Removing www from printed and digital
-
I wanted to make sure there will be no negative SEO implications if we change all ‘www.fdmgroup.com' references (printed and digital)?After some Googling, apparently some search engines regard www.fdmgroup.com and fdmgroup.com as two different websites and split SEO rankings (quote me if i’m wrong!).To date, a lot (if not all) of our online presence (e.g. adverts, banner links etc) use www.fdmgroup.com (both visually and in HTML markup) so these would also need updating to remove the 'www'.What are your thoughts? For the sake of SEO and canonical/duplicate content/ranking issues etc, would changing all www.fdmgroup.com references have a negative effect?
-
Hi Christopher,
The set-up you have at the moment is actually fine for SEO - http://www.fdmgroup.com/ resolves the website. http://fdmgroup.com/ employs a 301 redirect to take users and search engines to http://www.fdmgroup.com/: http://i.imgur.com/et4AKYV.png
This is correct, http://fdmgroup.com/ would be seen as a separate "version" of the home page if it was allowed to load without sending everyone on to the "www" version via the 301 redirect. Furthermore, every page within the http://fdmgroup.com/ "version" of the website would be duplicated from the "www" version of each page.
If you want to change to use http://fdmgroup.com/ instead, using that both on advertising and having that be the version of the website that resolves for both users and search engines, you will need to reverse that 301 redirect. This will mean that when people try to visit http://**www.**fdmgroup.com/, they are redirected to http://fdmgroup.com/. This is a simple process.
However, it is inadvisable to go through redirection like this unless you really, really have to. When you redirect a URL with a 301 redirect, a large portion of the URL's authority is passed on to the new URL. Not all of the authority is passed though. As a result, your rankings and traffic can take a little hit for a short while. This is not usually a big problem, and usually resolves itself quickly but it is best avoided unless the redirection really has to take place.
I am tempted to say that "it looks cleaner" is not the best reason to go through this change when your current set-up is totally fine and correct for SEO purposes.
That said, you absolutely could reference fdmgroup.com in offline advertising for stylistic purposes. When people type that URL in, they'll be redirected to the www version just as they are now. This is pretty common because of the stylistic benefits of not including www in TV / print advertising.
-
It looks cleaner without the www. Would it affect it negatively if we changed it? Thanks.
-
Not to mention if you've set up preferred domain or canonical this doesn't even matter. The only thing you may consider is it easier to advertise (branding) with out www.
-
www is considered a subdomain of the main domain.
Generally speaking, Google will give the main domain credit for what is on the subdomain. I don't think this is always the case though if you have really specific content on a subdomain and it is targeted for a certain topic because people would start linking to the subdomain as opposed to the main domain. So I think the correct answer is that it depends on your site and situation. If you can, everything should go on 1 domain unless it makes sense for some other reason to split things on multiple domains/subdomains.
If you have a ton of advertising out there for www...., why change it? Most people don't know that www is a subdomain (or care). You are not going to pick up a significant advantage SEO wise by switching to the main domain vs using the www version, so just don't mess with it.
Unless for some reason you have a good reason to create a bunch of subdomains, like if you had a real estate site nationwide and you wanted them to be organized by city like houston.mysite.com, atlanta.mysite.com, etc.
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
-
Client wants to remove mobile URLs from their sitemap to avoid indexing issues. However this will require SEVERAL billing hours. Is having both mobile/desktop URLs in a sitemap really that detrimental to search indexing?
We had an enterprise client ask to remove mobile URLs from their sitemaps. For their website both desktop & mobile URLs are combined into one sitemap. Their website has a mobile template (not a responsive website) and is configured properly via Google's "separate URL" guidelines. Our client is referencing a statement made from John Mueller that having both mobile & desktop sitemaps can be problematic for indexing. Here is the article https://www.seroundtable.com/google-mobile-sitemaps-20137.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RosemaryB
We would be happy to remove the mobile URLs from their sitemap. However this will unfortunately take several billing hours for our development team to implement and QA. This will end up costing our client a great deal of money when the task is completed. Is it worth it to remove the mobile URLs from their main website to be in adherence to John Mueller's advice? We don't believe these extra mobile URLs are harming their search indexing. However we can't find any sources to explain otherwise. Any advice would be appreciated. Thx.0 -
Removal tool - no option to choose mobile vs desktop. Why?
Google's removal tool doesn't give a person the option to tell them which index - mobile friendly, or desktop/laptop - the url should be removed from. Why? I may have a fundamental misunderstanding. The way I thought it works is that when you have a dynamically generated page based on the user agent, (ie, the SAME URL but different formatting for smartphones as for desktop/laptop) then the Google mobile bot will index the mobile friendly version and the desktop bot will index the desktop version -- so Google will have 2 different indexed results for the same url. That SEEMS to be validated by the existence of the words 'mobile-friendly' next to some of my mobile friendly page descriptions on mobile devices. HOWEVER, if that's how it works--why would Google not allow a person to remove one of the urls and keep the other? Is it because Google thinks a mobile version of a website must have all of the identical pages as the desktop version? What if it doesnt? What if a website is designed so that some of the slower pages simply aren't given a mobile version? Is it possible that Google doesn't really save results for a mobile friendly page if there is a corresponding desktop page-- but only checks to see if it renders ok? That is, it keeps only one indexed copy of each url, and basically assumes the mobile title and actual content is the same and only the formatting is different? That assumption isn't always true -- mobile devices lend themselves to different interactions with the user - but it certainly could save Google billions of dollars in storage. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | friendoffood0 -
PDF linkbuilding - pictures or no pictures since they might print it
Hello, We're writing a PDF on how to choose a product for our niche. We want people to link to the PDF, share it with people, and possibly print it. How heavily should I use graphics and images in this PDF? The corresponding article is full of graphics, charts, and images. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW0 -
Restructuring/Removing 301 Redirects Due To Newly Optimized Keywords
Just to be clear, this is for one unique page on a website. Also, please see my diagram attached. Let's say that a page's URL was originally /original. So, you optimize the page for a new keyword (keyword 1), and therefore change the URL to /keyword-1. A 301 redirect would then be placed... /original > /keyword-1 However, let's say 6 months down the road you realize that the keyword you optimized the page for (keyword 1) just isn't working. You research for a new keyword, and come up with (keyword 2). So, you'd like to rename the page's URL to /keyword-2. After placing a redirect from the current page (keyword 1) to the 'now' new page (keyword 2), it would look like this... /original > /keyword-1 > /keyword-2 We know that making a server go through more than one redirect slows the server load time, and even more 'link-juice' is lost in translation. Because of this, would it make sense to remove the original redirect and instead place redirects like this? /original > /keyword-2 /keyword-1 > /keyword-2 To me, this would make the most sense for preserving SEO. However, I've read that removing 301 redirects can cause user issues due to browsers caching the now 'removed' redirect. Even if this is ideal for SEO, could it be more work than it's worth? Does anyone have any experience/input on this? If so, I greatly appreciate your time! oDvLl.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LogicalMediaGroup1 -
Have you ever seen this 404 error: 'www.mysite.com/Cached' in GWT?
Google webmaster tools just started showing some strange pages under "not found" crawl errors. www.mysite.com/Cached www.mysite.com/item-na... <--- with the three dots, INSTEAD of www.mysite.com/item-name/ I have just 301'd them for now, but is this a sign of a technical issue? The site is php/sql and I'm doing the URL rewrites/301s etc in .htaccess. Thanks! -Dan EDIT: Also, wanted to add, there is no 'linked to' page.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | evolvingSEO0 -
Should I remove paid links?
I recently added about 20 paid links from directories but have since seen a 10% drop in traffic. I did also delete about 1000 pages of content that had no inbound links and were duplicated on other sites on the web and replaced the content with new content supplied by a client but still duplicated on other sites on the web, old URLs no longer valid or linked to, new content on new URLs. Assuming the drop in traffic had nothing to do with the content change mentioned above, should I remove the paid links in an attempt to recover? I don't think the old content was bringing in much traffic as it appeared elsewhere on more authoritive sites than mine.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mulith0 -
Should I completly remove the meta tags keywords in the html page?
So if the metag is not longer used by the search engines should I keep them in my html ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lomastravel0