With or without the "www." ?
-
Is there any benefit whatsoever to having the www. in the URL?
My domain is quite long therefore I've not been using the www. however a few people have mentioned it's good practice to include it.
The www. forwards to the main URL (non www.) and I've set my preferred domain name in webmaster tools to the non www. so I'm thinking that should all be ok.
Just hoping I could get some of the experts views to make sure this is all ok. The site is a year old and I'm just starting to really get going on the link building so it's not too late to change if I'm wrong.
If others link to my site and include the www. will the link juice be passed, as I suspect many will include it without any thought?
-
Deviating slightly on the top here but I would say that link inclusion on social sites you should use services like bit.ly and not paste in the URL.
My reasoning for this is what with a bit.ly url if you add a + at the end you can see statistics for that particular link (how many clicks its had etc), which is nice and simple and saves crawling through Google Analytics to answer some simple fundamental questions.
In email signatures, leaflets and printed promotional material (where your typically short on space to use) then I agree it does make things shorter and look nicer, and who know maybe it will catch on and more and more people will start removing www. from their domains and it will then become more of a standard, for which Google and other search engines will probably use as a possible ranking factor.
I must admit this has been a great discussion on this topic.
-
small but good point
-
One other way of looking at this, especaly if you have a short domain is that a shorter url uses up less of character limits on social sites, forum sigs, or any other senario where you might otherwise have to use a url shortener to post the link.
It's a slight benifit, but it may mean the diffrence between sharing yourname.com or goog.gl/code, the former of which is usualy prefurable for brand reconition at least.
-
i think more would leave the www off when typing, but thats just my opinion. but more to the point i think more will leave it off as time goes on.
to make myself clearer, i think every day more and moe people realize it is un-necessary
of cause in your example i would leave it on.
in fact if a site had 11 links to www and 10 links to non www, i would leave it on, but if it had 10 each way, they i would leave it off as my preference. links is much more important
-
Recently we were faced with the same issue on behalf of a client. I made the decision to retain the www. My reasoning was based that this client had been live with their website since 1998 and had amassed literally thousands of backlinks all pointing to the www of his website. In my mind keeping his URL structure was more important than shortening a URL. His backlinks spoke volumes for his past success.
I am also of the opinion that a majority of end users will still type into a search www as prefix before the domain name. With that in mind it makes feel that they would also automatically type ‘www’ as a prefix when linking back to a site.
So, strictly from an SEO point of view I woudl use WWW.
-
agreed
-
Yeah that's fair enough but like I said it's not a deal breaker and there are more important things to spend time changing to benefit your site for search engines. I live by the rule, "If its not broke, don't fix it", until search engines decide that non-www is "better" or they decide to put more weighting on non-www domains then there is no point worrying about it.
-
I think if you go back a few years, people did expect to see a www, i think that is less so today, and even less so in the future.
but it is a small point really, the main thing is once you have made your decision, make sure you get your redirects and internal linking correct.
-
I agree it is not a big thing, but i cant agree on doing so because a majority of sites do it.
The resson i dont use www, is that it is un-necessary, i cant see any argument for it.
-
The article does not mention redirects, 301 redirects leak link juice, both google and bing have confirmed that, .
The article is how GWMT counts internal links, even if google search algorithm saw www and non www as internal, it would still see them as 2 different pages, and it would still not pass all link juice on a redirect, as it does not matter if the link is external or internal, all 301 redirects leak link juice.
-
If I remember there /was/ a good reason one way or the other for using cookieless domains and such to optimise image delivery e.t.c., it can only be done with your website on one and images on the other, but I can not remember which was around it was, and what senerio brings it about at the moment.
I prefur the www. version mostly due to all our competitors using it, so we look 'odd' when next to them. People expect to see the www.
-
Thanks for all of the replies, much appreciated. I think I shall leave it as it is as there doesn't appear to be any merit to moving across to the www. apart from the very small loss of link juice when people link to the www. and it gets 301'd.
-
In the grand scheme of things I don't see it being a big issue as Google's recent updates to the algorithm are targeted at over optimisation of content and weeding out poor quality pages from the SERP.
My point being that from an SEO perspective there are more important things to concern yourself with to ensure your website is ranking highly in Google for your chosen set of keywords.
-
I think many people have misinterpreted this article. They say that they have changed the way they categorise links in Webmaster Tools, it does not mention any change in the algorithm. Many comments on the article asked for clarification on this and here is the response:
"Re: all the search algorithm- and ranking-related questions: This update only changes how links are displayed in Webmaster Tools. It doesn't affect how links are valued in relation to the search algorithm or ranking. It has nothing to do with Panda, nothing to do with keywords, nothing to do with PageRank."
So you should still leak a bit of link juice from a 301.
-
Personally I think the non-www vs www seems a bit pointless, people very rarely type in the domain name into the address bar and even if they do type it without www. there will be a redirect in place to add that in for them.
In terms of search engines and the SERP page then yes it may look cleaner, but the end visitor isn't going to sit there and think, "oh this site isn't using www, i'll go to that site instead".
Its all down to personal preference but I would suggest leaving it is www.domain.com as this is what the majority of site seem to do (even SEOMoz!)
-
Google has changed their approach on this and now see www and non-www as the same (they do not even count it as a redirect anymore) googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/08/reorganizing-internal-vs-external.html
-
I would not say not at all, they will lose a little as 301's leak link juice, they do not apss it all.
But either way you can have that problem.
-
I always use non-www, as it makes my domain name shorter. So long as you choose what your preference is in webmaster tools and 301 redirect the www to the non-www (like you did) then you will have no problems from Google.
The links to your website containing www. will not affect your link juice at all.
-
There is no reason to have a www, i dont have one on any of my domains, and recomend against it for my clients.
Imagine if people were call me www.alan, it would be stupid, so why call your web site www.domain.com
I believe this is a leftover from old unix servers, it is not needed today.
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
-
Screaming Frog - What are your "go to" tasks you use it for?
So, I have just purchased screaming frog because I have some specific tasks that need completing. However, looking at Screaming Frog generally, there is so much information I was wondering for those who use it, what are the top key tasks you use it for. I mean what are your "go to" things you like to check, that perhaps are not covered by the Moz Crawl reports. Just looking for things I perhaps hadn't thought about, that this might be useful for.
On-Page Optimization | | TheWebMastercom0 -
Rel="Canonical"
Hi!, We´ve just launched a new website and on this web we are using a lot Call to Actions on every page of the web and all of this CTA`s goes to the same Landing Page. (Ej: http://www.landing page.com) The problem comes when Google says this Landing Page is duplicate content because we are using some parameters like, for instance, http://www.landing page.com/?fuente=Soporteensalesforce So now we have just 1 Landing Page but Google sees 13 pages, because of this parameters and Moz alerted me that Google is seeing it as duplicate content. Yesterday I put this on the head of the only Landing Page we have so Google can see it in the proper way, as just one landing, but I don´t know if it is enough or should I do anything else? What I put on the Head: Hope someone can help me about this because I´ve tried to find a solution and this is the only thing that came up to me, and don´t know if it´s the right thing. Thanks for your time!
On-Page Optimization | | Manuel_LeadClic0 -
"Issue: Duplicate Page Content " in Crawl Diagnostics - but these pages are noindex
Saw an issue back in 2011 about this and I'm experiencing the same issue. http://moz.com/community/q/issue-duplicate-page-content-in-crawl-diagnostics-but-these-pages-are-noindex We have pages that are meta-tagged as no-everything for bots but are being reported as duplicate. Any suggestions on how to exclude them from the Moz bot?
On-Page Optimization | | Deb_VHB0 -
Too Many on page links! Will "NoFollow" for navigation help?
I am getting to many on page links ( for all my pages). Here is my website: http://www.websterpowerproducts.co.uk I think it is to do with the the navigation bar down the right hand side. I don't really want to get ride of this as it offers users a way of getting where they want without lots of clicking. I was wondering if adding a "NoFollow" tag to each of they links would stop the link juice getting diluted by the navigation bar. Many Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | WebsterPowerTools0 -
Re="tag" Question
Hello, I own the site I putted rel="tag" in categories and product links , its correct? There are a lot of categories and products , I wont get penalized right? Just making sure to know if Im doing it right , thank you for help me 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | matiw0 -
Does Bing consider http://www.domain.com the same as https://www.domain.com?
Bing Webmaster Tools showed me that sometimes it displays https://www.domain.com in its results and sometimes http://www.domain.com. That got me thinking. Does Bing consider https to be a seperate duplicate copy of the http version? IE does my site get knocked down for duplicate content because of this? In Google webmaster tools, I can tell it whether I want https or http. But I dont know how to tell Bing. Any pointers will be appreciated. Thanks Dan
On-Page Optimization | | DanFromUK0 -
How do I address "Critical Factors: Accessible to Engines"?
Hello,I am going thru the on-page report card produced by SEOMOZ and am stumped as to how to address the first critical factor. It looks like the correct meta tag to get search engines to index the site is at the bottom of the header. And as far as I know, which isn't much, the site returns the HTTP code 200 when I refresh.I am new at this, so please let me know if you have some specific solutions. I am using IWeb and the IWeb SEO Tool to make meta code improvements. I have pasted the head code for my website (www.grass2greens.com) below. Thanks in advance!<html lang="en" xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"><meta content="iWeb 3.0.4" name="Generator"><meta content="local-build-20120619" name="iWeb-Build"><meta content="IE=EmulateIE7" http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible"><meta content="width=880" name="viewport"><title>Grass to Greens: Asheville Edible Landscapingtitle><link href="Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_Landscaping_files/Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_Landscaping.css" media="screen,print" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet"><style type="text/css"><script type="text/javascript" async="" src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js"><script type="text/javascript" async="" src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js"><script src="Scripts/iWebSite.js" type="text/javascript"><script src="Scripts/iWebImage.js" type="text/javascript"><script src="Scripts/iWebMediaGrid.js" type="text/javascript"><script src="Scripts/Widgets/SharedResources/WidgetCommon.js" type="text/javascript"><script src="Scripts/Widgets/HTMLRegion/Paste.js" type="text/javascript"><script src="Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_Landscaping_files/Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_Landscaping.js" type="text/javascript"><script type="text/javascript"><meta content="Grass to Greens offers a range of edible landscape design, consultation, installation, and maintenance services. Free Consultations! We specialize in beautiful and useful vegetable gardens, season extension, tree work, orchards and food forests, stone work, fencing, and rain water catchment. Grass to Greens is an edible landscaping company committed to creating food security and fostering social justice through urban agriculture in the Asheville area. " name="description"><meta content="Landscaping Asheville Edible Gardens" name="keywords"><meta content="follow,index" name="robots"><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_Landscaping_files/Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_LandscapingMoz.css">head> Grass to Greens: Asheville Edible Landscaping
On-Page Optimization | | dcaudio0 -
What does this mean on first step up setting up a campaign? "Having two "twin" domains that both resolve forces them to battle for SERP positions, making your SEO efforts less effective. We suggest redirecting one, then entering the other here."
I am BRAND new to this, and setting up my first campaign. I choose subdomain, and entered www.pdsaz.com. This is the message I receive: We have detected that the domain www.pdsaz.com and the domain pdsaz.com both respond to web requests and do not redirect. Having two "twin" domains that both resolve forces them to battle for SERP positions, making your SEO efforts less effective. We suggest redirecting one, then entering the other here.
On-Page Optimization | | cschwartzel0