Do I need to verify my site on webmaster both with and without the "www." at the start?
-
As per title, is it necessary to verify a site on webmaster twice, with and without the "www"?
I only ask as I'm about to submit a disavow request, and have just read this:
NB: Make sure you verify both the http:website.com and http://www.website.com versions of your site and submit the links disavow file for each. Google has said that they view these as completely different sites so it’s important not to forget this step. (here)
Is there anything in this? It strikes me as more than a bit odd that you need to submit a site twice.
-
Yes, that's generally considered the correct way of doing it if you have links to both www and non-www.
-
Thanks, Chris. Do I need to tailor the disavow request for each version? i.e. only links that point to our domain with the www subdomain in one list and non www in a separate list?
-
In GWT, if you tell Google that you have a preferred domain (www or non www) it will require that you verify both versions. You're not able submit a disavow file for a domain that you have not been verified for, so if you have links pointing to non-www, you need to be verified for that domain before you can submit your disavow file for it--and vise versa.
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
-
"No Meta Description Tag"
Google is not showing Meta Description for the Keyword Rankings of my website in the SERPs. All of my Keywords Ranking are coming with just two fields. Which are just 1. Title Tag & 2. Page URL. The description tag is missing in it. Here is a proof
Technical SEO | | seobacKindly advice please.
1 -
Where did the "Location" go, on Google SERP?
In order to emulate different locations, I've always done a Google query, then used the "Location" button under "Search Tools" at the top of the SERP to define my preferred location. It seems to have disappeared in the past few days? Anyone know where it went, or if it's gone forever? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | measurableROI0 -
Can anyone tell me why some of the top referrers to my site are porn site?
We noticed today that 4 of the top referring sites are actually porn sites. Does anyone know what that is all about? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | thinkcreativegroup1 -
"Search Box Optimization"
A client of ours recently received en email from a random SEO "company" claiming they could increase website traffic using a technique known as "search box optimization". Essentially, they are claiming they can insert a company name into the autocomplete results on Google. Clearly, this isn't a legitimate service - however, is it a well known technique? Despite our recommendation to not move forward with it, the client is still very intrigued. Here is a video of a similar service:
Technical SEO | | McFaddenGavender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW2Fz6dy1_A0 -
Does bing accept meta name="fragment" for AJAX crawling?
I have a case in which the whole site is AJAX, the method to appease to crawlers used is <meta< span="">name="fragment" content="!"> Which is the new HTML5 PushState that Bing said it supports (At least I think it is that) This approach works for Google, but Bing isn't showing anything. Does anyone know if Bing supports this and we have to alter something or if not is there a known work around? The only other logic we have is to recognize the bing user agent and redirect to the rendered page, but we were worried that could cause some kind of cloaking penalty</meta<>
Technical SEO | | MarloSchneider0 -
Meta data & xml sitemaps for mobile sites when using rel="canonical"/rel="alternate" annotations
When using rel="canonical" and rel="alternate" annotations between mobile and desktop sites (rel="canonical" on mobile, pointing to desktop, and rel="alternate" on desktop pointing to mobile), what are everyone's thoughts on using meta data on the mobile site? Is it necessary? And also, what is the common consensus on using a separate mobile xml sitemap?
Technical SEO | | 4Ps0 -
Need suggestions on what might be causing rankings drop from top5 to "not in 50"?
Hi All, Below a list of 4 keywords & respective URLs which raked in top 3 to 5 till around 2 months back, now all these are "not in top 50", and I need help with finding the exact reason. Can you all please help with suggestions on what I should be looking for under the hood. Oticon Hearing Aids:http://www.leightonshearingcare.co.uk/hearing-aids/oticon-hearing-aids.aspx Phonak Hearing Aids:http://www.leightonshearingcare.co.uk/hearing-aids/phonak-hearing-aids.aspx Widex Hearing Aids: http://www.leightonshearingcare.co.uk/hearing-aids/widex-hearing-aids.aspx Resound Hearing Aids:http://www.leightonshearingcare.co.uk/hearing-aids/siemens-hearing-aids.aspx Thanks in advance, any help will be very much appreciated, checked all the basic stuff, and appreciate that there is scope for improvement in terms of page content, internal links etc etc, but cant figure out the reason for such a massive drop in such a short while given the fact, that the these URLs ranked in top 3 to 5 for a few years till 2 months back. Please help!!!
Technical SEO | | LolhcSEO0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0