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
-
I have an eCommerce Site with in some cases, 100s of versions of the same product. How do I avoid "duplicate content" without writing literally 100s of unique product descriptions for the exact same product?
For instance, one item where the only difference is the Sports Team Logo is different, etc... or It comes in a variety of color Variants. I'm using Shopify.
On-Page Optimization | | pstone291 -
What does Google consider a "Duplicate Title Tag?"
Do the title tags have to be exactly the same, or can they have some of the same keywords but different context? Hypothetical example: Home Page = Raising a Kitten, Tips & Tricks for a Healthy Cat Sub-Page = How to Cat-Proof your Home when Raising a Kitten Since both title tags has "raising a kitten," "cat" and "tips" would this be considered a "Duplicate Title Tag" even though the pages have completely different content in them? Thanks in advance!
On-Page Optimization | | Scratch_MM0 -
Www no longer redirects
Hi there, A while back I dropped the www from my domain. Everything redirected ok and I could still access my site using www and it would simply redirect to http://mysite This no longer seems to be occurring. I don't think I have changed anything? I don't believe I had anything in my htaccess however I am looking for some assistance in doing so. I've done a bit of reading but am not 100% confident! If anyone is interested, the url is http://cdkeyprices.com Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | MrPenguin0 -
Www.colourbanners.co.uk/ & colourbanners.co.uk showing up as two seperate URLs - is this going to be dupliacte content issue?
Hi Guys, I have just created a report in Moz and there appears to be 91 duplicate content issues with the site which i need to fix as i think it could be the reason why we are suffering from a penalty. One of the main questions i have is these 3 variations of the URL http://www.colourbanners.co.uk/ http://colourbanners.co.ukhttp://colourbanners.co.uk/Each have links pointing to them. My question is, could this be causing a dupe issue?regardsGerry
On-Page Optimization | | gezzagregz0 -
"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 -
Should I make All My "Non-Money" Pages No-Follow?
I'm branching out here from my novice seo status . . . In an effort to channel page rank to the pages I wish to rank for should I make all my non-money pages no-follow. Pages like "contact us", "about us", "application", etc. It seems to make sense to make these no follow so the page rank flows to the pages I wish to rank for. Am I on the right track?
On-Page Optimization | | leaseman0 -
Non www. page still ranking highest
Hi I didnt quite know what I was doing in start when I started linkbuilding. Links were spread btw epleskrinet.no and www.epleskrinet.no . A couple of the strongest links were to the non www. version. So that one was ranking highest atm. I got it redirected 2 weeks ago. All links that are added know goes to www.version still the non www. is ranking highest. Should i worry about this or will simply the otherone overcome it in time ?
On-Page Optimization | | danlae0 -
Avoiding "Duplicate Page Title" and "Duplicate Page Content" - Best Practices?
We have a website with a searchable database of recipes. You can search the database using an online form with dropdown options for: Course (starter, main, salad, etc)
On-Page Optimization | | smaavie
Cooking Method (fry, bake, boil, steam, etc)
Preparation Time (Under 30 min, 30min to 1 hour, Over 1 hour) Here are some examples of how URLs may look when searching for a recipe: find-a-recipe.php?course=starter
find-a-recipe.php?course=main&preperation-time=30min+to+1+hour
find-a-recipe.php?cooking-method=fry&preperation-time=over+1+hour There is also pagination of search results, so the URL could also have the variable "start", e.g. find-a-recipe.php?course=salad&start=30 There can be any combination of these variables, meaning there are hundreds of possible search results URL variations. This all works well on the site, however it gives multiple "Duplicate Page Title" and "Duplicate Page Content" errors when crawled by SEOmoz. I've seached online and found several possible solutions for this, such as: Setting canonical tag Adding these URL variables to Google Webmasters to tell Google to ignore them Change the Title tag in the head dynamically based on what URL variables are present However I am not sure which of these would be best. As far as I can tell the canonical tag should be used when you have the same page available at two seperate URLs, but this isn't the case here as the search results are always different. Adding these URL variables to Google webmasters won't fix the problem in other search engines, and will presumably continue to get these errors in our SEOmoz crawl reports. Changing the title tag each time can lead to very long title tags, and it doesn't address the problem of duplicate page content. I had hoped there would be a standard solution for problems like this, as I imagine others will have come across this before, but I cannot find the ideal solution. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards5