PR voted from a URL with and without 'www'

[spiritualseo]

I hav a link from a webpage which shows a PR5 with the http://www.example.com version and a pr2 with a http://example.com

So which PR do you think is applicable? A combination of the 2?

In reality, the PR applicable must be a combination of the two as the site has got such dual PRs cause of inbound links pointing to the [www...] and non www versions.

Also, has google finally sorted out the fact tat www or no www, the URL belongs to the same webpage?

How important is redirecting 'non www' to their 'www' counterparts in the present context.. or in Google's context. If I don't care abt other SEs.

[edited by: martinibuster at 5:52 pm (utc) on June 21, 2007]
[edit reason] Fixed URL. Example.com is for examples. [/edit]

[Quadrille]

It's not simple addition; the number / power of links to reach two is NOT the same as reaching seven minus reaching five. It's much tougher at the top. The scale is logarithmic.

Plus some sites (including yours) may be linking to BOTH domain.com and www.domain.com, and so will add little if anything when combined.

What is indisputable, however, is that you are dividing your incoming links between two URLs, as Google sees two pages.

You will do better by concentrating all the links in one place, though how much better is not possible to predict.

301 from domain.com to www.domain.com

[spiritualseo]

My initial question was that I hav an INBOUND link from a webpage that has a PR5 with 'www' and PR2 without the 'www'. So which PR is counted?

To put it simply, can I consider the inbound link to be a PR5 inbound link or a PR2 inbound link?

As said in the above post, Google does see both pages as different. So will I be benefited dually? i.e. will Google think that I hav links from two different pages? One with a PR2 and another with a PR5?

Any replies will be much appreciated..

[Quadrille]

Apologies, misread!

Interesting question. I've never ever seen that 'problem' discussed before; logically, you get both. Google is seeing two different sites, where there is one. Logic says that the link value is duplicated too.

Though so is the bad beighborhood risk, I suppose.

Personally, I'd not even think about a reciprocal, and if you like the site, I'd drop them a note with a link to a domain.com Vs www.domain.com thread.

[spiritualseo]

So if I get (buy) a one way link from a website, I did rather place my money on a site that does not do a 301 redirect than the one which does. Cause in the previous case, I get two links with the cost and effort of one :)

[Quadrille]

I reckon so - but I'd love to hear what others think ... ;)

Either way, you still may have problems when someone reports them for paidlink selling.

[Sharpseo]

So if I get (buy) a one way link from a website, I did rather place my money on a site that does not do a 301 redirect than the one which does. Cause in the previous case, I get two links with the cost and effort of one :)

If they don't have a 301 in place, one version of the page should be in the supplemental. So the link from that page won't count at all. This is just for Google, of course.

If they do redirect, the page should be stronger overall (because all the links are being counted). I'd definitely say the 301ed links are stronger.

[spiritualseo]

It is not necessary that one version of the page bcomes supplemental. I hav seen many sites where both versions are in main index.

How abt having some more opinions here?