Www vs non-www
-
We just had our site redesigned. Previously, it was indexed under www.suss.net, but now the developer has it at suss.net with www.suss.net 301 redirecting to suss.net. Is this bad for SEO?
-
Thanks for the detailed response. I checked Open Site Explorer and looks like we should be using the www.
Also, I believe that we have some print ads that use www -- good thinking!
-
Neither helps or hinders your SEO efforts but forcing one over the other will help on many fronts (particularly with PR concentration and indexation issues). Generally, I prefer non www URls because this reduces the length of all URLs by 4 characters. A bonus is if your domain and file names are short you may not need a URL shortener on Twitter.
However, there are other considerations for an existing site. For example:
-
what does your link profile look like? Are your most valued backlinks pointing to www vs non www (there is slight PR leakage with 301 redirects)
-
What does your indexation look like? Are more www pages indexed than non and vice versa
-
Do you have a massive amount of print collateral or ads with www? This is less of a concern because of the 301 but it brings back up issues #1 and 2.
There are other considerations but these are the ones that come to mind quickly.
-
-
I don't know who has thumbed down because it is the correct response.
-
I am not sure if there is technically a negative SEO impact of non www sites however I would guess a www site has a better CTR rate etc as it is more familiar to users.
-
Yes.
You want the 301 to go from suss.net to www.suss.net
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
-
Question on Pagination - /blog/ vs /blog/?page=1
Question on Pagination Because we could have /blog/ or /blog/?page=1 as page one would this be the correct way to markup the difference between these two URL? The first page of a sequence could start with either one of these URLs. Clarity around what to do on this first page would be helpful. Example… Would this be the correct way to do this as these two URLs would have the exact content? Internal links would likely link to /blog/ so signal could be muddy. URL: https://www.somedomain.com/blog/
Technical SEO | | jorgensoncompanies
<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.somedomain.com/blog/?page=1"> URL: https://www.somedomain.com/blog/?page=1
<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.somedomain.com/blog/?page=1"> Google is now saying to just use the canonical to the correct paginated URL with page number. You can read that here:
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/ecommerce/pagination-and-incremental-page-loading But they do not clarify what to do on /blog/?page=1 vs /blog/ as they are the exact same thing. Thanks for your help.0 -
Huge number of crawl anomalies and 404s - non- existent urls
Hi there, Our site was redesigned at the end of January 2020. Since the new site was launched we have seen a big drop in impressions (50-60%) and also a big drop in total and organic traffic (again 50-60%) when compared to the old site. I know in the current climate some businesses will see a drop in traffic, however we are a tech business and some of our core search terms have increased in search volume as a result of remote-working. According to search console there are 82k urls excluded from coverage - the majority of these are classed as 'crawl anomaly' and there are 250+ 404's - almost all of the urls are non-existent, they have our root domain with a string of random characters on the end. Here are a couple of examples: root.domain.com/96jumblestorebb42a1c2320800306682 root.domain.com/01sportsplazac9a3c52miz-63jth601 root.domain.com/39autoparts-agency26be7ff420582220 root.domain.com/05open-kitchenaf69a7a29510363 Is this a cause for concern? I'm thinking that all of these random fake urls could be preventing genuine pages from being indexed / or they could be having an impact on our search visibility. Can somebody advise please? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | nicola-10 -
SERP Review Features show on a non-product page?
When reviewing my campaign's SERP Features, I notice that one of my competitors is gaining a lot of Review Features that I'm missing. I'm ranking high for the keywords that are showing the review features, but not on my product page. I'm ranking for those keywords on blogs and other pages. Is there a way to show for those review features as I currently have it, or should I be trying to rank for those keywords on my product page? I appreciate any insight into this situation.
Technical SEO | | LearningStuff0 -
WMT "Index Status" vs Google search site:mydomain.com
Hi - I'm working for a client with a manual penalty. In their WMT account they have 2 pages indexed.If I search for "site:myclientsdomain.com" I get 175 results which is about right. I'm not sure what to make of the 2 indexed pages - any thoughts would be very appreciated. google-1.png google-2.png
Technical SEO | | JohnBolyard0 -
Redirect root domain to www
I've been having issues with my keyword rankings with MOZ and this is what David at M0Z asked me to do below. Does anyone have a solution to this? I'm not 100% sure what to do. Does it hurt ranking to have a domain at the root or not? Can I 301 redirect a whole site or do I have to do individual pages. "Your campaign is looking for rankings for the www version of the campaign but the URL resolves as a root domain. This would explain the discrepancy. Since there is no re-direct between the two, you can have brickmarkers.com 301 re-direct to www.site.com which will prevent you from re-creating your campaign to track the root domain. Once the re-direct is in place it will take a while for Google to show the www version in the results in which your campaign rankings will be accurate." Thanks
Technical SEO | | SeaDrive0 -
Www to non www
Hi, Is this the correct code for redirecting www to non www version on Apache server RewriteEngine OnRewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.example.com RewriteRule (.*) http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L] Thanks
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
WordPress Pretty Permalinks vs Site Speed
A couple of issues at play here as I wrestle with the best permalink structure for a site I'm toying with now. 1. I know that WordPress wants a unique number in the post to improve performance and db calls. 2. I know that for basic on-page SEO, most of us would opt for CATEGORY/POST or maybe even just post. I constantly change those. It's a bad habit, but sometimes you want the killer headline and a decent title in the post. So here is the issue: I can rewrite or use a plugin (anyone have a favorite) the permalinks to speed up site performance. We all know Google wants that. Maybe the permalink becomes /1234-foo But you know, a number in front of the URL just isn't awfully user friendly. If someone wants to read the foo post, it's nice to send them directly there. So would you trade off a slowdown in site speed for the prettiest permalinks for usability and SEO? And since you're asking a WP question, has anyone heard of a hard cap on static pages where the database starts dragging? The site I have in mind has 400 each posts and pages. Would moving platforms to Drupal or Joomla allow handling that many pages more effectively? Thanks for contributing and any help you can give. George
Technical SEO | | georgebounacos0 -
Should I 301 my non-www accesses to www accesses?
We have external links pointing to both mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com. I read this: http://www.stepforth.com/resources/web-marketing-knowledgebase/non-www-redirect/ and wondered if I should add this to my .htaccess file: RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mydomain.com
Technical SEO | | scanlin
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.mydomain.com/$1 [R=301,L] so that the link juice all flows to the www version of the site? Any reason not to do it?0