Skip to content

Does "www." matter when building backlinks to a site?

DeclanFDeclanF Ireland
in Other / Mixed
Hi,
Does it matter to included "www." on the URL of a site your building backlinks to?
When setting up GSA SER should it be http://www.something.com or just http://something .com in the area where entering the moneysite URL?

Comments

  • kxpkxp United States
    That all depends on how you have your site setup. If your site has a properly configured canonical tag, then you can use either URL (probably both just for variation).

    If you don't have a properly configured canonical, then your links will be split between the two (www and non-www) which is very, very bad.

    Short answer: make sure you have a canonical tag setup on your site and you don't have to worry about it.
  • DeclanFDeclanF Ireland
    kxp; How do I do this?
    Can you give me a link or show me where to go to help me do this?
    I just did some searching on canonical tags and the info i seen were just about how to deal  with duplicate content and didn't address the issue I'm actually talking about here
  • kxpkxp United States
    The canonical solves both duplicate content issue and splitting your link equity. If you're using WordPress, then this should already be taken care of for you. Just go to your website, right click on an empty area, click "View Source" and search for the canonical tag. If it's there, then you're good to go :).
  • DeclanFDeclanF Ireland
    So, If I have a website something.info and made a lot of backlinks to www.something.info is there any action I must take regarding canonical tags here?
  • kxpkxp United States
    yes, you want to set www.something.info as the canonical, that way any links that get pointed to something.info ultimately get pointed to www.something.info.
  • DeclanFDeclanF Ireland
    I've had it the other way round. something.info as the canonical and had made backlinks to www.something.info   Would that be OK?
  • redraysredrays Las Vegas
    @DeclanF - which version has more links? That's the one I would personally set as the canonical, though it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.
  • kxpkxp United States
    Ultimately, so long as you have the canonical setup, then you're fine. You would technically get a slight bump if you set the canonical to the version that already has the most links, but as @redrays said, it won't really matter in the grand scheme. The amount of difference you'll get will be so minuscule that it is highly unlikely to actually affect your rankings.
  • JudderManJudderMan UK
    I'd 301 redirect the one with the least links or weakest links. Canonical is great for misspellings but non www and www.site.com are effectively two separate entities, that cause G to see them as duplicates of each other.

    This is a major thing not a small thing, in my opinion and experience. It's the first thing I check when I gain a new client. Tick that box, and 20+ others that I check, add on-page to the money pages/landing pages, add SEO content to the blog to bump the landing pages, and barely have to do any link-building in the first month or two. Drip feed a few PBNs, then bomb it once it's started moving (link velocity), and kaboomy.


  • kxpkxp United States
    @JudderManThe 301 is a good idea, especially to ensure users end up on the version you want (increased likelihood of them copying the correct URL when they are sending a link your way), but canonical exists for the search engines specifically for things such as www vs non-www: https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2288690/how-and-when-to-use-301-redirects-vs-canonical

Sign In or Register to comment.