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.
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
-
Is it impossible to get out of Panda? Matt Cutts says if you fix the problem you "pop back" but if so why are their so few examples?
In this video matt cutts says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IzUuhTyvJk about 15 "once we re-run our data (every few weeks) if we determine your site is of higher quality you would pop back out of being affected" Panda has effected thousands of sites and a lot of smart people have been working on the problem for about 2 years since the first panda was launched, but I can only find 1 site that has "popped back" to their original rankings. e.g. http://searchengineland.com/google-panda-two-years-later-losers-still-losing-one-real-recovery-149491 Apart from Motortrend.com I can't find any sites (of reasonable size) / case studies of sites that have solved the panda problem, and were definitely hit by panda. Which doesn't feel right, some people have deleted a ton of pages, redesigned their site, improved their content, etc with no success. Therefore is it a pointless exercise? Therefore, is it better to simply give up and start a new site?
On-Page Optimization | | julianhearn1 -
How to "on page" seo a small local service business - particularly headers
First off, let me apologize if this question is posted elsewhere, worded differently. I've looked around quite a bit and have been unable to find the answer. Basically, we are a small web design firm just getting our feet with with SEO. Most of our clients, especially initially, will be quite small, local, service businesses. For example: and electrician, a pet sitter, a retail printing and map store, a surgeon etc. Almost all of their sites will follow a basic "business card on the web" format... Home Page - About Us - Testimonials - Rates - FAQ - Contact Us - Etc So, from what I've read about on-page optimization, making sure my keywords are in the title, header, body, and meta description is one of the easiest and quickest things we can do for our clients. This is a straightforward concept for me when applied to the homepage. For example, take the local pet sitting business. Her keywords are: Pet sitting, Dog walking, and the city we live in, Anytown USA. So, I've used those keywords in all the appropriate places on the home page: title: Dog Walking and Pet Sitting Service in Anytown USA header: Dog Walking and Pet Sitting Service in Anytown USA first sentence of body: We are a professional Dog Walking and Pet Sitting Service in Anytown USA meta description: We are a professional Dog Walking and Pet Sitting Service in Anytown USA. At Business Name your furry friends become a part of our family. So, my question is: Do I also optimize the "about us" page? I've changed the title of all the pages to follow this format: Dog Walking and Pet Sitting in Anytown USA - Home Dog Walking and Pet Sitting in Anytown USA - About Us Dog Walking and Pet Sitting in Anytown USA - Rates Dog Walking and Pet Sitting in Anytown USA - FAQ Dog Walking and Pet Sitting in Anytown USA - Etc Easy enough so far. Also pretty easy for the meta description, and the body. However, how would I add keywords to the header without making it look ridiculous? We use wordpress with the genesis framework, and child themes from studiopress. The header is always prominently visible at the top of the page. Most people would expect to see the header be the same as the link they clicked on the nav bar: for example, on the "about us" page, people expect the header to be: "about us" Not: "dog walking and pet sitting in Anytown USA - About Us" Do I just not worry about the headers on the other pages? For that matter, I'd really like people to "land" on the home page, not any of the other pages, so should I not optimize them at all? Does optimizing the rest of the pages help the home page to show up higher in the SERPS? If I do end up optimizing the rest of the pages, should I use slightly different spellings of the keywords: like Dog walker instead of dog walking? Or pet sitter instead of pet sitting? I've repeatedly seen people talk about not using the same keywords on more than one page... but for most of these businesses there are really fairly few keywords. There just isn't that many different ways that someone is going to search for an electrician, or a plumber, or a pet sitter. By the second or third page that I optimize on one site, I imagine I'll start running out of different variations of the keywords. I recognize that a lot of what we'll do that will be most helpful to local clients has nothing to do with on page optimization (setting up google places, google+, yahoo + bing local, etc). I'd just like to make sure that I'm doing the on page stuff as perfectly as possible. Thanks for your time and responses! -Matt p.s. while I'm at it, let me ask another question about domain names as well. Right now the pet sitting client mentioned above is using: www.petcare_Anytown_.com After operating her business for the last year she realized she is much more interested in dog walking than pet sitting. We are in the processes of redesigning the site, and when finished, are considering moving it to: www.dogwalking_Anytown_.com My assumption is that as long as we use permanent redirects from the old site to the new one, we shouldn't lose much SEO value. Is this thinking correct? On a related note though: another article I read mentioned that using a brand name in the domain may actually be more useful than the keyword rich domains above. However, www._businessname._com happens to already be taken by a pet sitting business at the other end of the country. We could however use: www.businessnameAnytown.com Which one do you think would work better? The keyword/location domain, or the businessname/location domain? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | Webformix0 -
Is this good practise for SEO: www.example.com/testing-once/testing-once.aspx?
My web developer is telling me that it is best practice for SEO to place your keyword in your URL twice. For Example: www.example.com/testing-once/testing-once.aspx. I'm sure that this is not true, could you please help?
On-Page Optimization | | CoGri0 -
Can you find the "problem" metric or metrics?
I just dropped from #2 for my main keyword to #5 and am not sure why. My companies Ranking Metrics compared to top 5 Page Authority:#2, MozRank:#1, MozTrust:#1, MT/MR:#1, Total Links: #1, Internal Links:#1, External Links: #1, Followed Links:#1, No Follow Links: #1, Linking Root Domains:#1, OnPageAnalysis Grade: "A", Broad Keyword usage: Yes, Broad keyword in document:
On-Page Optimization | | Boodreaux0 -
Anchor text in Ecommerce site without relevant pages
I'm posting articles to my e-commerce site and just wondering about the anchor text links within the posts. I don't have relevant static pages but the items do come up in a search query. For example i don't have a specific page for red wine but if a user searched for red wine it would give a search query URL. Should I use that search URL query as my anchor text?
On-Page Optimization | | acs1110 -
Encouraging users to "like" or "+1" our pages
Do you think its "bad" SEO or maybe google might penalize if we encourage users to like or pages or give us +1 for google?
On-Page Optimization | | cbielich0 -
URL Extensions (with or without??!!)
Hello, SEOers~ Today I have a question about URL extensions. Which one is more search engine friendly between URL with extensions and without extensions? e.g. URL with extension : www.example.com/tv/lcd.jsp URL without extension : www.example.com/tv/lcd I heard that URL without extensions is in trend considering user experience. User experience is also important but I would like to know from SEO perspective. Please people~ Help me out with this~! Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | Artience0