To "www" or not to "www" 

To "www" or not to "www"

It appears that the standard practice of www.example.com/ would be the preferred method. A simple 301 for example.com to www.example.com is suggested.
There are two reasons for requesting links without the www. One is for branding purposes, the other is for manipulation. ;)

I've not checked lately, but it used to be that some search engines would count non www links and www links differently. You could theoretically achieve two separate listings based on the linking strategies.

example.com is a sub-domain of www.example.com and as mentioned above, can have different content. I've seen many topics in the past that discussed PR values between the two and the problems that arised when using the non www method of linking.

Here is the problem with picking one and sticking to it. If you pick the non www version, be prepared to constantly track your backlinks as 9 out of 10 people are going to include the www in their link.

When choosing the www link method, you avoid the above issues of backtracking. For that 1 out of 10 that links without the www, your 301 will whisk the visitor to the correct URI. If the webmaster on the linking site is checking their outbounds, they should see the 301, investigate and update their references accordingly.

P.S. Yes, a 301 will address the issue of redirecting www requests to the non www version. But why go through all of that?

[b]Bar graphs[/b]
[b]Browsers[/b]
[b]Browsers[/b]
[b]Browsers[/b]

[b]Bar graphs[/b]
[b]Browsers[/b]
[b]Browsers[/b]
[b]Browsers[/b]

[b]Bar graphs[/b]
[b]Browsers[/b]
[b]Browsers[/b]
[b]Browsers[/b]