Link building to ROOT domain OR to WWW.?
-
Hello,
Here I come with one more 'sensitive' question, hoping that you SEO gurus could give some input on.
My title explains pretty much what I'm wondering about, but let me give you some short data.
I have from .htaccess file set that all traffic goes to WWW.mydomain.com. I know that it is 'better' for search engines not to have duplicate destinations as that can give decreased page rank because of 'double content'. As for search engines http://domain.com and http://www.domain.com is totally different domains.
Now wondering one thing: If I build a several thousands of backlinks at various sources, blogs, directories, web sites etc etc. - shall I link to domain ROOT or shall I include WWW prefix?
When looking at Moz Keyword Analysis for my domains, I can see a block about 'Linking Root Domains' and 'Page Linking Root Domains'.
But no 'www' variable (sub-domain) there.
As I have already set canonical part so everything shows with WWW on my website - what logic shall I use when building backlinks? How will search engine translate the link juice in regards I wrote above?
Thanks in advance, great forum!
-
Thanks
-
Are all of your links directing to the www version? Then this is what would happen. If you've rel=canonical'ed to the www version, and build links to the non www version, you will essentially build all link juice to the non-www and redirect it to the www, in this process you lose some link juice like you do in 301 redirects.
-
When looking in OSE and entering non canonical version of domain, it returns error: 'No Data Available for this URL'.
It is only returning results for WWW version. So I'm kind of confused about the 'best' way to go...
Thanks.
-
Thanks for your answer.
So I will not lose any link gain strength if some links are still pointing to non canonical version of domain (without WWW)?
R.
-
Link to the www domain. Although if you set canonical and all to www, you will be fine either way.
-
You should definitely build it to the www. if that is your primary domain. The Moz Keyword Analysis only shows it without the www because of cosmetic purposes - it doesn't mean that the links were all built from non-www's. You can confirm this by looking at the inbound links tab.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Disavow links old links
We have built a lot of sites and there a few sites we no longer manage or want any association with. When I have looked at webmasters I can see 20 to 200+ odd links back to our site. The page however at source has no reference to our website. I have searched the code but there isn't anything. Is it safe to disavow these or just leave them?
Technical SEO | | Cocoonfxmedia0 -
Does the domain extension effect domain authority and ranking
We have produces a website on a .company domain extension. We have produced a good sized website with unique content. However the DA remains at 1. There are no high priority issues in the page crawl. We suspect that the domain extension may be causing a lower DA. Is this a ranking factor?
Technical SEO | | easydomains0 -
Which domain we should continue with?
Hello All, We are working with a client who had manual penalty from Google. We worked on that and now penalty has been removed. Client had already started working on the new domain and now the big dilemma is- Which domain should we continue with? Old or New? We are suggesting them to continue with the old one as that domain had good PR, good backlinks, better visibility on their social profiles etc. What do you suggest? any inputs are highly appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | sachin-sv0 -
Partial manual action - unnatural links from domain takeover
One of our clients took over a competitor and it would appear that all links to that take over website got redirected to our client. This resulted in ~430,000 links to our client in a short time period. This also resulted in a partial manual action against the unnatural links. What would Google be looking for us to solve in this case? Should we change all of the links to "no follow", should we remove them completey?
Technical SEO | | aaronleven0 -
New domain's Sitemap.xml file loaded to old domain - how does this effect SEO?
I have a client who recently changed their domain when they redesigned their site. The client wanted the old site to remain live for existing customers with links to the new domain. I guess as a workaround, the developer loaded the new domain's sitemap.xml file to the old domain. What SEO ramifications would this have if any on the primary (new) domain?
Technical SEO | | julesae0 -
New domain
Hi, I have a domain with no keywords on it, and I´ve been using it for years. Now I bought another domain with the keyword on it. I whant to work on seo for the second domain, with the keyword. What is the better way to work this out? 301? Duplicate de site? redirect in another way?
Technical SEO | | mgfarte0 -
Why would you remove a canonical link?
Currently, my client's blog makes a duplicate page every time someone comments on a post. The previous SEO consultant told the developer to not put a canonical link directing it to the main blog post. Did taking out the canonical link result in these duplicate pages? My question is why would she recommend this action? Is it best to now add in the canonical link in or should we implement a 301 redirect or insert a index: no follow? Would adding a canonical link keep duplicate pages from happening in the future?
Technical SEO | | Scratch_MM0