Not sure which URL to use for 301 redirect

[CeCeBar]

A client has new website design completed by another developer, was launched in April of this year. No 301 redirect was set up so duplicate content is an issue.

Client has had a website with same domain name for about 10 years, but has not had any SEO work completed before or since his new site design.

For non-www there are 6 referring links - 1 considered to have authority, for www there are also 6 but 3 considered to have authority.

More links seem to coming from www than non-www.

But for one of the clients keywords they are ranked #1 for their area and that links to their non-www address.

And even though no redirects set up by developer, non-www has had far more visits according to Google Analytics.

So many basics that still need to be done for site: no meta-descriptions on any page, H1 and page titles could use keywords, call to action moved above fold, etc.

Considering this is a new site, and new SEO work and many more inbound links needed, does it matter which address I redirect to?

_Cindy Barnard

[CeCeBar]

Not this time, but will keep it in mind.

Thanks again.

_Cindy

[AlanMosley]

If you have a windows server i have a tutorial on how to do this.

http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/tutorials/how-to-fix-canonical-domain-name-issues

[CeCeBar]

Thank you!

_Cindy

[AlanMosley]

Yes it would not be a concern. i would personaly like to ban www to save the internet billions of 301's

Sincerly yours
www.alan

[CeCeBar]

So at this point, without a lot of established inbound links, either URL would be OK?

I have heard arguments for using www and non-www. But no matter which one, having the redirect will change their rankings a bit?

_Cindy

[AlanMosley]

All things equal I alway fauvor the non www.

Its competly un-necessary, I would not call you www.Cindy and you would nott call me www.Alan , imaging the role call at school, if we all had an un-necessary prefix