Importance of URL when trading links

Is there difference between http://domain & http://www.domain

[jtmoney77]

Hi everyone,

Is there a difference between the two url's when trading links ~~~~~> http://example.com and http://www.example.com?

I noticed sometimes I have one and sometimes I have the other. Is this dividing my link exchange popularity in half? Will the search engine see these as two separate urls? I heard something like this before. If this is the case, then I have been wasting a lot of links.

Thanks,
Jeremy

[edited by: tedster at 2:30 am (utc) on Jan. 22, 2004]
[edit reason] switch to example.com [/edit]

[dougs]

I believe you are splitting your power as far as google is concerned.

Doug

[jtmoney77]

Try using two different urls for your domain. For example when I use http://www.example.com my PR usually is a 3. When I put http://example.com in the address box, my PR is 4. Try this with your domain...also, some people use domain/index.htm too! I think I have been dividing my PR because some incoming links are one url and some are the other.

Jeremy

[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 4:14 pm (utc) on Jan. 19, 2004]
[edit reason] DeLinked and "exemplified" URLs, no specifics please! [/edit]

[rogerd]

It's definitely better to focus your links on one domain version and also insure that your internal linkage is consistent with that policy. It's also suggested that the domain version not being used be set up with a 301 redirect to the preferred domain.

Getting everyone to link the same way can be tricky, and the above approach should keep everyone happy and avoid "wasted" links.

[jtmoney77]

It's also suggested that the domain version not being used be set up with a 301 redirect to the preferred domain.

How do I do this? I though search engines do not like redirects...would this be bad in any way?

Thanks

[kevinpate]

actually, once everyone got adjusted to the 301's, my PR turned out to be a tad better after redirecting domain.tld to www.domain.tld

I know that wasn't the only difference, but I think it did contribute to the improvement

[rogerd]

301 "Moved" redirects are OK, as they are not deceptive and don't result in one set of content being spidered and another one being delivered. Javascript redirects, meta refreshes, etc. are usually frowned upon.

[seo_guy]

Google treats http://www.example.com and http://example.com as 2 completely different URL's as far as PR is concerned

[edited by: tedster at 2:29 am (utc) on Jan. 22, 2004]
[edit reason] switch to example.com [/edit]

[rogerd]

Welcome to WebmasterWorld, seo_guy!

[jtmoney77]

Javascript redirects, meta refreshes, etc. are usually frowned upon.

Are meta refreshes like this?

<meta http-equiv="REVISIT" content="every 15 DAYS">

Thanks

[rogerd]

No, the revisit tag is supposed to tell bots how frequently to return to that page. I've never heard of a search engine robot paying the least attention to this tag. Don't waste even the minimal bandwidth.

The Meta Refresh tag can actually reload a different page immediately or after some number of seconds. This was an SEO trick from five years ago, but was easily spotted by bots.

[seo_guy]

Everyone always calls me SEO_Guy heh its SEO GUY! heh JK man thanks for the welcome.

Many of you know me from my other forum and Brett was kind enough to arrange for my name to be accessible on this forum to keep its branding in tact.

Looking forward to contributing.
Cheers