13 replies to this topic

[incrediblehelp]

What is everyone's feeling on trading links with fellow websites without the www in front of your domain name. I have seen rankings for my websites on Inktomi and Google without and with the www in front of my domain name. Of course I realize this is happening because other sites have linked to me with and without the www. My question is...Is their a benefit to using one or another for inbound links to my site?

[SearchRank]

I don't think it makes much difference . Just be consistent one way or another. For me I prefer using the 'www' as I still think there are some hosts out there that will not display a site without the 'www'. Would be a bummer if you built up great link popularity not using the 'www' and then had to move to a host where you had to use the 'www' to see the site.

[Scottie]

Hi Jaan-

There isn't any benefit one way or the other but it is important to be consistent. Consider picking one or the other and doing a 301 permanent redirect on the other one to be sure that all links end up pointing to the same configuration.

[Jill]

Yep, what they said.

But as an aside, I wouldn't be thinking in the mindset of "trading" links. You need to get your site listed places. And you need to do that by making your site so great that people will beg you to let them list it.

Forget about the whole "trading" thing and make sure that you have something well worth linking to.



Jill

[projectphp]

Consider picking one or the other and doing a 301 permanent redirect on the other one to be sure that all links end up pointing to the same configuration.

That wont help for PageRank purposes. Links that run through tracking URLs tend to fail, in my experience. It will certainly help for traffic, just not for PageRank which, in terms of Link building, is surely the goal?

[Scottie]

Hey php-

It is my understanding that if you redirect domain.com to www.domain.com, then all links will count for PR purposes as www.domain.com even if a few out there forget to use the www.

I don't think we are talking about tracking URL's.

[incrediblehelp]

Thanks for the help everyone! One more question does anyone think engines like Inktomi or Google prefer one or another?

[Scottie]

No, they don't have a preference either way. It's your choice.

[projectphp]

It is my understanding that if you redirect domain.com to www.domain.com, then all links will count for PR purposes as www.domain.com even if a few out there forget to use the www.

Maybe. http://www.google.co...G=Google Search and http://www.google.co...G=Google Search are the same. Still, I wouldn't take a chance meself!!! EVERY domain, for link:, seems to report the same number of backlinks. Maybe google just ignores the www.? Eitherway, Why take the chance? Pick on, stick to it and only show that one domian. Stick to www. I say!

[Scottie]

I agree- make it easy to remember and always use the www.

[polarmate]

Uh, not so for my e-comm site.
3 backlinks without the www
808 with the www
It used to be the same till early August.

<added> 2 of those 3 come from DMOZ and Google directory</added>

[Matt B]

Just a couple additions;

Google will pass PR from the 301 re-redirected domain to the "main" domain.

Inktomi does not follow or evaluate 301's or 302's "as good as they should." (direct from an Ink rep)

[DianeV]

> Inktomi

No kidding. Ink follows links that have been dead for years, but doesn't seem to follow the 301 Redirect (so sayeth my server logs).

Come on; I'll assume that redirects have been abused, but why drop support of normal server functions altogether?

[azs]

http://www.forexample.com shows 143 incoming links (45 Google backlinks) and has a PR of 6

http://forexample.com shows 114 incoming links (0 Google backlinks) and a PR of 0.

Would I be correct to assume that doing a 301 permanent redirect from http://forexample.com to http://www.forexample.com would be beneficial in spite of the 0 PR? Additionally, would the result of the 301 redirect eventually show 257 incoming links (114 + 143) pointing to my www domain?