Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
The WWW in websites URL's
This is a sub-domain. It is useles and totally unnecessary to a run of the mill website. Most registrars themselves have little or no idea why they sell two empty websites to a purchaser. And most hosts have not got a clue about canonical and duplicate content issues. That is what you get. TWO WEBSITES. Or one domain and a free sub-domain taht is a time bomb waiting to explode because it will cause duplicate content.
It is crazy and rediculous. Why are they selling a sub-domain.
http://example.com/ is the domain you purchased, and the registrar throws in a subdomain as a bonus, totally useless and a very dangerous and misleading one at that.
If you do not KILL the subdomain at source via the ANAME RECORDS your site stands to get canonical and duplicate content issues.
.
[edited by: tedster at 8:12 pm (utc) on Sep. 30, 2006]
[edit reason] use example.com [/edit]
Most people expect the WWW - they may be wrong, but they do. Most will add it even if you choose not to use it.
It really doesn't matter, and it's certainly neither dangerous nor misleading.
The important thing is not to use BOTH - always do a 301 from one to the other.
In fact, using domain.com is arguably MORE risky, as someone is bound to link to you as www.domain.com - thus creating the duplicate pages issue. Once both URLs exist, you are in trouble. Whereas if you use www.domain.com it's still possible - but less likely - get a link to domain.com
If you want to start a thread of tips, best to be accurate ;)
[edited by: Quadrille at 4:08 pm (utc) on Sep. 30, 2006]
I think you have things the wrong way round. Duplicate content is not a problem caused by Registrars or webmasters.
It is Google's problem
It is Google's problem
If it is Google's problem, why is it that it is webmasters, not Google, that are always complaining about it.
Does that mean that any time someone posts about duplicate content or canonical issues, that we can reply "Quit your whining, it's google's problem, not your's!"?
How about the rest of the Tips on how best to make use of tools at your disposal.
After all the tips are in, then have the discussions. I want the tips.
They should complain to Google that Google is broken. If Google is penalising whole site for duplicate pages then Google is failing to organise the information on the Web as they aim to do.
All of this making sure you 301 your non-www stuff, and changing your Wordpress blog is just trying to stop Google's errors and incompetence from harming you.
Google wasn't always like this.
It really doesn't matter, and it's certainly neither dangerous nor misleading.
Quadrille,
God help a webmaster if he or she takes note of what you have written.
You are wrong. Very wrong.
.
It is Google's problem
Iguana,
Google cannot do everything for you.
What the registrar sells you has nothing to do with google.
It is up to the webmaster to present to google a website that responds to it with only one name.
If you allow google to see 2, 3 or more versions of your website, then it would be unfair to blame google on this account.
.
Yahoo doesn't have this problem.
Pre-Florida Google didn't have this problem.
The web existed using domains like this before Google even came into existence.
Therefore Google is wrong.
After all the tips are in, then have the discussions. I want the tips.
Imo4103,
There are lots of tricks of the trade. I hope we can all share each others knowledge in this. That is why I put up this thread.
I thought if we start from the root, where a name is purchased we can progress from there.
There are some extremely able webmasters in webmasterworld. If we can pool together knowledge, it can help others that need good advice.
Quadrille's comments are like flies in an ointment. His tips are designed to tank a website and to play into the hands of duplicate content and canonical issues.
Sorry Quadrille, but it is a fact. You champion the canonical issue and you attribute blame in the wrong direction. No offence. ;)
.
.
Yahoo doesn't have this problem.
Iguana,
Look. If you present two versions of a website, what should google do? It cannot be expected to know which site "you" want.
So what you are saying is that we can create;
mysite.com
www.mysite.com
www-www.mysite.com
www-www-www.mysite.com etc etc etc and relative links inside a site and links pointing all over the palce and expect google to know which url is best for you.
No way sir. No way is google going to entertain this.
One name only. That is what you purchased that is what you should use if you want to steer clear of duplications.
.
What Quadrille says about 301's is exactly right.
They should complain to Google that Google is broken.
Iguana,
That would be like barking up the wrong tree.
I have clearly explained. The registrar is throwing in a sub domain. That is exactly what is happening. And many webmasters fail to see this.
The www is nothing other than an old idiology of the internets pioneers so that a default domain existed.
Can you lead us to the www of your website please and show us what is in the folder/subdomain?
I can tell you without looking that you have an empty sub-domain with noting in it. No index file, nada, nothing. An empty barren folder/sub-domain. It looks good maybe, an ego enhancer. That is all it is.
.
Sorry, AlgorithmGuy, YOU are the one who is spouting misleading info.
Buckworks,
Why use a 301 when you do not have to?
Why create the mass of confusion then bottle neck it to a 301?
Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
Do you know what an ANAME RECORD does. Are you aware of the path that leads to a server that all agents are required to respond to before they make a request at the server?
.
[edited by: AlgorithmGuy at 5:26 pm (utc) on Sep. 30, 2006]
If you are setting up a new website, you should discuss the www v. no-www issue and get it set up so that it always resolves to the preferred way you have chosen.
From now on, if your existing website can be reached with the leading www and without the leading www, then you need to choose your preferred address and make sure that the non-preferred address does a 301 redirect to the preferred one.
Imo4103,
Nearly correct, but not quite.
It is not a choice of prefered address. the www is a subdomain. Your domain was always the name you chose to purchase. But unknowingly, you displayed your contents in a sub-domain www.yoursite.com that is a sub-domain.
Like it or not. It is a subdomain where you chose not to have anything inside the www. You left it empty.
To prove a point, you can activate that www as a wbsite too.
Have you ever seen something like mysite1.mysite.com
That is exactly a version of www.mysite.com except mysite1 has content in it.
.
.
It's also useful to set up redirects to catch typos for ww.yoursite.com and wwww.yoursite.com. If someone gets that close you want to hang on to them!
Buckworks,
A 301 has its uses, yes. But as I described above. not for what we are discuassing so far as the ANAME RECORDS go relating to what I explained.
It is to your disadvantage to simply 301 all typos.
If I saw a link from a good pagerank site point with a html instead of a htm, I would take that opportunity to create an orpahn page that reponds to that typo. I would then get the orphan page to filter the link value to where it is best used. If you read my other post you can see that it is possible to take advantage of unthical links and other errors. Good or bad.
The orphan page can be kept alive via an external source such as you described.
.
[edited by: AlgorithmGuy at 5:39 pm (utc) on Sep. 30, 2006]
Yahoo doesn't have this problem.
Iguana,
How do you know?
Please make a convincing post so that we are aware of a more beneficial method applied by yahoo.
If google was as near insignificant as yahoo is in search popularity, the issues we are facing regarding google would be academic. I'd be focusing my attention to the big guns of search. Not google because I would not care what it does. It could apply multiple duplication for all I care.
At the moment, google is the big gun. It can make or break websites.
.
The registrar does not sell you TWO domain names. They sell you ONE domain name. How you choose to use it is your business. If you want to add a sub domain such as, WWW, it's up to you. If you want to put an A Record in DNS for WWW along with an A Record for you domain name it's also your choice.
If your registrar is also providing DNS for you, they might as a courtesy add an A record for WWW along with the A record for the domain name. Or your hosting company may automatically add the WWW subdomain as a courtesy. But it certainly is not required.
However, the point is; the registrar is NOT selling you two domains!
However, the point is; the registrar is NOT selling you two domains!
Tiori,
Quite right.
Thank you also for pointing out the hosting option of the www.
This is a classic example that it is indeed why one is told where to upload via FTP.
.
Yahoo doesn't have this problem.Iguana,
How do you know?
I believe that Yahoo does have this issue, but they may have not made it a problem... yet. Or else nobody has noticed yet. But I did a site: command on Yahoo, just now, and there are search results from my site... some have the www, and some do not.
When you purchase a domain. You are sold one domain name.
Often, you will notice that by default, mysite.com and www.mysite.com is set up by the registrar.
This is where a resolve shold to be considered.
I think you contradict yourself. If you respond to an htm typo, why not respond to a ww or wwww typo by creating those subdomains (including www) and transfer the link value too with no 301? What is the difference between creating an orphan page to drop a link to where we think it might benefit getting the credit compared to creating a typo/subdomain and using it to drop a link to where we really want that passed pr?
According to your logic you still need the subdomains to catch the typos when not using a 301.
[edited by: lmo4103 at 6:22 pm (utc) on Sep. 30, 2006]
I would take that opportunity to create an orpahn page that reponds to that typo.
I think you contradict yourself. If you respond to an htm typo, why not respond to a ww or wwww typo by creating those subdomains (including www) and transfer the link value too with no 301? What is the difference between creating an orphan page to drop a link to where we think it might benefit getting the credit compared to creating a typo/subdomain and using it to drop a link to where we really want that passed pr?According to your logic you still need the subdomains to catch the typos when not using a 301.
Obono,
OK, I give up.
You sound very clever. Too clever for me. This is out of my league and beyond my ability to grasp.
Chow, it is a waste of time sometimes trying to explain something. Now the topic has diverted so much that it has streatched into a server issue that has absolutely nothing to do with what I suggested.
.
If an orphan page is a page that doesn't have any links pointing to it, then an orphan page is dangerous. If google EVER sees it, then the supplemental results algorithm kicks in.
lmo4103,
Sorry, I'm outa here.
I am either going to fall on the floor laughing or go a bit insane.
.
