joined:Mar 17, 2006
Is this an interface quirk, my sites' specifics or something true about it?
Most of my sites have only "www" canonical URLs and "non-www" 301 redirected to "www". I did register "non-www" in WMT but only so I can pick the "preferred domain" in settings. I think it's a strange way of doing it (as if www.example.com can exist without example.com) but whatever - Google wants it, Google gets it.
Now I look at my list of sites sorted by site health and I see no exceptions to this rule: "non-www" are always higher (better) than "www" and sometimes they are rather far apart, which would mean that "non-www" is much better than "www". That would be the case of course if sorting by site health is implemented correctly.
Are "non-www" inherently better as far as Google is concerned? Are they just getting fewer links which includes fewer bad links or some other difference of this nature?
Anyone has any insight on what this actually means?