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
-
Embedded twitter post is good for https://www.fitness-china.com/hip-thrust-machine seo
We have short video posts on twitter. Embedded twitter post is good for https://www.fitness-china.com/hip-thrust-machine SEO?
On-Page Optimization | | ahislop5740 -
Ranking for "synonym" terms on separate pages?
(My title says "synonym" but it's not exactly the most accurate word, but works best for the title_) I have a site that ranks #1 for a term, and let’s pretend it’s “cheap phone”. It’s also ranks #1 for “cheap phone service” and #3 for “cheap phone plans”. These are all the home page with those rankings I have a sub page whose natural title would be “Cheap Phone Plans” or “Cheap Phone Service”. I have it named something these and it is not optimized for either of these terms because I think it would be best to not mess with the good rankings I have already for those two terms So here’s my question: what would likely be the outcome if I optimized that subpage for “Cheap Phone Plans” or “Cheap Phone Service”? If Google began to direct searchers of this term to my subpage rather than my home page, would my home page lose some of it’s ranking with it’s main and most popular keyword, “cheap phone? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | bizzer0 -
Properly changing title, URL and content for new keywords without harming other rankings.
Hello - We are looking to try to bring up some keywords in the SERPs that we are currently ranking fairly low for. We sell Christening clothing for children and people will use both Christening and Baptism to search for the same thing. We currently rank very high for Christening (#1 on Google for certain combinations) but we are fairly low on Baptism.
On-Page Optimization | | BabyBeauBelle
I am trying to figure out the best way to start getting Baptism up by changing some title, URL and content pages to include more Baptism keywords. My concern is messing with the existing because we rank so well for Christening. Since we are ecommerce we can vary this quite a bit on our products, but again I'm nervous to do so fearing changing the wrong things, too many products etc and in the process of trying to raise one set of keywords (baptism) we harm the other set (christening).
Any advice would be appreciated!0 -
Should I consolidate pages to prevent "thin content"
I have a site based on downloadable images which tend to slow a site. In order to increase speed I divided certain pages up so that there will be less images on each page such as here: http://www.kindergartenteacherresources.com/2011/09/23/spongebob-alphabet-worksheets-uppercase-letters-a-h/ http://www.kindergartenteacherresources.com/2011/09/23/spongebob-alphabet-worksheets-uppercase-letters-i-q/ http://www.kindergartenteacherresources.com/2011/09/23/spongebob-alphabet-worksheets-uppercase-letters-r-z/ The problem is that I now have potential duplicate content and thin content. Should I consolidate them and put all of the content from the 3 pages on one page? or maybe keep them as they are but add a rel previous / next tag? or any other suggestion to prevent a duplicate/thin content penalty while not slowing down the site too much?
On-Page Optimization | | JillB20130 -
Is there a tool that will "grade" content?
Does anybody know of a tool that can "grade" content for Panda compliance. For example, it might look at: • the total number of words on the page • the average number of words in sentences • grammar • spelling • repetitious words and/or phrases • Readability—using algorithms such as: Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease Flesch Kincaid Grade Level Gunning Fog Score Coleman Liau Index Automated Readability Index (ARI) For the last 5 months I've been writing and rewriting literally 100s of catalog descriptions—adhering to the "no duplicate content" and "adding value" rubrics—but in an extremely informal style. I would like to know if I'm at least meeting Google Panda's minimum standards.
On-Page Optimization | | RScime250 -
Which pages should use rel="canonical" links?
I have many pages showing up as multiple content. Most of the them belong to product pages for my store, login pages that show up everywhere on the site, etc. I know that I need to use the rel=canonical link in the header but after searching the forum I'm still unsure of what pages need it. Is it the pages that I don't want searched/crawled by Google or the other way around? Thanks! Crystal
On-Page Optimization | | COfashionista0 -
How do i chaneg a url without losing pre-existing linkjuice?
my client has a page on his site: www.revisitors.com/REF/TEST the page is for a free traffic offer...i have this page currently ranking 25th or so for "free traffic" - a great keyword to rank for to promote this offer with..... i want the url to be www.revisitors.com/free-traffic.html and then change the title tags to free traffic | free targeted traffic or something along those lines....i have hardly put in any linkbuilding work at all to get to 25 - it was a surprise but now that we are there i want to tighten things up and optimize as well as possible.... how do i do this without losing previously built linkjuice and without having a duplicate content issue for having both pages exist with a 301 redirect.... if i am wrong about something please dont hesitate to set me straight...i am only masquerading as an seo expert these days anyway.....thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | Ezpro90 -
What image attribute should carry "anchor text" for internal linking
Newbie question: an internal link generally should carry keyword anchor text, so if the link is actually an image, what image attribute should contain the equivalent of the anchor text
On-Page Optimization | | k3nn3dy30