"WWW." versus Non - "www."
-
Our web developer recently changed our preferred domain from "www.thinkbiglearnsmart.com" to "thinkbiglearnsmart.com" so when I check the authority of the "www." it is higher than the "thinkbiglearnsmart.com." do you have any insight onto if we should just make our preferred URL "www." because that's how it was for years? Is there a way just to merge the two back together so it is not sort of having different information for the same site?
Thank you!
-
Thank you so much!
I am contacting my developer about this!
-
Looking at OSE for that domain, both sites have links pointing to them. So a preferred version should be chosen, and as Dana suggested, a 301 put in place. Since G+ 1s were also considered a ranking factor in Moz's latest update, I would take that into account as well, but interestingly enough it looks like +1s are appropriately applied regardless of the www version.
You don't have a large amount of links or authority built up yet, so ultimately it will not make a huge difference which one you choose, but it is important to stick with one and ensure the other is 301'd appropriately. The non-www has more links, but the www has more links from different domains - so if you did make a choice I would choose the www to get the authority from more linking domains.
The www has slightly higher page authority as well.
www version:
Page Authortity: 35
Linking domains: 12
Total Links 22
G+ 1s: 36
Non WWW Version
Page Authority: 27
Domain Authority: 25
Linking Domains 4
Total Links 164
Google +1s: 36
In response to your WMT question, preferred domain settings are now in the top right hand corner as an option under the gear icon under "site settings"
-
Hi there - it is to the right at the top next to "help" under settings - It's called site settings!
-
Thanks so much Dana!
-
I don't see the set preferred url section in webmasters tool anymore.. any hint on that as well?
-
Yes, in my opinion you should change it back to the "www." version and set that as your preferred version in Google Webmaster Tools. Also, make sure you have your developer 301-redirect the non-www version to your "www." version. This will unify your domain authority, which it appears has been fragmented by the two co-existing. You want to give preference to the one with the strongest authority. In this case it sounds like the "www." version is the way to go.
Something else to keep in mind is to have consistency in the way you are linking. If "www." is your preferred, then make sure that you are using that version when requesting backlinks, leaving comments on a blog or even creating print pieces (i.e. business cards). It will encourage other people linking to you to use the preferred version.
Hope that helps!
Dana
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
-
"New" issues not previously found being shown?
I'm not sure what logic Moz is using for its reporting of Site Crawl issues, but it appears to be pretty flawed (unless I'm missing something, which is possible). I've got a client site that has been in Moz for about 6 months now. Every time the crawler runs, the same number of pages are reported as having been crawled. However I'm consistently getting "New Issues" reported that should have been reported during previous crawls. Example: A redirect chain was reported several month ago. The referring URL was the homepage of the website, and we tracked it down to an old link in the header. This was fixed, marked as resolved, and the issue was not shown on the next crawl. Several weeks later, the same issue was reported for a different page on the website - a page which has existed since 2014 and was already crawled many times. Again, we fixed. Fast-forward to the report that just ran on 12/1 and we have the same issue reported, for a different page, which has also existed for years and has been previously crawled. It's very hard to explain to a client "this item you are seeing has been resolved", only to have it continually crop back up in future reports. Note this is not limited to redirect chains - that's just an example. I'm seeing this for other items such as missing canonicals, duplicate titles, etc.
Moz Bar | | RucksackDigital0 -
Does "Disallow: /xmlrpc.php" in robots.txt affect moz tools ability to fetch DA?
Just checked a website for Domain Authority using Moz' tool, however it returned 1 for DA, which should be unlikely. I have been trying to find the problem and found "Disallow: /xmlrpc.php" in robots.txt. Could this affect Moz' tools ability to get the required data?
Moz Bar | | Foli0 -
Confused by "Exact Keyword Used in Document Text at Least Once".
Hi, I am using the On-Page Grader to improve the SEO for certain keywords on certain pages. I have received the notification that the "Exact Keyword Used in Document Text at Least Once". Well from the looks of it I have already done this but I want to make sure that im checking the right thing. What does it mean when it says document text as I assumed it was text on the page but its not reading it as that. Any feedback would be appreciated
Moz Bar | | charlessimmons0 -
Need to solve "Oops our crawlers were unable to access" url for new campaign
I'm putting the url designfirstkitchenandbath.com and getting the "oops! our crawlers were unable to access the site. Since this site is a potential client, which shows up online, I can't get access to fix the code, plus while I can write a little html I don't feel comfortable working with hard, live code on someonelse's site. Anyone have a simple solution?
Moz Bar | | alisacromer0 -
Do exact keyword matches exclude "in", "based" etc?
I am trying to build a landing page for the search term "web design london" and I have included this search term as well as some variations such as "web design in london", "web design based in london" as the content doesn't really read well if I don't put in a connector word (I can't remember what the term for the use of "in" etc is). However I am using the Moz On-Page Grader to make sure I'm dotting every i and crossing every t, but it doesn't seem to pick up on the search term when "in" or "based" is used. Now is this a limitation of the On-Page Grader or should I expect Google and other search engines to not pick up on the search term when it contains these sorts of words?
Moz Bar | | mickburkesnr0 -
I'm getting, "you're not using the rel="canonical" META attribute" in my crawl diagnotic
I'm running a campaign crawler through Moz on this particular page: http://www.henley.ac.uk/executive-education/leadership-and-management-programmes/ but I'm getting a notifcaiton from Moz saying, "you're not using the rel="canonical" META attribute" I don't understand what this means!! Has anyone else had this problem, or can they help me understand what this means and how to fix it? Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving from the UK! Virginia
Moz Bar | | blackboxideas0 -
How do you feel when Moz marks one of your questions as "answered?"
Hi everyone, This is not meant to be snarky at all, so I just want to preface my question with that. So, since the new re-branded Moz rolled out last year, I'm sure many of you have noticed that if you ask a question and it is answered by a Moz associate, your question is marked as "answered." I'm sorry, but I don't like this. Here's why, I'm the one who asked the question. I should be the one who determines if the answer was adequate for me, or if it didn't sufficiently answer my question. This is particularly true when my question doesn't have to do with a customer service issue or a Moz tool question. If I ask a question about SEO, Content, CRO, marketing or any other subject, I feel like it should be me and only me who determines whether or not I feel like my question is answered. In addition to this, Moz is actually depriving themselves of useful UGC by shutting down questions in this way. How? Because when the rest of us who frequent the Q & A see a question that's already been marked as "answered" we tend not to open it, read it and respond, because we think that person has already gotten what they needed....when in fact, it could be that a Moz associate has jumped in and marked their question as answered when it really wasn't. Consequently, we all miss out. I propose/move that Moz associates can only mark questions as "answered" when they pertain directly to Q & A about Moz tools, service and support. All other questions must be marked as "answered" only by the asker or closed as "answered" after they have been dormant for 6 months or more. Can I get a second (motion) ?
Moz Bar | | danatanseo4 -
Moz "Crawl Diagnostics" doesn't respect robots.txt
Hello, I've just had a new website crawled by the Moz bot. It's come back with thousands of errors saying things like: Duplicate content Overly dynamic URLs Duplicate Page Titles The duplicate content & URLs it's found are all blocked in the robots.txt so why am I seeing these errors?
Moz Bar | | Vitalized
Here's an example of some of the robots.txt that blocks things like dynamic URLs and directories (which Moz bot ignored): Disallow: /?mode=
Disallow: /?limit=
Disallow: /?dir=
Disallow: /?p=*&
Disallow: /?SID=
Disallow: /reviews/
Disallow: /home/ Many thanks for any info on this issue.0