Http:// vs http://www.
-
Why is it that when I run an "On Page Optimization Keyword Report" for my website I get a different score when using http://www.tandmkitchens.com vs http://tandmkitchens.com.
My keyword is "Kitchen Remodeling"
http://www.tandmkitchens.com scores an A
http://tandmkitchens.com scores a B
It's the same page yet one url scores higher than the other.
Any help!
Thanks
Gary -
Alan, I was only talking about the on page report. Good oversight on your part.
Thanks again
-
Alan great indepth feedback on assigned value.
-
I think gary was talking about the on page report, that only looks at on page factors not links
-
Great Stuff Alan. Thank you so much for the input. I owe you a pint!
-
Generally speaking, every internal link, and every external link pointing into your site, every social or web mention of one or the other, will have an impact. So if, for example, there are 10 links pointing to www.tandemkitchens.com and 8 pointing to tandemkitchens.com, the www version will be given more weight.
Where it gets more complex is how well search engines and evaluation tools do at compensating for ranking signals when both www and non www are indexed or capable of being indexed. Allowing both to be will inevitably lead to imperfect algorithmic evaluations - there's no perfect system that can properly discern that both versions are not meant to be unique (thus causing algorithmically perceived duplicate content conflicts). And ultimately, that leads to an inaccurate distribution of assigned value.
It's for these reasons that one should be chosen as the standard, 301 redirects created, and every attempt possible then made to have links standardized (the least controllable factor being how others choose to link to you. Yet with 301 redirects, you at least ensure the most ranking value possible be passed from the non-indexed version even if links point to it.
-
My thoughts exactly Alan "Weird"
I'll try the 301 redirect to www.
Thanks for the help!
-
that is wierd, what about your indervidual scores, all your ticks are they all the same?
You know you should have a 301 to www or non www,
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-multiple-canonical-formats
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
-
Redirect to http to https - Pros and Cons
Hi, I know its best practice to redirect a website from http to https, instead of having many entry point to your website. When a website has been running for a long time on http and https, what are the SEO Pros and Cons of implementing a redirect from Http to Https?
Technical SEO | | FreddyKgapza1 -
We switched the domain from www.blog.domain.com to domain.com/blog.
We switched the domain from www.blog.domain.com to domain.com/blog. This was done with the purpose of gaining backlinks to our main website as well along with to our blog. This set us very low in organic traffic and not to mention, lost the backlinks. For anything, they are being redirected to 301 code. Kindly suggest changes to bring back all the traffic.
Technical SEO | | arun.negi0 -
Robots.txt Download vs Cache
We made an update to the Robots.txt file this morning after the initial download of the robots.txt file. I then submitted the page through Fetch as Google bot to get the changes in asap. The cache time stamp on the page now shows Sep 27, 2013 15:35:28 GMT. I believe that would put the cache time stamp at about 6 hours ago. However the Blocked URLs tab in Google WMT shows the robots.txt last downloaded at 14 hours ago - and therefore it's showing the old file. This leads me to believe for the Robots.txt the cache date and the download time are independent. Is there anyway to get Google to recognize the new file other than waiting this out??
Technical SEO | | Rich_A0 -
How to link site.com/blog or site.com/blog/
Hello friends, I have a very basic question but I can not find the right answer... I have made my blog linkbuilding using the adress "mysite.com/blog" but now im not sure if is better to do the linkbuilding to "mysite.com**/blog/ "** Is there any diference? Thanks...
Technical SEO | | lans27870 -
Duplicate Page Content / Rel Canonical
Hi, The diagnostics shows me that I have 590 Duplicate Page Content , but when it shows the Rel Canonical I have over 1000, so dose that mean I have no Duplicate Page Content problem? Please help.
Technical SEO | | Joseph-Green-SEO0 -
Having www. and non www. links indexed
Hey guys, As the title states, the two versions of the website are indexed in Google. How should I proceed? Please also note that the links on the website are without the www. How should I proceed knowing that the client prefers to have the www. version indexed. Here are the steps that I have in mind right now: I set the preferred domain on GWMT as the one with www. I 301 redirect any non www. URL to the www. version. What are your thoughts? Should I 301 redirect the URL's? or is setting the preference on GWMT enough? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | BruLee0 -
New website, to www or not
I was just wondering if there are any advantages to using the www instead of just the domain name for seo. Can these be elaborated on?
Technical SEO | | simvegas1 -
A rel="canonical" to www.homepage.com/home.aspx Hurts my Rank?
Hello, The CMS that I use makes 3 versions of the homepage:
Technical SEO | | EvolveCreative
www.homepage.com/home.aspx homepage.com homepage.com/default.aspx By default the CMS is set to rel=canonical all versions to the www.homepage.com/home.aspx version. If someone were to link to a website they most likely aren't going to link to www.homepage.com/home.aspx, they'll link to www.homepage.com which makes that link juice flow through the canonical to www.homepage.com/home.aspx right? Why make that extra loop at all? Wouldn't that be splitting the juice? I know 301's loose 1-5 % juice, but not sure about canonical. I assume it works the same way? Thanks! http://yoursiteroot/0