Technical Argument to Prefer non-www to www?
-
I've been recommending using non-www vs. www as a preferable set up if a client is starting a site from scratch, and there aren't any pre-existing links to consider.
I'm wondering if this recommendation still holds?
I’ve been looking on the interwebs and I’m seeing far fewer articles arguing for the non-www version. In the two courts, I’m seeing highlighted:
Pro www: (ex: www.domain.com)
- Works better with CDN networks, where a domain needs to be specified (though that argument is 3 years old)
- Ability to restrict cookies to one hostname (www) or subdomain (info. blog. promo.) if using multiple subdomains
- IT people generally prefer it
Pro non-www (ex: domain.com)
- If you ever want to support or add https://, you don’t have to support 2 sets of urls/domains
- Mindset: fewer and fewer people think in terms of typing in www before a site url, the future is heading towards dropping that anyway. Though that is a bit of a cosmetic argument….
Is there a trend going back to www? Is there a technical argument to recommend non-www over www?
Thanks!
-
Thanks Cesar, I appreciate your detailed response.
Pick one, set up our redirects properly and we're good to go!
Thanks much!
-
I do not believe there really is a technical argument for this anymore because of the advancements we have now with HTML/Apache and so on. I have been developing for about 15 years and at this point it really doesn't matter. Just choose one and go with it.
Works better with CDN networks, where a domain needs to be specified (though that argument is 3 years old)
Not sure what you are meaning by "specifying a domain"?. Either way a domain has to be specified whether its www.example.com or example.com. Now the standard to specify a CDN any pretty much everything else is in this format. "//www.example.com" or "//example.com". The "//" now tells the browser to just go to that server and the server will do the rest and tell the client where they should go.
For instance say you setup your .htaccess file to redirect (301) everyone to https and www. The client only needs to worry about "//"
Ability to restrict cookies to one hostname (www) or subdomain (info. blog. promo.) if using multiple subdomains
Cookies should always be set for both just in case. You cant control how someone will type in your domain, but you can control the redirects to www.
**IT people generally prefer it **
Not true
If you ever want to support or add https://, you don’t have to support 2 sets of urls/domains
Again with just using "//" you don't have to worry about this anymore
Mindset: fewer and fewer people think in terms of typing in www before a site url, the future is heading towards dropping that anyway. Though that is a bit of a cosmetic argument….
As long as you setup your redirect, www or none-www does not matter, even if you had your domain for years before you implemented the change.
Here is the current trend
With the amount of mobile devices and how "on the go" we are the less we can type to get our answer, the better. So yes the most preferred is example.com. In fact people now will just type in the brand name/domain and let Google direct them.
All in all everyone should have a redirect to either www or none-www. All that matters to you is how do you want users to see your domain...www or none-www. Send them to whatever method you prefer. Since Google can determine the difference and you setup your 301 properly your Golden.
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
-
Non-indexed or indexed top hierarchy pages get high PageRank at Google?
Hi, We are creating some pages just to capture leads from blog-posts. We created few pages at top hierarchy like website.com/new-page/. I'm just wondering if these pages will take away more PageRank. Do we need to create these pages at low hierarchy like website.com/folder/new-page to avoid passing more PageRank? Is this is how PR distributed even now and it's same for indexed or non-indexed pages? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Best place to employ "branded" related keywords to gain SEO benefits and rank for "non branded" keywords?
Hi all, I want to put this question straight with an example rather than confusing with a scenario. If there is company called "vertigo", a tiles manufacturer. There are many search queries with thousands of searches like "vertigo tiles life", "vertigo tiles for garden", "vertigo tiles dealers", "vertigo tiles for kitchen", etc....These kind of pages will eventually have tendency to rank for non-branded keywords like "tiles for garden", "tiles for kitchen", etc. So where to employ these kind of help/info pages? Main website or sub-domain? Is it Okay to have these pages on sub-domain and traffic getting diverted to sub domain? What if the same pages are on main website? Will main website have ranking improvement for non branded keywords because of employing the landing pages with related topics? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Google Webmaster Tools: Quality Issues on http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/
Specifically, we detected low-quality pages on your site which do not provide substantially unique content or added value. Examples could include thin affiliate pages, doorway pages, automatically generated content, or copied content. We encourage you to make changes to your site so that it meets our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results. Google Webmaster Tool send me this message I think the low-quality pages is like the this http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/bursa-fethiye-ucevler-nakliye-5834 page and we have so many pages like this... Example 1: http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/evden-eve-nakliyat-5906 **Example 2 : **http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/cekmekoy-izmit-5905 **Example 3: **http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/evden-eve-nakliyat-5906 What should I do to these pages HELP 😞
Algorithm Updates | | iskq0 -
Branded vs non-branded query
So there's an obvious difference between a branded and non-branded search term, but I'm interested in the SERPs that are shown as a result. Branded search only results in 7 listings on the first page - obviously because branded search is generally more navigational in nature and the lower results get minimal CT. Are their any technical differences beyond this? Also, how does google define a branded search term? Because a search for Vodafone or Dell show reduced results, but Coca Cola does not. Thanks guys 🙂
Algorithm Updates | | underscorelive0 -
No longer ranking for non local local terms
Anyone seen this lately; I have a client who is in the food catering business and for the seo we target a lot of local keywords (event catering Hampshire, for example). In the past couple of weeks search engine traffic to the website seems to have dropped by about 60%. However, rankings do not seem to have dropped. What I have noticed is that up until a couple of months back, the client would be ranking first page in the Google local and also have a listing in the 'normal' serps. It appears that the non local pages have vanished. Checking a couple of their competitors and it seems the same there. This has led me to start to believe that Google are now only giving a local position or a normal position on the first page and not both, as previously. The non local pages are sitll listed but seem to have dropped way back to the 4th or 5th page when previously they would have been first page. It would of course help if the client were to give me access to the webmaster tools!!! Hate it when client's only give you half the information you need and then expect you to tell them what's up!! Anyone seem this? Thanks, Carl
Algorithm Updates | | ccgale0 -
Should I block non-informative pages from Google's index?
Our site has about 1000 pages indexed, and the vast majority of them are not useful, and/or contain little content. Some of these are: -Galleries
Algorithm Updates | | UnderRugSwept
-Pages of images with no text except for navigation
-Popup windows that contain further information about something but contain no navigation, and sometimes only a couple sentences My question is whether or not I should put a noindex in the meta tags. I think it would be good because the ratio of quality to low quality pages right now is not good at all. I am apprehensive because if I'm blocking more than half my site from Google, won't Google see that as a suspicious or bad practice?1 -
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. R6GLL.png
Algorithm Updates | | digitalops0 -
Duplicate Content & www.3quarksdaily.com, why no penalty?
Does anyone have a theory as to why this site does not get hit with a DC penalty? The site is great, and the information is good but I just cannot understand the reason that this site does not get hit with a duplicate content penalty as all articles are posted elsewhere. Any theories would be greatly appreciated!
Algorithm Updates | | KMack0