with or without www

[nancy-jo]

Not real sure the proper ways to ask this question but here it goes...
My father and I take care of our own website.

Which is the best way to set up a website....we have had our site for 6 years and are doing very well online but are always looking to improve and to stay up with the search engines and Optimizing the website.

We have done some searching on absolute linking and relative linking.
one version shows http://www.mydomain/folder/webpage.htm
the other version shows http://mydomain/folder/webpage.htm
Notice one version has the www and one version does not.

Can anyone explain this to me? which is the best version to use?

And while I am asking questions what is the difference in htm and html at the end of a page name? Is it just the program that is used or is there something more to it?
Nancy Jo

[Kevin]

Using www.mydomain is sort of an internet standard. Using just the domain also normally works on a properly setup server. We support either syntax and there is no difference unless you program one in.

The html verses htm extension is simply a holdover from the days when Windows systems didn't have long filename support and only allowed 3 character extensions. The standard extension is html but htm is also supported for backwards compatibility.

[nancy-jo]

I know it both works but as far as search engines go, is one better than the other? We have both versions on our website and are not even sure how both were created.

We have been reading from SEO newsletters some say that search engines like it one way and not the other but then the next SEO says the opposite.

[Andilinks]

After you set up a Google site map you can choose one or the other.

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=44231

more details here:

https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/docs/en/about.html

[georgeek]

Ignore Andilinks suggestion to use Google Sitemaps. It is not a solution to your problem and even if it were it would only work for Google. Also XML sitemaps are a quick route to Google's supplemental index and can only be used to advantage in specific circumstances, on large dynamic sites for example. The solution to your problem is a 301 redirect.

From the SEO point of view using www or non-www does not make any difference as long as you choose one or the other and stick with it. In your case I would probably redirect www to the non-www because for your site the non-www version has the most pages indexed already and slightly more inbound links.

You will need to add the following mod_rewrite rule to your .htaccess file. If you don't have that file create it in a text editor and upload it to your root directory. The code assumes your domain is called example.com and you will need to change it to match your domain:

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.example\.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://example.com/$1 [R=301,L]

Make sure you thoroughly test that it is working properly after you have added the code.

- George

[Andilinks]

From the SEO point of view using www or non-www does not make any difference as long as you choose one or the other and stick with it.
And force everyone who links to you to stick with it, which is impossible of course. If you do well with Google you don't need the others. Pay attention to Google, ignore everyone else.

I have been using the code that George suggests for probably more than a year now, I doubt it means much since Google already knows which I prefer. The traffic I get from the others is insignificant.

The url list Google site map format is extremely easy to prepare and maintain.

[georgeek]

And force everyone who links to you to stick with it.On the contrary it doesn't force anyone to do anything, they can link to you with or without www it will not make a difference (unlike at the moment).

Your advice to nancy-jo to "If you do well with Google you don't need the others. Pay attention to Google, ignore everyone else" is just plain stupid. If you follow that strategy you will eventually end up saying "The traffic I get from the others is insignificant". Oh! I see you did.

- George

[Wassercrats]

Ignore georgeek, always.

Use the www version because that's the version most websites use. You're less likely to have both versions out there if you conform to the masses. Also, if you ever have to switch to a different server, there's a chance they won't support the non-www version, but they probably all support the www version.

Using Google Sitemaps is a good idea if you want to be as well indexed as possible. I wouldn't bother trying to determine whether your website falls into the category that benefits from them and when that category changes, or when your website changes to fit the category. On the other hand, I recently deleted mine because I hadn't heard about Google Sitemaps for a while and I was worried I'd forget the rules I set and accidentally upload a page that I don't want indexed.On the contrary it doesn't force anyone to do anythingAndi didn't say it does. She said "using www or non-www does not make any difference as long as you choose one or the other and stick with it" "And force everyone who links to you to stick with it, which is impossible of course."

And don't call people stupid.

Moderators: could we have a reminder of the code of conduct, or whatever you call it?

[Joseph]

Moderators: could we have a reminder of the code of conduct, or whatever you call it?

Quite frankly I feel all three of you need to step back and take a breath. Andi and George of course are butting heads again, as always - and Wasser, you seem to have an underlying tone in your post that's anything but positive ("Ignore georgeek, always." - hardly a required sentence).

So I personally request that everyone just take a breath before making anymore replies to this thread - the topic starter asked a simple and wise question, so let's keep the answers in that same vein.

This is especially true for Andilinks & George - I know that you two have major disagreements and like to go on and on for 5 or more pages about it - but let's just skip that this time, hm? If you have anything relevant to say - please do. But please do not respond just to counter someone else's response.

Thanks.

[nancy-jo]

yes i agree considering google does not give us the returns that yahoo and msn and many of the other search engines give us. We don't just target one search engine.
Also, If i was to submit that information to google...they would take down all of my pages both the www and no-www for at least 180 days!

[Adam]

what is the difference in htm and html at the end of a page name? Is it just the program that is used or is there something more to it?

The contents of the file is exactly the same.

HTML stands for Hypertext Markup Language and is the correct extension, the .htm version (I believe) was created for use when hosting on (old windows) systems that don't allow four letter extensions.

If you're starting from scratch, I think your best bet is to go for .html

As for www, I'd say keep it, because it shows semantically that you've visiting a website (rather than say, ftp.example.com or smtp.example.com). Most people assume that the root domain will display the same contents as the www version, but it's not always the case, so I'd make sure both work, but use www for linking purposes :).

[georgeek]

There are two posts so far advising nancy-jo to use the www version of her website. It's the wrong advice and here's why:

The website in question has existed since 2001 which is long enough to have accumulated many inbound links. The search engine spiders see two different sets of urls (www and non-www) and when they find an inbound link they credit the appropriate site.

For example Yahoo shows 298 inbound links for the non-www and 244 inbound links for the www version. A good reason for consolidating on the non-www version because fewer links will be redirected. The non-www version will have over 500 inbound links after consolidation (with a 301) which will greatly increase visibility in the SERPs.

As for pages indexed, Google shows 2,540 pages for the non-www and 839 pages for the www version. Another good reason for keeping the non-www version.

A third and final reason is that Google has 97% of the indexed pages for the www version in its supplemental index and not in the main index. All these pages are doing is providing actual and potential duplicate content and removing them by de-indexing the www version would be a considerable advantage.

So the correct thing to do is use the non-www version, as I said before:

You will need to add the following mod_rewrite rule to your .htaccess file. If you don't have that file create it in a text editor and upload it to your root directory. The code assumes your domain is called example.com and you will need to change it to match your domain:

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.example\.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://example.com/$1 [R=301,L]

Make sure you thoroughly test that it is working properly after you have added the code.

- George

P.S. Wassercrats and Andilinks before you get your Crayolas out please re-read Joseph's earlier excellent advice.

[Andilinks]

P.S. Wassercrats and Andilinks before you get your Crayolas out please re-read Joseph's earlier excellent advice.Since nancy-jo hasn't figured out how to get indexed by Google anyway we may as well let you play big-shot George.

[Randall]

Even if you're convinced that the other guy is incompetent to answer these questions, the insults -- and provocations -- are uncalled for. Ignore Andilinks suggestion ... just plain stupid ... Ignore georgeek, always ... before you get your Crayolas out ... may as well let you play big-shot What purpose does any of this serve? Does the sniping help nancy-jo? (If you can't answer that without taking a swipe at someone -- myself excepted -- don't bother.)

These forums become really inhospitable when people can't keep their animosity toward other people to themselves. Knock it off. :hrmm:

Randall

[kitchin]

I agree with Randall. Some of the posts in this thread were informative so why ruin it?

[Andilinks]

Other than the "big-shot" remark which I regret and apologize for (even though I *was* goaded by the crayola snipe), I stand by everything I've posted. It is based on my own experience and is meant to be helpful.

[Wassercrats]

I stand by my stuff too. Georgeek's advice is better for the short term, but mine and Adam's is better for the long term. Hopefully Google and other search engines will be fixing the www/non-www thing, assuming it's not fixed yet. Google has worked on it for a long time. When that happens, keeping it however you have it won't do as much harm.

[sheila]

You know what's nice about community type forums...
There may be no one "right" answer, but many persons can make their suggestions, and then we can each take from all the suggestions those parts we deem helpful and each decide (including nancy-jo) what part they wish to follow.

[Randall]

There may be no one "right" answer, but many persons can make their suggestions, and then we can each take from all the suggestions those parts we deem helpful and each decide (including nancy-jo) what part they wish to follow. And hopefully without bloodshed. :rolleyes:

Sometimes I agree with Andi, sometimes I agree with George ... neither of whom I would call "stupid."

Gaa, I'm up past my bedtime. G'night.

Randall :sleep:

[nancy-jo]

Since nancy-jo hasn't figured out how to get indexed by Google anyway we may as well let you play big-shot George.

Here is the thing. I have been on google for many years. Whether that is called indexing or not...makes no difference to me.
The thing I have found is that if google is returning my pages the other search engines are not returning as many of my pages and vice versa.

You know I always thought forums was the place to get some advice. I know that people have differences in opinion...that is one reason I asked the question because my research on the topic has turned up with conflicting answers.

I really regret even posting this question on here since so many negative remarks were made by attacking personal character.

People can give there opinion and not attack a person character while doing it. [Just thought I will express my opinion on that one.]

Anyway, thanks for the advice.

[Snarpy]

Nancy, the bad feeling and manners between these particular individuals is long-standing. Unfortunately, whenever a search engine question is asked it seems to deteriorate to this. Nevertheless, there is some good information in the answers. I hope you won't let these people keep you from posting on the forums, even for search engine questions.

[Wassercrats]

The problem would be solved if Futurequest becomes more willing to delete offensive posts.

[Andilinks]

I think it is worthwhile to note that I had been rudely attacked in this thread several times before I finally responded. I apologized for that response however we have yet to hear anything from George.

I am accustomed to being irrationally hated and reviled, I take it as my lot in life. But I will not be dispirited by this, my enemies reveal their own pettiness and I am strengthened.

[sheila]

The forums are not a place to do battle. Maybe it is best to let this drop. We do not need to hear from George. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. This forum belongs to the community and in the interest of the community let the personal comments and digs pass, please.

Does FutureQuest have to delete offensive posts? Maybe. Or, another solution...people could choose to not make them. Your choice. FutureQuest is criticized either way. If we leave the posts we are criticized. If we delete them we are also criticized.

In the end, what is hurt? This community. Here we have a new forum user who is now discouraged from posting as a result of the petty comments in this thread.
:(

The thread is now locked.