New website branding, differences between http://www and http://
-
Hey Mozers!
We will be creating another brand pretty soon with some pretty cool interactive features and before we start development of the site I was wondering if there are any pros/cons to branding the site sans the www.
For example http://example123.com and http://www.example123.com. I would much prefer to brand it has http://example123.com but I just wanted to check first to see if that would have any negative SEO ramifications.
It seems that it might just be a preference as I looked at Facebook and Twitter and they both do it differently, same with Groupon and LivingSocial.
Looking forward to hearing from you guys!
-
Given that we know there isn't any difference from an SEO perspective it comes down to purely external factors. Some questions to think about...
- Are people going to constantly link to the www version any way?
- In a competitive space is one more eye-catching than the other?
- What's more memorable to the visitor?
-
Yea that was a concern I had going in, but I was thinking about it and in general when people link to different products or areas of the site I would assume they might just go copy the link from the url bar (at least that is what I do).
I wonder if the % is really enough to matter when people link to http://zebraswithhats or http://www.zebraswithhats - no thankfully that is not the domain
-
Oof, massive failure on my part lol, there just so happens to be this "check, this answered by question!" Thanks for pointing it out for me
-
Actually a pretty neat feature of the Q&A forum is that you can mark answers as helpful (which highlights the post in green and gives the person a shiny 3 MozPoints).
There should be a text link saying something like 'This answered my question' with a tick at the bottom of their posts which you can click (at least I think that's how to mark them, I've not asked a question yet :D)
-
More people out there are linking to the www.name version and even if you do the 301 redirect you will still lose some vote %.
Since it's a new brand and you are starting this now you should take your time and consider every aspect from the start and make your call based on all facts.
I always vote for the www version but that, beside the linking and look factor of the url is a personal thing.
-
Definately what I was looking for guys, thank you for the awesomely quick responses! I figured that it wasn't that big of a concern for SEO but since we are starting from scratch I just want to make sure its correct from the start! Tossed you both thumbs up!
-
The only difference is from the user perspective. Search engines treat both versions the same.
What you want to be careful about is maintaining consistency within your site. This is especially true at larger organizations with multiple publishing points. If everyone isn't made aware (and reminded from time to time) of this branding decision, inconsistencies will begin to pop up.
Furthermore, you should be sure to redirect all versions of pages to the option you choose. This is true for both the home page and all other pages. For example, if you choose http://example123.com...
- http://www.example123.com should be 301 redirected to http://example123.com
- http://www.example123.com/whatever should also be 301 redirected to http://example123.com/example123
Finally, be sure to share your choice with all parties that communicate externally. This includes PR, Social Media, Marketing, etc. for inclusion in their posts, your company boilerplate, emails, etc.
-
No difference from an SEO perspective. After the Q&A last year at SMX Advanced with Matt Cutts, I went up and asked him this very question. He said make sure one version redirects to the other, and if it is an existing site, Google will likely display the version with more pagerank. If this site is still in development, when you release it, have all links go to the sans www versions and make sure the www versions 301 redirect to the sans www URL's.
From a branding perspective, it only matters if you plan on displaying the .com on the page or in the logo or something like that. If you plan to display the .com, then sans www. Looks cleaner and just better recognition overall.
If you aren't planning to display the .com anywhere, then it really doesn't matter as hardly anyone outside this industry pays attention to which version of a URL they are on.
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
-
Resolving 301 Redirect Chains from Different URL Versions (http, https, www, non-www)
Hi all, Our website has undergone both a redesign (with new URLs) and a migration to HTTPS in recent years. I'm having difficulties ensuring all URLs redirect to the correct version all the while preventing redirect chains. Right now everything is redirecting to the correct version but it usually takes up to two redirects to make this happen. See below for an example. How do I go about addressing this, or is this not even something I should concern myself with? Redirects (2) <colgroup><col width="123"><col width="302"></colgroup>
Technical SEO | | theyoungfirm
| Redirect Type | URL |
| | http://www.theyoungfirm.com/blog/2009/index.html 301 | https://theyoungfirm.com/blog/2009/index.html 301 | https://theyoungfirm.com/blog/ | This code below was what we added to our htaccess file. Prior to adding this, the various subdomain versions (www, non-www, http, etc.) were not redirecting properly. But ever since we added it, it's now created these additional URLs (see bolded URL above) as a middle step before resolving to the correct URL. RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.(.*)$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://%1/$1 [R=301,L] RewriteCond %{HTTPS} !on RewriteRule (.*) https://%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [R=301,L] Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely, Bethany0 -
Website indexing issues
My website is being indexed with both https - https with www. and no leader at all. example. https//www.example.com and https//example.com and example.com 3 different versions are being indexed. How would I begin resolving this? Hosting?
Technical SEO | | DigitalRipples0 -
E-commerce website
Hi, I have to do a SEO optimization on a huge e-commerce website, but i don´t know if i have to focus in Schema or meta tags ( page title, meta description) which of them is more important? how can I optimize the website? Thanks
Technical SEO | | AbacoDigital1 -
To merge website and blog?
I was hoping to get a bit of advice if possible. Our website has a domain authority of 25. Our blog, on a separate platform has a domain authority of 73. In essence, we were wondering if we should move all the content from our blog to our website and then set up redirects? What's stopped us so far is the fear that the links from the blog, with the higher domain authority, are having a positive effect on the website, and if we were to move the content we'd lose the value of those backlinks. So I was wondering if you could possibly advise me on the matter? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Stone_Junction0 -
Accessibility / display none
Hello, Does anyone ever had a problem with display none portion of a page made for accessibility? (Jaws reader/ NVDA) Thank You.
Technical SEO | | Vale70 -
Need Help With WWW vs. Non-WWW Duplicate Pages
A friend I'm working with at RedChairMarket.com is having duplicate page issues. Among them, both www and non-www URLs are being generated automatically by his software framework, ASP.net mvc 3. How should we go about finding and tackling these duplicates? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | BrittanyHighland0 -
I cannot find a way to implement to the 2 Link method as shown in this post: http://searchengineland.com/the-definitive-guide-to-google-authorship-markup-123218
Did Google stop offering the 2 link method of verification for Authorship? See this post below: http://searchengineland.com/the-definitive-guide-to-google-authorship-markup-123218 And see this: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/using-passive-link-building-to-build-links-with-no-budget In both articles the authors talk about how to set up Authorship snippets for posts on blogs where they have no bio page and no email verification just by linking directly from the content to their Google+ profile and then by linking the from the the Google+ profile page (in the Contributor to section) to the blog home page. But this does not work no matter how many ways I trie it. Did Google stop offering this method?
Technical SEO | | jeff.interactive0 -
Different levels of PA without "www"?
Hello Guy´s! The last days I have been surprised to see that the levels of PA, mR, and mT vary when it is or not the "www" in the URL: 1. http://patagonline.com/viajes-argentina 2. http://www.patagonline.com/viajes-argentina Both URL's correspond to the keyword "viajes Argentina" our incoming links... In this case, it´s convenient to do a 301redirect from URL 1 to 2? Thanks a lot for your help!!
Technical SEO | | maty0