Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Www vs non-www which is better?
- 
					
					
					
					
 Is it better to have all your pages point to the www version or non www version. 
- 
					
					
					
					
 I am needing help with this same thing. Did you ever find a solution to redirecting with yahoo web hosting? TIA 
- 
					
					
					
					
 Joel, i prefer www version cause i think from a technical perspective, there are several benefits to including the WWW. - Ability to restrict cookies when using multiple subdomains. Cookies of a main domain (i.e. example.com) are sent to all subdomains: If you are going to have subdomains for other purposes (blog for instance), you may want to differentiate the sites and have a www prefix for the regular site.
- WWW actually MEANS something. As mentioned above, WWW is a hostname, and the hostname names the specific service being used a computer network; WWW names the web service for a domain.
- Using the WWW hostname allows for easy segregation in the file structure of your website. Everything in the “www” folder (and at the www.example.com domain) is directly related to serving the site to the public. This allows for simple root-level site organization, eg you could also have a dev folder and have a subdomain dev.example.com for your development site, etc.
- More flexibility with DNS. Your domain’s “Zone” file controls where traffic to your domain is directed and using the non-WWW version of your domain can complicate things.
 you may still want to use the WWW simply because it’s conventional to do so. On a business card, the WWW clearly conveys, This is our address on the World Wide Web. People are used to looking for, and seeing, the WWW and that’s sufficient reason for many to stick to the convention  
- 
					
					
					
					
 Personally, I'd dump yahoo hosting and have my stuff hosted elsewhere. For less than $40/mo you can get hosting and have access to edit the .htaccess file to your heart's content. 
- 
					
					
					
					
 I spoke with Yahoo, apparently they only offer the 301 redirect for the higher cost hosting plans that run about $40. Any ideas? 
- 
					
					
					
					
 
- 
					
					
					
					
 Ok, does anyone know how to do a proper 301 redirect in yahoo web hosting? 
- 
					
					
					
					
 As long as your consistent, but it just comes down to which have the higest ranksing if on an existing site. I tend to prefer non-www for new sites as its less typing and un-necessary. There is a moment for non-www http://no-www.org/ 
- 
					
					
					
					
 There is no better method they do not affect rankings, it is purely personal preference. However you must implement proper redirect rules to resolve http://mysite.com to http://www.mysite.com or vice versa which ever one you choose. I tend to always go for www. as it just looks better to me. 
- 
					
					
					
					
 I prefer www, because folks will generally tend to use that version when they link to you. It's reflex. But you can check this. Run Open Site Explorer for both versions of your domain. If more people link to you using 'www' than non-www, use www and 301 redirect the non-www to www. If more people use non-www, do the reverse. 
- 
					
					
					
					
 If you do choose to keep the www, make sure you have redirects in place so when a user doesn't enter the www, he or she will get to your home page. Just FYI, www.domain.com is a subdomain of domain.com, so if your site can be access through both, search engines view these as two different pages and possibly split rankings. 
- 
					
					
					
					
 Neither one is better, but whichever one you choose, make sure you remain consistent for your entire site. As for me, I use the www because that's what google uses. 
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
- 
		
		Moz ToolsChat with the community about the Moz tools. 
- 
		
		SEO TacticsDiscuss the SEO process with fellow marketers 
- 
		
		CommunityDiscuss industry events, jobs, and news! 
- 
		
		Digital MarketingChat about tactics outside of SEO 
- 
		
		Research & TrendsDive into research and trends in the search industry. 
- 
		
		SupportConnect on product support and feature requests. 
Related Questions
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		In writing the url, it is better to use the language used by the people of my country or English?
 We speak Persian and all people search in Persian on Google. But I read in some sources that the url should be in English. Please tell me which language to use for url writing? Technical SEO | | ghesta
 For example, I brought down two models: 1fb0e134-10dc-4737-904f-bfdf07143a98-image.png https://ghesta.ir/blog/how-to-become-rich/
 2)https://ghesta.ir/blog/چگونه-پولدار-شویم/0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Is Base64 encoding images in general better for SEO or worse?
 We've made a lot of changes to our website (https://refreshcartridges.co.uk/) over the years, with our website developer putting a heavy emphasis on improving page loading times in general. One of the those changes has been to base64 encode or in-line the majority of images on our site which has reduced our loading times down to under a second for most of our pages for our visitors which are mainly based in the UK. My question is whether in-lining the images, thus removing the images filenames for index association results in this technique being a net-good or net-bad for our sites SEO in general, particularly on our frontpage. Technical SEO | | ChrisHolgate0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		422 vs 404 Status Codes
 We work with an automotive industry platform provider and whenever a vehicle is removed from inventory, a 404 error is returned. Being that inventory moves so quickly, we have a host of 404 errors in search console. The fix that the platform provider proposed was to return a 422 status code vs a 404. I'm not familiar with how a 422 may impact our optimization efforts. Is this a good approach, since there is no scalable way to 301 redirect all of those dead inventory pages. Technical SEO | | AfroSEO0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Direct link vs 302 redirect
 So we have recently relaunched a site that we manage. As part of this we have changed the domain. The webdesign agency that built the new site have implemented a direct link from the old domain to the new domain. What is best practice a direct link or a 302 redirect? Thanks Technical SEO | | cbarron0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Www2 vs www problem
 Hi, I have a website that has an old version and a new version. The content is not duplicate on the different versions. Technical SEO | | TihomirPetrov
 The point is that the old version uses www. and non-www before the domain and the new one uses www2. My questions is: Is that a problem and what should be done? Thank you in advance!0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		403s vs 404s
 Hey all, Recently launched a new site on S3, and old pages that I haven't been able to redirect yet are showing up as 403s instead of 404s. Is a 403 worse than a 404? They're both just basically dead-ends, right? (I have read the status code guides, yes.) Technical SEO | | danny.wood1
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Sitefinity vs Wordpress
 We're looking for a new CMS and out development company suggested Sitefinity. I've had great success with Wordpress. Is either system better. I love worpdress but have had no experience with Sitefinity. Thanks! Technical SEO | | StandUpCubicles0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Root vs. Index.html
 Should I redirect index.html to "/" or vice versa? Which is better for duplicate content issues? Technical SEO | | DavetheExterminator0
 
			
		 
			
		 
			
		 
			
		 
			
		 
			
		 
			
		 
			
		 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				