Webmasters Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for pro webmasters. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have an htaccess file that is forcing the URL request to www. instead of a bare hostname (this is to resolve SSL issues I'm facing that are fixed when you visit the site via www.)

Is this a bad idea in the SEO world?

share|improve this question

migrated from stackoverflow.com Nov 7 '11 at 10:37

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

Are you using a permanent redirect? – jerluc Jul 4 '11 at 0:45
A 301 code, yes. – Di-0xide Jul 4 '11 at 0:48
up vote 4 down vote accepted

There's been a lot of discussion involving this same issue (try a quick Google search about it). And it mostly comes down to canonicalization in order for this to be successful.

share|improve this answer
Good link, explains exactly what I needed to know. So it appears a 301 to the www. version is the best idea. Thanks @jerluc! – Di-0xide Jul 4 '11 at 0:56
@Di-0xide Well, not specifically the www version. The www-less version is also fine. The real point is to pick one and be consistent about it. – Su' Nov 7 '11 at 10:42

Is is a bad idea in the SEO world?

No. In fact it's a good idea. Not only for your SSL issues but for SEO. Forcing the users to the "www' (or no www) is good usability as it offers consistency. It also reduces the chances that your pages will be found using two technically different URLs which can result in duplicate issues affecting your rankings.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.