Thread: 3rd level domain or 2nd level domain

Hi ,
I have a question ..

Does this domain name considered a third level domain or second level ?

PHP Code:

http://www.example.com 


someone told me that it's 3rd level domain while the domain

PHP Code:

http://example.com 


is a 2nd level one

I think that isn't accurate according to Domain name - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

whats the point? they both will go to the same website

I wouldn't agree that the www would be seen as a subodmain, the whole point is to just pick one
with or without www and then to always use the same and of course to use a redirect so that your links always work no matter if the user did or did not use www

No I cant agree that if there is a www on the link that it is a subdomain. The www is just the prefix that the inventor of the web added when creating the whole web.

Originally Posted by James Stein

No it is not just a prefix ... According to your SERVER it is a sub-domain name..

Why do you think google splits PR ???? Because just like a sub-domain it is seen as a different site...

James

I far as I understand it the www is a prefix. True -- The name server is the TLD without the www prefix. But www.domain isn't a subdomain either.

It isn't so much that Google splits the PR between the www/non-www version. Rather "sometimes" there is a canonical problem and Google sees the versions as two different sites. However, most often Google resolves the canonical issues on its own.

Originally Posted by bogart

I far as I understand it the www is a prefix. True -- The name server is the TLD without the www prefix. But www.domain isn't a subdomain either.

It isn't so much that Google splits the PR between the www/non-www version. Rather "sometimes" there is a canonical problem and Google sees the versions as two different sites. However, most often Google resolves the canonical issues on its own.

Thank YOU!

No offense here,but I am getting the feeling that James spreads quite a bit of disinformation.I am not talking about things like SEO theories where nobody knows 100% whats true,but he always has these claims which he backs up with "25 years of experience" and never provides evidence to support his claims. I am not saying that you should automatically accept what others say,but a status quo exists which many people accept so if you want to prove your point and 90% of people disagree with you,they are not the ones that should provide the evidence,you are.If you can't prove it,it isn't true.

Originally Posted by James Stein

First problem is never go by wikipedia it can be edited by "ANYONE" ...

Which is exactly the same for any website on the net. Anyone can build a site and put some crap on it so why not believe wikipedia? It is just as accurate as almost any other site.

There's quite a large difference between people that claim to be gurus (sorry but you sometimes sound like one James) and those that provide official company information like Matt Cutts who's actually Chief Security Officer at Google.

On topic again please.

BTW - technically www is a subdomain.

Originally Posted by Shenron

There's quite a large difference between people that claim to be gurus (sorry but you sometimes sound like one James) and those that provide official company information like Matt Cutts who's actually Chief Security Officer at Google.

On topic again please.

BTW - technically www is a subdomain.

Technically maybe,but only if you see everything before the dot in a domain as a subdomain,but I don't see www as a subdomain because when the guy who created the web added these prefixes,he wanted a way to distinguish email,web,ftp etc...
So even thought you can see it as a subdomain it doesn't have the function of a subdomain.