Solved Should I consolidate my "www" and "non-www" pages?
-
My page rank for www and non-www is the same. In one keyword instance, my www version performs SO much better.
Wanting to consolidate to one or the other. My question is as to whether all these issues would ultimately resolve to my chosen consolidated domain (i.e. www or non-www) regardless of which one I choose. OR, would it be smart to choose the one where I am already ranking high for this significant keyword phrase?
Thank you in advance for your help.
-
It may be that one version (www or non-www) has more historical links. You say your PageRank for both is the same, but how are you checking that? Google's public PageRank has not been updated in a decade or so.
Either way, I'd generally say that if you pick one version and stick to it (redirect the other, e.g. so every non-www. URL points to its www. equivalent), you should maintain all rankings. There is a theoretical advantage to picking the version with more links, but in my experience in practice this type of migration tends to be smooth.
-
Require the www Options +FollowSymLinks RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\.askapache\.com$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://www.askapache.com/$1 [R=301,L]
-
Yes. I would recommend picking the version (either www or non-www) that has the historical data showing it performs better than the other version. Check the list of indexed pages for each of the versions to compare. Ideally both the www and non-www version of the website will be indexed in Google so it will help you to decide which version makes the most sense to consolidate to.
Once you identify the preferred version, set 301 redirects from the non-preferred URLs to the preferred version of each URL (the one that has more traffic, links, authority, etc.) of the site. This should be done site-wide so that all URLs are either www or non-www, it shouldn’t be a mix of both. In my experience, I’ve found that between 90-99% of the Site’s SEO Authority is preserved when setting a permanent 301 redirect.
-
@meditationbunny Sorry for the slow reply - but yes, I'd expect Page Authority to increase slightly, if the "other" version had any value to it.
For Page Optimization, yes. For example, for my own site I see:
http://tcapper.co.uk redirects to https://www.tcapper.co.uk/. This on-page analysis is for https://www.tcapper.co.uk/.
-
It may be that one version (www or non-www) has more historical links. You say your PageRank for both is the same, but how are you checking that? Google's public PageRank has not been updated in a decade or so.
Either way, I'd generally say that if you pick one version and stick to it (redirect the other, e.g. so every non-www. URL points to its www. equivalent), you should maintain all rankings. There is a theoretical advantage to picking the version with more links, but in my experience in practice this type of migration tends to be smooth.
-
@tom-capper
Thank you. Yes, I should be more clear. I am calling it page rank, when I am actually referring to Moz's domain authority and Moz's keyword ranking. Still, I believe you answered my question. Under page optimization, I can see what appear to be duplicate listings of my pages along with different SERP ranking. It was confusing until I realized that one was the www and the other was non-www. I have since added code to my .htaccess file that will send everything to www. Can I expect the page optimization section to now only show www versions of the pages? Also, can I expect page authority to increase because it is no longer a mish-mash and is all headed to the same domain and same pages (i.e. www version)? -
It may be that one version ("www" or "non-www") has more historical links. You say your PageRank for both is the same, but how are you checking that? Google's public PageRank has not been updated in a decade or so.
Either way, I'd generally say that if you pick one version and stick to it (redirect the other, e.g. so every non-www. URL points to its www. equivalent), you should maintain all rankings. There is a theoretical advantage to picking the version with more links, but in my experience, in practice, this type of migration tends to be smooth.
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted!
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
-
How handle pages with "read more" text query strings?
My site has hundreds of keyword content landing pages that contain one or two sections of "read more" text that work by calling the page and changing a ChangeReadMore variable. This causes the page to currently get indexed 5 times (see examples below plus two more with anchor tag set to #sectionReadMore2 This causes Google to include the first version of the page which is the canonical version and exclude the other 4 versions of the page. Google search console says my site has 4.93K valid pages and 13.8K excluded pages. My questions are: 1. Does having a lot of excluded pages which are all copies of included pages hurt my domain authority or otherwise hurt my SEO efforts? 2. Should I add a rel="nofollow" attribute to the read more link? If I do this will Google reduce the number of excluded pages? 3. Should I instead add logic so the canonical tag displays the exact URL each time the page re-displays in another readmore mode? I assume this would increase my "included pages" and decrease the number of "excluded pages". Would this somehow help my SEO efforts? EXAMPLE LINKS https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp?ChangeReadMore=More#sectionReadMore1 https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp?ChangeReadMore=Less#sectionReadMore1
Technical SEO | | DougHartline0 -
Keyword use in city specific "homepages"
My company, RightFit Personal Training, is a marketplace for people to find independent personal trainers based on preference. I am currently in the process of expanding nationally, and each city essentially has it's own homepage. Currently, the url of each city page ends in the name of the city only. For example, the url for the Houston page is www.rightfitpersonaltraining.com/houston/. The issue here is that I actually wanted my contracted developer to add the state abbreviation as well as the words "personal trainers" to the end of each city page url. So what I really wanted to see out of the Houston personal training page was www.rightfitpersonaltraining.com/houston/tx/personal/trainers. Do you think it is worth it for me have my developer go back and change the URL structure of the city homepages to reflect the latter? This should also benefit the structure of the personal trainer profiles, because they could all fall under their specific city homepages. For example, I think it would be to my benefit if each trainer profile url ended in /city/state/personal/trainer/trainername. Thoughts?
Technical SEO | | mkornbl20 -
Duplicate Content based on www.www
In trying to knock down the most common errors on our site, we've noticed we do have an issue with dupicate content; however, most of the duplicate content errors are due to our site being indexed with www.www and not just www. I am perplexed as to how this is happening. Searching through IIS, I see nothing that would be causing this, and we have no hostname records setup that are www.www. Does anyone know of any other things that may cause this and how we can go about remedying it?
Technical SEO | | CredA0 -
Indexed pages and current pages - Big difference?
Our website shows ~22k pages in the sitemap but ~56k are showing indexed on Google through the "site:" command. Firstly, how much attention should we paying to the discrepancy? If we should be worried what's the best way to find the cause of the difference? The domain canonical is set so can't really figure out if we've got a problem or not?
Technical SEO | | Nathan.Smith0 -
Same URL in "Duplicate Content" and "Blocked by robots.txt"?
How can the same URL show up in Seomoz Crawl Diagnostics "Most common errors and warnings" in both the "Duplicate Content"-list and the "Blocked by robots.txt"-list? Shouldnt the latter exclude it from the first list?
Technical SEO | | alsvik0 -
Research for "love quotes"
I'm doing some research for the term "love quotes" I'm trying to understand why following URL is ranking so high quote-monster.com/category/love-quotes/ it only has one link? Any advise would be appreciated. Rgds Mark
Technical SEO | | relientmark0 -
Seeing non-www in yahoo results - good or bad?
My site ranks for both domain versions but more non-www than www - Should I make it one or the other? How do I tell Yahoo to just choose one? Ehh?
Technical SEO | | DavidS-2820610 -
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