 |
|
| FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more » |
Alex Lamperti › Comments
Apple Store meraviglioso in 5 minuti rendo un acquisto sbagliato (mai aperto) e mi rendono 80 euro sonanti: grandioso servizio alla clientela!!'
Andrea Casadei liked this
Ed il prodotto era pure stato acquistato mesi fa ... Assolutamente grandiosi!
- michele ficara
from iPhone
chapeau per l'attenzione al cliente! vado anch'io allo store del carosello quando posso, gran bel posto :)
- Alex Lamperti
E sono anche simpatici !!! :-)
- michele ficara
from iPhone
I'm trying to build a new website, and am confused. Should the actual site URL be something.com or www.something.com? What are the pros and cons of these two possibilities? I mean, "www" is simply just a sub-domain, right? Yet everyone and their dog seems to be using it. I'm clueless. Please help.
Kol Tregaskes, joey, Frankie Warren and 4 other people liked this
anyone?
- Vlad Bobleanta
It's either or. The tech community tends to ignore the www. while the general public tends to reflexively put them in. You can simply add a CNAME record to your DNS so that www. points to something.com and it won't matter which one they type in.
- FFing Enigma
Oh oh oh Tina I have a related question... I'm bookmarking this so I can come back to it...
- Jannifer @wordsforliving
It usually is both - you need a dns entry for both and the web server has to be configured to accept both.
- Brian Sullivan
The www is a subdomain (and a really familiar one). Google for "bare domain" to find info on the topic of to use or not use a subdomain as a default. There's some good reading on the topic here: http://stackoverflow.com/questio...
- Micah
Exactly right, Brian. Adding the www CNAME entry to the DNS allows your site to pop up properly for those that type in the www without even thinking about it. Something.com will still work whether you add the www subdomain or not, but really it's not difficult to add and poses no overhead to do it.
- FFing Enigma
Ah, but is it better to make the canonical name something.com and have www redirect to it, or should www.something.com be the canonical name, and have something.com redirect to it? Or does it not matter a single whit?
- Victor Ganata
Victor - I think it is a matter of preference from a DNS pov. Tina -- I was just trying to emphasize that the server has to be configured to accept both names -- some shared hosters don't allow you to do that.
- Brian Sullivan
I use both most of the time.
- Bill Rawlinson
Thank you all for your replies. I do have to echo Victor's question, though, after reading them. Which should redirect to which? Ideas?
- Vlad Bobleanta
Oh, and I can't use both. I have to choose one, and have the other redirect to it.
- Vlad Bobleanta
If you are running multiple services on the same doman (mail, ftp, web, etc) then you want to use the www for the website only. Otherwise have it something.com and forward all *.something.com traffic to it.
- dthree
If you drop the domain, any cookies that are set will apply to all domains+subdomains. If that's what you want/don't care then that's good. Otherwise you prob want a redirect.
- Rich
The domain is something.com...the URL is http://www.something.com and/or http://something.com
- Scoble, Alex Scoble
Usually you want both to point to your main domain (even though www is technically a subdomain)
- Scoble, Alex Scoble
Alex: So they should both point to the 'bare domain', and not the www? Am I understanding what you say correctly?
- Vlad Bobleanta
That's right Vlad. I had a problem with this for a *long* time... blogger is really stupid about it.
- Evan Travers
Yes.
- Scoble, Alex Scoble
Also, if I wish to redirect the www subdomain to the bare domain, should I do a redirect or add a CNAME record? I have no idea what the difference is, but I have both options. Or are they just the same thing?
- Vlad Bobleanta
Unless you want to be cheeky and have www point to somewhere else on the site.
- Scoble, Alex Scoble
Evan: Really? I used to have a Blogger blog with custom domain and it worked flawlessly. Everything pointed to the bare domain. What was your issue?
- Vlad Bobleanta
I believe CNAME would be your better option, but someone else might now for sure from a SEO perspective.
- FFing Enigma
Alex: Lol, no, I just think this is one of the biggest dilemmas of our time :D
- Vlad Bobleanta
Tina: I believe GoDaddy domains come with pre-set CNAME for www to point to "@". However I don't use GoDaddy anymore, so I have to do it manually.
- Vlad Bobleanta
Vlad, its primarily a matter of taste, but once you decide which URL to canonicalize, be consistent and use that everywhere. here is Matt Cutts on the issue a few years ago - http://www.mattcutts.com/blog...
- chrisofspades
Did Chris just say canonicalize? And Chrome's spell checker accepted it as a word? Wow, just wow.
- Scoble, Alex Scoble
I had the same question when setting up my site. I'm surprised that nobodys mentioned http://no-www.org yet.
- Chris Heath
from iPhone
Chris: I went there and in theory agree with the "no www" camp. However, one question still remains for me: Do I do a redirect or add a CNAME for "www" pointing to mydomain.com?
- Vlad Bobleanta
Alex, I thought it looked funny but I figured if Matt Cutts could say it, so could I.
- chrisofspades
Vlad, if it were me I would promote something.com but would still add the CNAME for www, because a certain number of people will type it in whether you tell them to or note. Redirects just feel messy to me.
- FFing Enigma
Tina: But from a SEO point of view, is a CNAME the same as a 301 redirect?
- Vlad Bobleanta
Vlad, yes I agre that no www at all is too harsh. My site is the mid level that they use which is for redirect when they type the www
- Chris Heath
from iPhone
Slippy: I was unsure whether to use a 301 redirect or a CNAME. But not like you said, I wasn't thinking of CNAMEing the www to the same IP as the non-www, but rather adding a CNAME that points the www to the bare domain (which has an A record to an IP). If that makes any sense. :)
- Vlad Bobleanta
Chris: So you have a 301 redirect from www.yoursite.com to yoursite.com? Is that any better than adding a CNAME pointing www.yoursite.com to yoursite.com? That's what I don't get at this point.
- Vlad Bobleanta
Vlad, I think you'll actually want to do both: add a CNAME and also do a 301. using CNAMEs alone leads to content duplication, since 2 URLs will refer to the same content. better explained here: http://www.aitechsolutions.net/cname-s...
- chrisofspades
from email
As I understand the google juice, 301 is the correct way to do this so your 'juice' isn't decided between the two domains.
- Chris Heath
from iPhone
In theory, the 301 sounds more SEO friendly. It should ensure that the crawlers know what the canonical name of your site is. But practically speaking, does it make a difference. Also, do crawlers actually take the 301 into account? Alex, are you suggesting that Chris should've used "canonize" instead?
- Victor Ganata
I think I have a cname also. Can't check right now I'm about to board a plane.
- Chris Heath
from iPhone
I think that's the proper word, Victor, but you know me...I would never tell anyone how to use words. ;)
- Scoble, Alex Scoble
Vlad, for what it's worth, in Google Analytics you can specify that Domain.com and www.Domain.com are actually the same site so the crawlers know. You don't split any of your juice when you make this specification.
- FFing Enigma
Tina: Thanks. I'm actually trying to avoid using Google Analytics. There is a similar (if it's not the same) option in Google Webmaster Tools, but using that requires domain verification in ways (adding a meta tag or uploading a html file) that I either can not do, or would need a few days to do and then un-do. So I'm trying to avoid that as well. All I could read from Google's own...
more...
- Vlad Bobleanta
vlad, it's in the .htaccess ... the no-www people have code for you (do the mid level like i said - that will have the 301 in it)
- Chris Heath
hi vlad yes it's a .htaccess trick, 301 is a permanent redirection -> RewriteRule ^/?$ "http\:\/\/YourDomain\.com" [R=301,L]
- Alex Lamperti
Cloudo - http://wakoopa.com/softwar...
 |
La beta di Cloudo è disponibile da qualche mese qui http://beta.cloudo.com molto promettente :)
- Alex Lamperti
Fortissima presentazione web based :-) - http://prezi.com/46733/
►marika◄, Francesco Russo, nessuno and 14 other people liked this
ma è spettacolare! Ma alla fine uno se la può anche scaricare o per fare la presentazione ci sarà sempre bisogno di un pc connesso ad internet?
- Daniele_MD
No c'è l'offline player. Ma ovviamente la versione pay è meglio per altre cose...http://prezi.com/profile...
- 1Co
io uso prezi per alcuni progetti specifici. Fa sempre la sua bella figura. Ma va usato a piccole dosi.
- PaperDoll
Mah, alla fine non mi convince troppo. È bello, bellissimo da vedere. Però boh, non so.
- Federico [Kurai]
@FedericoFasce: ahinoi nelle presentazioni la forma è tutto. :(
- Smeerch
mi pare "si puo' fare, quindi lo faccio, quindi esagero". Un po' come chi mette il coprivolante leopardato, il plaid sul sedile posteriore e le iniziali in gotico sotto lo specchietto esterno
- Stefano Quintarelli
simpatico, Stefano :-) è quello l'aspetto che mi ha colpito infatti. Sulla funzionalità non sono in grado di esprimermi, ma i vostri pareri sono interessanti e spero se ne aggiungano altri
- Luca Conti
Smeerch: ni, per me la cosa è un bel po' più complessa. E comunque tendo a preferire la forma usata in altro modo (cioè non amo per dire mille transizioni diverse in una stessa presentazione). Ogni cosa deve avere un motivo per essere lì.
- Federico [Kurai]
@Federico, con me sfondi una porta aperta. Content is the King.
- Smeerch
Mi sta venendo pure il mal di mare. (cit.)
- Nicola D'Agostino
Quando io l'ho vista ho subito pensato che sarebbe stato ottima per una mappa concettuale fatta bene, per dare la "big picture delle cose" (cit) ... Ma non l'ho mai sperimentata.
- Aubrey McFato
Secondo me funziona per stupire con effetti speciali (ma con esempi chiari e diretti) le persone a cui destiniamo la presentazione. Come usabilità invece, come è già stato detto, ha i suoi limiti: dal fatto che per avere qualcosa di decente bisogna scegliere le versioni a pagamento, all'assenza di funzioni di distribuzione e condivisione
- Roberto
...ma... il contenuto della presentazione vi è piaciuto? ;-) a quanto pare 'sta forma spettacolare fa scordare il contenuto...
- Riccardo
@Riccardo Sarò sincero: me lo sono dovuto riguardare una seconda volta perché la prima ero troppo distratto dagli effetti speciali per catturarne tutti i contenuti
- Roberto
davvero spettacolare, grazie per il link :)
- Alex Lamperti
@roberto era appunto ciò che volevo dire ;-) - un limite imho è che sembra difficile avere una visione d'insieme... o rivedere i dettagli con calma, come in fondo mi pare venga fuori da alcuni commenti
- Riccardo
la presentazione è sicuramente innovativa, a me piace tantissimo. Sicuramente è "ad effetto", nel senso che chi la guarda rimane forse attratto più dalla tecnica della presentazione che dai contenuti. Ma alla fine i concetti bassi vengono evidenziati alla grande.
- Francesco Russo
correggo: bassi=base
- Francesco Russo
è uno strumento molto potente, ma richiede molta più progettazione di un power point se non si vuole ubriacare l'utente. ma posso assicurare che se fatto come si deve, (e non ho ancora guardato la tua Luca, ora lo faccio!) è molto efficace. Last but not least: puoi metterci dentro filmati audio etc senza tema che poi non ti funzionino sul pc ospite (basta il flash player).
- ►marika◄
vista: la mia conlcusione è che in questo caso il relatore è fondamentale. Il vantaggio evidente è che convoglia l'attenzione sulle parole chiave. Per non perdere il filo, la visione d'insieme "infografica" è fondamentale (secondo me).
- ►marika◄
Other ways to read this feed:
