Anyone who doesn’t use the dubja-dubja-dubja part of the URl isn’t anal enough to use a computer. 
For those that don’t want to type http:// how do you deal with SSL in that world?
Should it be example.com for nonsecure and https://example.com for secure? Should it be shortened to www.example.com and sss.example.com to remove the http:// stuff?
Would sss.example.com freak anybody out? I’m sure it’d be easier than getting someone with bad eyesight from noticing a single s in the https:// construct.
We could always use BushBushBush.
We in the UK had it right in the first place then. Historically we used JANET NRS (Name Registration Scheme) and it was reversed as Tim Berners-Lee wants now … then we changed to the standard DNS system, but we still use .uk addresses (as per JANET) rather than .gb as the ISO thinks we should …
The one that really bugs me is the printing of websites or e-mails as all lowercase on adverts.
Which is more catchy/memorable on an advert?
chiefexecutiveofficer@amazingcompanydoingamazingthings.com
or the obvious
ChiefFExecutive@AmazingCompanyDoingAmazingThings.COM
The same applies to websites, and I always publish my e-mail address in CamelCase. Just a few sites have problems with this, but not many.
Jason: How do you know it’s a website?
Melissa: Because you say dot com.
Awesome! I have to laugh at that because the company I work for has multiple websites (with one main site), but whenever the director of advertising asks me to add content to the main website, he says “put this on dot com.” He not only skips the dub dub dub part, but also the domain name. Maybe that’s just funny to me, but I thought I would share anyways.
So much fail.
Does nobody simply type in “codinghorror” and press Control-Enter? In IE and FF, that adds the “www.” prefix and “.com” suffix. Great unless you frequent some filthy non .com site (joking).
i cant believe you quoted my favorite show. i always felt like no one else watched it, but it is full of gems like this. anyone who is unfamiliar with the show should go watch every episode.
1 Like
you should be far more concerned about the content behind that URL than the URL itself.
Quite right. Most users (myself included) will find your website through either a link or a search engine anyway. There are just too many typo-squatters out there for me to risk typing it in myself.
Does nobody simply type in “codinghorror” and press Control-Enter? In IE and FF, that adds the “www.” prefix and “.com” suffix. Great unless you frequent some filthy non .com site (joking)
So should your new website be stackoverflow.ny.us ?
one of the reasons i use slimbrowser for surfing is no need to type www or press ctrl+enter ,just type site’s name and enter
Phil, I have a worse one that incorporates hiptytipty:
hiptytipty colon whack whack dub dub dub dot domain
I liked to died. It gave him an obvious rush when I asked what the ring-tailed hell he was talking about.
I always say “wibble”, like they say in Blackadder Goes Forth. wibble.whatever.com.
But you don’t send mail to foo@mail.foo.com. You send it to foo@foo.com. There’s just no point. It’s all very 1997.
Are we only talking about putting the URL in a web browser here?
Back in “the day” it wasn’t just assumed that the web would take over as completely as it did. For all we knew back in the 90s, gopher would take over and codinghorror.com would redirect to gopher.codinghorror.com
I agree that in IE and Firefox the www and http:// should just be assumed. How much guessing should the browser do? Replace \\ with //? Put in // if it’s just http:?
Outside of a web browser what is the convention? If you hit Start \ Run, here are the results:
www.codinghorror.com - Launches browser
codinghorror.com - Error
http://codinghorror.com - Launches browser
\\codinghorror.com - The network path was not found
//codinghorror.com - Error
http:/codinghorror.com - Launches browser, can’t load page
http:codinghorror.com - Launches browser, can’t load page
http//codinghorror.com - Error
http:\\codinghorror.com - Launches browser
Heh- The link to the description of a bikeshed discussion reminded me of when Fizzbuzz exploded on the internet. Everyone had to one-up the clever…
Personally I dont care which you (or I) use, both should always link to the other. Nothing drives me more crazy than typing in website.com only to get a 404. I understand the pagerank problems and such, and for that I personally prefer the shorthand, it sure doesnt hurt anything, and its a few less pizels that need to be drawn for each web address. Not a lot the 3 w’s on one page, but multiplied around the internet, who knows, might save a few gallons of oil over ten or twenty years…
On the other hand you can just type the site name without the www or the .com / .org / .net and then press the appropriate keys at which point firefox prepends http://www. and appends .com / .org / .net
Of course IE can’t manage this simple task. It appears to only understand .com.
I second Julian etc. The www prefix is definitely something average users are used to seeing - in their minds, it’s not a website without the www, and the regular removal of it only brings confusion. Nevertheless, it’s good to bring it back to the fact that you need to “just choose one and stick with it.”
And I also am shocked at how many sites don’t work without the www.
When I first read “dub dub dub” at the title, I didn’t quite understood it. Then I read “nobody says the dub-dub-dub any more” and couldn’t stop laughing for at least 10 minutes!!!
“hippity-tippity dub-dub-dub” also killed me. And I thought that http://httpcolonforwardslashforwardslashwwwdotjenniferdanieldotcom.com/ was a joke! (notice that the actual http://www.jeniferdaniel.com/ is a different site!)
Since this is my first comment, I’d like to also congratulate you for your blog. Always waiting for the next post.
P.S. “The worst part is that saying “double u double u double u” takes 9 syllables while saying “world wide web” takes 3. How many acronyms are three times longer than what they stand for?” by Neil