subdomains vs. paths

[sparky_132]

Not really an accessibility issue for users, rather for webmasters.

If you have a massive user base, each with their own page, what are the pros and cons of giving them a subdomain versus giving them a path? I'm mainly looking at it from the webmaster's point of view, but does it effect the users as well? Is one more manageable or flexible than the other?

MySpace uses paths, e.g. http://myspace.com/myprofile
Bebo uses subdomains, e.g. http://myprofile.bebo.com

Many other sites use one of these methods, blogging sites inparticular.

I don't have any experience of websites this big but I would still be interested to hear your thoughts guys.

Thanks

[brian.mark]

Either one should be fine. As long as you're consistent, uses get used to it either way.

From a technology standpoint, creating wildcard DNS (which is normally used for subdomain hosting like this) can create duplicate content of the main domain, so it has some issues there. If you go that route, make sure that any non-used usernames redirect using a 301 to the main domain.

Brian.

[minorgod]

Generally, when you create a subdomain, it is merely an alias to a path on the server with the same name. For example, the address subdomain.mydomain.com will usually map directly to a directory at mydomain.com/subdomain. So when you use subdomains, you're really using a path, but accessing it via an alias. Also, subdomains can usually have their own email addresses that can be configured separately from the main domain, so user@domain.com will be a different address than user@subdomain.domain.com.

I would not bother with subdomains for every user since this will increase the overhead of your server. You will need DNS records for every subdomain and the subdomains will not be accessible until the DNS records update across the internet, just like if you were setting up a completely new domain. Due to the increase in server overhead, you should probably just give all your users a directory and not a subdomain.

Hope that helps.