Www vs non-www

[kylesuss]

We just had our site redesigned. Previously, it was indexed under www.suss.net, but now the developer has it at suss.net with www.suss.net 301 redirecting to suss.net. Is this bad for SEO?

[AdiRste]

Yes.

You want the 301 to go from suss.net to www.suss.net

[RikkiD22]

I am not sure if there is technically a negative SEO impact of non www sites however I would guess a www site has a better CTR rate etc as it is more familiar to users.

[AdiRste]

I don't know who has thumbed down because it is the correct response.

[Oversteer]

Neither helps or hinders your SEO efforts but forcing one over the other will help on many fronts (particularly with PR concentration and indexation issues). Generally, I prefer non www URls because this reduces the length of all URLs by 4 characters. A bonus is if your domain and file names are short you may not need a URL shortener on Twitter.

However, there are other considerations for an existing site. For example:

1. what does your link profile look like? Are your most valued backlinks pointing to www vs non www (there is slight PR leakage with 301 redirects)

2. What does your indexation look like? Are more www pages indexed than non and vice versa

3. Do you have a  massive amount of print collateral or ads with www? This is less of a concern because of the 301 but it brings back up issues #1 and 2.

There are other considerations but these are the ones that come to mind quickly.

[kylesuss]

Thanks for the detailed response. I checked Open Site Explorer and looks like we should be using the www.

Also, I believe that we have some print ads that use www -- good thinking!