I just finished a site and have put it through its paces at woorank.com
it says that it needs the redirect.
it is not being hosted on HH but somewhere else.
the gentleman with the server said:
I did a CNAME redirect for the www to the regular domain which is basically the same as the 301 without a lot of work on the hosting server, so I’m not sure why this website cares which it is when the goal, a unified landing place for all users, is exactly the same.
Do you know of a reason why it would need to be a 301 redirect?
I checked it recently and it is still showing the redirect error (www and non wwww are running parallel. )
So my question to you is his
why would it be a 301 redirect and the cname is not working…
Try this test: enter with the www and see if you are redirected to the
bare domain without the www. If not, then the 301 is needed. If so,
then Woorank is just out of its tree and can be safely ignored. The
point of the 301 (and you can use these terms to explain to the server
guy) is to present a “canonical hostname” to all requests for the
site, to make it completely unambiguous that there is only one site.
Walter
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
why would it be a 301 redirect and the cname is not working…
J
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Walter Lee Davis wrote:
Try this test: enter with the www and see if you are redirected to the bare domain without the www. If not, then the 301 is needed. If so, then Woorank is just out of its tree and can be safely ignored. The point of the 301 (and you can use these terms to explain to the server guy) is to present a “canonical hostname” to all requests for the site, to make it completely unambiguous that there is only one site.
Walter
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
why would it be a 301 redirect and the cname is not working…
Not precisely. When you type in www.example.com, are you actually
redirected to the URL example.com? That’s what Woorank is looking at.
If two different URLs get the same site, that’s actually bad, in SEO
terms. To be honest, I have never fooled around with this when the
difference is between www and (nothing). I figure Google is grown up
by now and realizes that is probably the most common thing for a site
to do, and doesn’t down-rank you for that. The real issue would be if
you had two different sites, like salsa.example.com and overnmitts.example.com, both pointing to the same exact content, yet
each trying to foist off a specificity about a particular topic that
they couldn’t honestly lay claim to. That’s what Google could (and
should rightly) penalize you for.
Walter
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
J
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Walter Lee Davis wrote:
Try this test: enter with the www and see if you are redirected to
the bare domain without the www. If not, then the 301 is needed. If
so, then Woorank is just out of its tree and can be safely ignored.
The point of the 301 (and you can use these terms to explain to the
server guy) is to present a “canonical hostname” to all requests
for the site, to make it completely unambiguous that there is only
one site.
Walter
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
why would it be a 301 redirect and the cname is not working…
J
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Walter Lee Davis wrote:
Not precisely. When you type in www.example.com, are you actually redirected to the URL example.com? That’s what Woorank is looking at. If two different URLs get the same site, that’s actually bad, in SEO terms. To be honest, I have never fooled around with this when the difference is between www and (nothing). I figure Google is grown up by now and realizes that is probably the most common thing for a site to do, and doesn’t down-rank you for that. The real issue would be if you had two different sites, like salsa.example.com and overnmitts.example.com, both pointing to the same exact content, yet each trying to foist off a specificity about a particular topic that they couldn’t honestly lay claim to. That’s what Google could (and should rightly) penalize you for.
Walter
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
J
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Walter Lee Davis wrote:
Try this test: enter with the www and see if you are redirected to the bare domain without the www. If not, then the 301 is needed. If so, then Woorank is just out of its tree and can be safely ignored. The point of the 301 (and you can use these terms to explain to the server guy) is to present a “canonical hostname” to all requests for the site, to make it completely unambiguous that there is only one site.
Walter
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
why would it be a 301 redirect and the cname is not working…