www and not www the same?

Is it normal?

[Fryman]

I didn't know where to post this, please move to the correct board if I did a mistake

I always thought that [site.com...] and [site.com...] were not the same in Google's eyes. Well, a friend of mine has a site in which both cases show exactly the same amount of PR and the same backlinks.

Is this normal? If he did a redirect from [site.com...] to the www one, would he benefit in something?

Thanks for your help.

[bhartzer]

Check to see if site.com and www.site.com have the same number of backlinks. If they have the same exact number and appear to be the same backlinks, then Google has probably picked up on that.

But, if the backlinks are not the same for site.com and www.site.com the site owner would see some benefit from a redirect.

[SEOMike]

Our DNS allows us to set weather or not the [site.com...] resolves to www.site.com. If your DNS is set to do this, then it's going to be the same. It probably is, because otherwise site.com would probably not return results.

DNS isn't my expertise, but I have dabbled in it a little and remember having made the mistake of not resolving the site.com to www.site.com and a client got mad.

[vrtlw]

Our DNS allows us to set weather or not the [site.com...] resolves to www.site.com. If your DNS is set to do this, then it's going to be the same. It probably is, because otherwise site.com would probably not return results.

Partly correct, in DNS it is called a CNAME (canonical name) record rather than a A (host) record. Most hosting companies don't know the difference hence the often confused dual listings in the SERPS. If a host record is used to redirect then the spiders will treat both addresses as seperate hosts while CNAME records are treated like an alias. To the human site visitor both methods will provide the same results.