Is the www and non www isue realy seen by Google as duplicate content?
-
I realy don't understand how Google could posibly devaluate a link because the site displays the same content with www and without www. I mean did somebody recently saw a devaluation of a domain because of this isue? I somehow can not belive this because it is the standard when geting a new webspace that the new website display the same content with and without www.
Is a redirect realy necessary?
-
Google maay be able to work out what version you want to go with, but is it the same one that bing and other SE's will go with, and then you have the problem with www and non www links, one will be redirect to the other somehow and will leak a bit of link juice. its better that when some one copies your url its always the same.
I prefer the non www. because www is unessasry, i believe its an old unix thing, not needed today. If you have a long domain name www makes it just that much more confusing
-
Google is very good at figuring out that www and non www versions are the same site - so content duplication will not be an issue (this happens too often for them not to handle properly). One advantage you do have is consolidation of yoru link juice towards the same canonical version and therefore achieving better results. Set your preference in Google Webmaster Tools to a choice and stick to it - everywhere - even in your email signatures and printed material.
As far as www goes we've purposely dropped it and went with non-www, I personally think www is silly and meaningless however this means we have to from time to time police and correct how webmasters write down and link our URL and ask for www removal if found. Not too hard if you monitor yoru brand via Google Alerts.
-
Better have www. instead of without. Uniformity has always been an issue
-
Hi Michael,
Now a days Google is really Google at figuring out what version of the website you want to go with but with that said, isn't really that hard of a thing to fix. I'd say that as long as all your internal links are consistent in pointing to the same version, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. In the long run of things, by making the redirect you won't see this huge bump in rankings but it is a standard practice that is done.
Casey
-
better safe then sorry.
I did look around for some time to get the answer to the same question and since no one could get a straight answer and even google webmaster tool has the option for ww or non www I think is better to get the 301 redirect.
Anyway - is just an opinion.
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
-
When making content pages to a specific page; should you index it straight away in GSC or let Google crawl it naturally?
When making content pages to a specific page; should you index it straight away in GSC or let Google crawl it naturally?
On-Page Optimization | | Jacksons_Fencing0 -
Duplicate Content in Footers (Not as routine as it seems)
Hello there, I know that content in the footer of sites are safe from duplication penalisation; however, what if the footers where replicated across different subdomains? For instance, the footer was duplicated across: www.example.com blog.example.com blog2.example.com I don't see it as a big issue personally; however, outsourced "specialists" seem to think that this is causing duplication problems and therefore negatively affecting the ranking power of "lesser" subdomains i.e. not the www version, which is by far the strongest subdomain. Would be good to get some insight if anybody has any. Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | SEONOW1230 -
Duplicate Page Titles
It seems as though we are being flagged for duplicate page titles when really they are slightly different. Is it better to remove the "dart board" or "dart board backboard" from all the product titles? We were doing this for optimal SEO - to rank for the search of "dart board" - but is it really hurting us? for example, our product titles are: Obama dart board backboard, Texas dart board backboard, Oklahoma dart board backboard, etc. Yet they are being flagged as duplicate titles.
On-Page Optimization | | DartsDecor0 -
I have an eCommerce Site with in some cases, 100s of versions of the same product. How do I avoid "duplicate content" without writing literally 100s of unique product descriptions for the exact same product?
For instance, one item where the only difference is the Sports Team Logo is different, etc... or It comes in a variety of color Variants. I'm using Shopify.
On-Page Optimization | | pstone291 -
Photo Gallery with Duplicate Content and Titles
I have a photo Gallery that is coming up as a lot of Duplicate Titles and Page Content and fixing each photo just isn't possible right now. Should I just block the search engines from indexing them to resolve the errors?
On-Page Optimization | | NeilBelliveau0 -
Duplicate Page Content on Empty Manufacturer Pages
I work for an internet retailer that specializes in pet supplies and medications. I was going through the Crawl Diagnostics for our website, and I saw in the Duplicate Page Content section that some of our manufacturer pages were getting flagged. The way our site is set up is that when products are discontinued we mark them as discontinued and use 301 redirects to redirect their URLs to other relevant products, brands, or our homepage. We do the same thing with brand and manufacturer pages if all of their products are discontinued. 90% of the time, this is a manual process. However, the other 10% of the time certain products come and go automatically as part of our inventory system with one of our fulfillment partners. This can sometimes create empty manufacturer pages. I can't redirect these empty pages because there's a chance that products will be brought back in stock and the page will be populated again. What can we do so that these pages won't get marked as duplicates while they're empty? Write unique short descriptions about the companies? Would the placement of these short descriptions matter--top of the page under the category name vs bottom of the page underneath where the products would go? The links in the left sidebar, top, and in the footer our part of our site architecture, so those are always going to be the same. To contrast, here's what a manufacturer page with products looks like: Thanks! http://www.vetdepot.com/littermaid-manufacturer.html
On-Page Optimization | | ElDude0 -
Will Google re-index the page if content is changed/improved?
Hello,
On-Page Optimization | | wickedsunny1
i have a little question, it seems most of my posts which are 3 years old or even more, all have almost same type of 2-3 lines of text at post starting and then images roundups etc.
which recently stopped getting any traffic from google. Probably becuase of lack in text etc.
So if i now edit those old pages, will they be reindexed in google with this new content/data?
thanks in advance.
cheers0 -
Duplicate Content - Potential Issue.
Hello, here we go again, If I write an article somewhere, lets say Squidoo for instance, then post it to my blog on my website will google see this as duplicate content and probably credit Squidoo for it or is there soemthing I can do to prevent this, maybe a linkk back to Squidoo from my website or a dontfollow on my website? Im not sure so any help here would be great, Also If I use other peoples material in my blog and link back to them, obviously I dont want the credit for the original material I am simply collating some of this on my blog for others to have a specific library if you like. Is this going to damage my websites reputation? Thanks again peeps. Craig Fenton IT
On-Page Optimization | | craigyboy0