the same process ******* 50000 times. Ever heard of crawl budget? That’s the price you pay for redirecting the crawler for every single link. (What do you think how pissed off do you get if someone tells you go there then again sorry not here but actually there only 50000 times) **In short keeping non-www links is the best option for you.** You don’t have to think about this crazy technical stuff.
Note: I faced this redirection issue in a website that built-in webflow and enabled auto-sitemap generation.
4. By just keeping non-www links to your site and you get yourself in a safe place and no other redirection and crawl budget and management of it and other brain-consuming work.

Why don’t you just keep it non-www?

By the way, It doesn’t have a direct effect on SEO but when we consider the crawl budget it plays an important role.

Please let me know if you have any questions or any other thoughts on this.

[ExcitingMousse803]

No SEO value, but you’ll need to see what your DNS provider supports