Why some results in SERP have a www. and some don't
-
Hello all,
If this is posted twice, I didn't mean for it to be - but it looks like last time I tried to post this question it didn't post. This is my question:
How come some results on Google's SERP page are shown with a "www" and some are not? Does this effect SEO at all? I am including a screen shot so you can see what I mean. The Geary Interactive result has a "www" in front of while ingenexdigital doesn't.
-
Hi Adam,
It's based on the preference of the webmaster of those domains. They have simply chosen whether or not to include www in their domain. It doesn't have an effect on SEO because the addition or exclusion of www doesn't give search engines any clue as to the quality of the site.
The important thing to remember here is that http://www.example.com and http://example.com are technically different domains, so if you're not careful, it's easy to run into duplicate content issues. If you're working on this for your own website, you should pick one version and make sure the other redirects to it.
Hope this helps!
Tim
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
-
What tools and metrics do you use to show a topic's search interest over time?
I have a foundation repair client that is down in leads for the structural repair portion of their business. They have not lost any major rankings, but leads are down compared to last year. They asked if people are searching for this type of work less this year compared to last. I checked Google Trends and Keyword Planner data but found very different results. Is either of these tools accurate, or is there a better tool to use?
Algorithm Updates | | DigitalDivision1 -
Are you seeing 404's from utililab.mysearchguardian.com?
I've been noticing a lot of 404's popping up in my Google Webmaster accounts coming from utililab.mysearchguardian.com. Utililab itself seems to be some sort of malware, but why is Google indexing it and sending 404's?
Algorithm Updates | | EthanThompson0 -
Is it bad from an SEO perspective that cached AMP pages are hosted on domains other than the original publisher's?
Hello Moz, I am thinking about starting to utilize AMP for some of my website. I've been researching this AMP situation for the better part of a year and I am still unclear on a few things. What I am primarily concerned with in terms of AMP and SEO is whether or not the original publisher gets credit for the traffic to a cached AMP page that is hosted elsewhere. I can see the possible issues with this from an SEO perspective and I am pretty sure I have read about how SEOs are unhappy about this particular aspect of AMP in other places. On the AMP project FAQ page you can find this, but there is very little explanation: "Do publishers receive credit for the traffic from a measurement perspective?
Algorithm Updates | | Brian_Dowd
Yes, an AMP file is the same as the rest of your site – this space is the publisher’s canvas." So, let's say you have an AMP page on your website example.com:
example.com/amp_document.html And a cached copy is served with a URL format similar to this: https://google.com/amp/example.com/amp_document.html Then how does the original publisher get the credit for the traffic? Is it because there is a canonical tag from the AMP version to the original HTML version? Also, while I am at it, how does an AMP page actually get into Google's AMP Cache (or any other cache)? Does Google crawl the original HTML page, find the AMP version and then just decide to cache it from there? Are there any other issues with this that I should be aware of? Thanks0 -
Bing's indexed pages vs pages appearing in results
Hi all We're trying to increase our efforts in ranking for our keywords on Bing, and I'm discovering a few unexpected challenges. Namely, Bing is reporting 16000+ pages have been crawled... yet a site:mywebsite.com search on Bing shows less than 1000 results. I'm aware that Duane Forrester has said they don't want to show everything, only the best. If that's the case, what factors must we consider most to encourage Bing's engine to display most if not all of the pages the crawl on my site? I have a few ideas of what may be turning Bing off so to speak (some duplicate content issues, 301 redirects due to URL structure updates), but if there's something in particular we should monitor and/or check, please let us know. We'd like to prioritize 🙂 Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | brandonRT0 -
Dropped off cliff for a partic keyword & can't find out why
At the beginning of Dec we ranked consistently in the top 3 for the keyword 'Suffolk' for the site www.suffolktouristguide.com (apge rank 4, thousands of quality inboud links, site age 5 years +). Since then we've been falling off a cliff and today aren't even in the top 50 for this search term, but most of our othr search terms are unaffected. Our SEOMoz grade remains A for 'Suffolk' and we haven't changed anything in that time that could have had such a material effect (knowingly at least). A similar issue happened to my other site www.suffolkhotelsguide.com back in April and it hasn't recovered despite grade A's on the homepage and key pages. We've checked internal broken links, page download times, external links (used the disavow tool and reconsideration request and got back 'We reviewed your site and found no manual actions by the webspam team that might affect your site's ranking in Google'); etc etc Any thoughts on what I can try next? All suggestions appreciated as I am completely stuck (& have spent a fortune on 'SEO experts' to no effect).
Algorithm Updates | | SarahinSuffolk0 -
Phantom Indexed: 301 Redirected Old URL Shows in Google Search Result!
Today, I have read about Phantom Indexed in Google search result. Because, I was searching about 301 redirect due to indexing of 301 redirected old URLs in Google search result rather than new landing pages. I've added my comment on jennita's blog post about 301 redirect. I would like to paste similar question over here! I have 301 redirected following 3 domains to new website... http://www.lampslightingandmore.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps http://www.vistapatioumbrellas.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas http://www.spiderofficechairs.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs I have done it before 3 months but, Google still shows me home page URL in search result rather than new landing page. You can check following search results to know more about it. For LampsLightingandMore ~ On second or third page::: For VistaPatioUmbrellas ~ On second or third page::: For SpiderOfficeChairs ~ On Second or third page::: I come to know about Phantom Indexed after raised my comment over there. So, why should not start discussion on it. Because, It's all about branding and who'll love to hang old address in front of new home.
Algorithm Updates | | CommercePundit0 -
Elaborate Search Results
Please see the attached image. My question : How can I have such results showing for my own website? I mean what should I do to make this happen? 3ZQfr.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | KS__0 -
Do Google donations to Wikimedia show any bias in search results?
Over the weekend we learned Google co-founder Sergey Brin donated $500,000 to Wikimedia, the parent company of Wikipedia.com. Last year I believe Google donated $2 million to Wikimedia. I now ask, is this suspicious in anyway, seeing that Wikipedia ranks so well in Google for so many terms? There are several blog posts about it online here and there throughout the years, but what does everyone think?
Algorithm Updates | | DanDeceuster0
