Is Google not smart enough to combine http:// and http://www. ???

11 replies
I don't get why this is continuing to be a problem. We have redirects that solve the issue for browsers. But why do the search engines continue to have a problem with using "www" and not using it? I don't see they aren't capable of combining the backlinks together so we don't have to worry about it.

For instance, I have a site that I set up without "www" in the address. So now all the interlinks in the site are without it, and a good bit of backlinks too. But when I run backlink checkers, it says around 100 for without "www" and 800 for with it.

That's frustrating. Do the search engines know how to handle that or not? I'm confused.
#combine #google #http or or #http or or www #http or or #smart
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
    There is no doubt that browsers can handle it. But, search engines are a different story -- they do view them as different pages. If you run a backlinks checker for the 2 variations you will get different results (assuming of course that you have backlinks to each variation). In Google, sometimes you see, for instance, that the same site without the WWW is a PR4, but the site with the WWW is PR0.

    If you haven't already, put in an internal 301/permanent redirect from the "www" to the non-"www", continue to only build backlinks to the non-"www" on a going-forward basis, and you should be good to go.

    I do some domain buying and quite often this is an issue, so one of the first things I do is set up that redirect.

    Tom

    Originally Posted by thehobbster View Post

    I don't get why this is continuing to be a problem. We have redirects that solve the issue for browsers. But why do the search engines continue to have a problem with using "www" and not using it? I don't see they aren't capable of combining the backlinks together so we don't have to worry about it.

    For instance, I have a site that I set up without "www" in the address. So now all the interlinks in the site are without it, and a good bit of backlinks too. But when I run backlink checkers, it says around 100 for without "www" and 800 for with it.

    That's frustrating. Do the search engines know how to handle that or not? I'm confused.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2325961].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author thehobbster
      Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

      If you haven't already, put in an internal 301/permanent redirect from the "www" to the non-"www", continue to only build backlinks to the non-"www" on a going-forward basis, and you should be good to go.
      My site:
      http:// - 100 backlinks
      http://www. - 800 backlinks

      You are suggesting that I should build backlinks to the variation that has only 100 backlinks already? Without the www? I was considering changing all the internals to include www and then just cutting my losses. That way I'd have all my internal linking pointing to the same address as the one with the most backlinks.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2326012].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rts2271
        The anwser is easy
        domainname DOT com
        and
        www dot domainname dot com
        are 2 different sites in search engines eyes. In some cases they are literally 2 different sites altogether. If they combine the results they will violate domain structure and RFC's.

        You have to do a 301 redirect to combine the results I recommend setting the 301 on the domain without the www > to the one with the www. This passes the linkjuice and binds the SERPS.

        The reason they don't do it is they expect people to know what they are doing or to have a professional available who does. The problem is that alot of people do things they haven't educated themselves on. It's like the guy who walks into a autoparts store with a box full of bolts from his new car asking where do I put these? When the parts guys are done laughing they send him to the mechanic, when he's done laughing he fixes the car, OR the owner takes it upon themselves to educate themselves on the car and do the job himself.

        It's easy to screw something up, quite a different story to do something right.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2326047].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2326107].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
        Originally Posted by thehobbster View Post

        My site:
        http:// - 100 backlinks
        http://www. - 800 backlinks

        You are suggesting that I should build backlinks to the variation that has only 100 backlinks already? Without the www? I was considering changing all the internals to include www and then just cutting my losses. That way I'd have all my internal linking pointing to the same address as the one with the most backlinks.
        My reading from your post was that you really wanted to use it without the "www". Personally, I always use "www", but that's just how I roll

        If you don't really care, then switch your site back to "www" and redirect the non-"www" to the "www. I personally dont' view a difference of 700 links that substantial so for my site I would probably go with whichever one I liked the best and then just redirect the other.

        tom
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2326130].message }}
  • Yeah I still don't understand how we havent solved this problem yet. I mean, the internet has been having this problem for 15 years!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2325967].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thehobbster
    Well, in my searching just now I've found that Matt Cutts says a 301 redirect is the best idea, but that it does leak some PageRank juice, but oh well, what can you do.

    So I've reverted the site back to "www". I've told Google Webmaster Tools that I prefer that one, and they now have the sitemap with "www" included. I will have to manually change some links back to "www" as well, but then my entire site will be consistent.

    Alexa and rts2271, I understand what you guys mean about the technical aspects, but pragmatism always comes to mind for me. Nobody is going to have different sites on http:// and http://www for any other purpose than to be silly and make a silly point.

    I had another question. When you tell Wordpress that you do want it to use "www," is it essentially installing a 301 direct for you? Or is there work I still need to do regarding that? Because the browser is handling the change properly, as it did before in the reverse configuration before I just made the change.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2326226].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
      Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate View Post

      Which is confusing as heck and it makes no sense, therefore the OP's request to be blended onto one single entity.
      It makes perfect sense if you understand how the internet works.

      subdomains count as different domains. This is why all blogger blogs and wordpress.com blogs can rank as individual entities. "WWW" is just a subdomain that means "this is where the World Wide Web compatible content is".

      The domain name system serves much more than just the web. The web is not the whole internet (though it's certainly the biggest part).

      Because it's the biggest part, most people now assume that if you're at the domain with no subdomain prefix specified, you want the default "www" content.

      There's a holdover of this setup visible in most hosting accounts. You know how you keep your web content in the "www" folder? Now you know.

      Originally Posted by thehobbster View Post

      I had another question. When you tell Wordpress that you do want it to use "www," is it essentially installing a 301 direct for you? Or is there work I still need to do regarding that? Because the browser is handling the change properly, as it did before in the reverse configuration before I just made the change.
      Wordpress configures it correctly in the htaccess file.
      Signature

      Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
      Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2326246].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lawrh
      Originally Posted by thehobbster View Post

      Alexa and rts2271, I understand what you guys mean about the technical aspects, but pragmatism always comes to mind for me. Nobody is going to have different sites on http:// and http://www for any other purpose than to be silly and make a silly point.
      Equine excrement.

      What is questionable is the use of www at all. It is a subdomain and came into use as a means to distinguish web servers from other servers on the Internet. It is meaningless now and needs to be discarded. It's a remnant of the past that makes your address look like a shrimp that hasn't been deveined.

      How much type in traffic do people even get? It's just links now a days. The only time I type is when I know the address, and I never type "www".

      Also, making sites with and without W3 is not uncommon. In fact, some people have made very good use of subdomains in organizing large sites. Things like www, www2, ww1, ww2 or many other variations.

      A pragmatist knows his/her tools and uses them appropriately for the task. Making assumptions is never pragmatic.
      Signature

      “Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare.” – Old Japanese proverb -

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2326307].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lawrh
    Didn't see Colin's post until after I posted mine. While I agree with him there is a correction that needs to be made. The web is not the biggest part of the Internet. Not even close. Google's 50 billion page index is hardly 5% of the Internet.

    It is safer to say that the web is the most visible part of the 'Net. Aside from that Colin is bang on.
    Signature

    “Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare.” – Old Japanese proverb -

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2326329].message }}

Trending Topics