posted on:August 31, 2008

CSSG Updates

I added 2 new features to this site, something that should be added a long time ago. I got my share of criticism for not having this stuff implemented earlier (or from the beginning like I should have) but in my defense let me once more point put that I coded this site myself, including all the cms I am using on it, various url handles etc.
It’s far from perfect but at least I am trying 🙂

So the features… First one is the site search. Simple. I used Google custom search cause all of my pages are indexed and everything you need from CSSG can be found on Google. A lot of people complained about lack of search function. Once again I am sorry for not introducing this earlier, I am aware that it was not very professional of me.

Second feature is canonical url handle. You know those url’s with www. and without www. So far CSSG could be accessed both ways, and that wasn’t good for my rankings. I even ended up on delicious popular page several times with both www. and non www. url. Terrible. Anyway, I had to decide which way to go and although I have 5000+ pages indexed as non www. urls (and only 1000+ with www) I decided to go with www. type of url. I hope it will not turn out to be an error and if you have some advice in that area please post a comment or send an email. It will be highly appreciated!
A note: those of you logged in on non www site will have to log in again cause the cookies are not set for the both ways. You don’t have to worry about bookmarks. I am using 301 redirects, and you will find what you need 🙂

Important update: After consulting with some people I decided to go with non-www format for my urls after all. Yes, unfortunately, that means logging in again, sorry!

Enjoyed the article?

Then don't miss our next one! Subscribe to our RSS feed or share it with your friends.

DeliciousStumbleUpon RedditSubscribe

Comments (7 Comments)

  1. Mike Robinson
    August 31, 2008

    I think without www. is better. The www is redundant as you already know you are browsing the web with the http protocol.
  2. WIll
    August 31, 2008

    I agree with Mike here, That's just four extra characters to type... You want to try and keep URLs as short as possible.
  3. N. Haran
    September 1, 2008

    Check out this website for more info on why you should have gone w/o the www:
  4. cssglobe
    September 1, 2008

    Thanks for the thoughts guys. I also consulted with an expert int the field and he advised me to go with non-www since my indexed page count is significantly larger without www.
  5. ana gomez
    September 7, 2008

    I think that searcengines like with www .
  6. hotels
    September 30, 2008

    With www is better.
  7. Randolf Richardson
    October 11, 2008

    I operate my own internet servers, and I've always made sure that all my web sites work with and without the "www" [hostname] atom. I do prefer to use "www" for my web sites though since the "www" host can actually be a separate physical server in large configurations where other protocols are provide on the hosts without the "www" atom. For example, in situations where I don't want my web site traffic to impede the performance of a server providing telnet, ssh, finger, and other services. Of course a different IDN (Internet Domain Name) could be used altogether, but I prefer to keep things simpler. I fully agree with the effort to make web sites available on both, and in larger configurations (like the one I mentioned above) there's very little performance impact in simply having an Apache (or other) HTTP daemon running with a simple URI redirection rule that maintains the full URI.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.