2

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?

2
  • 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
4

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.

2
  • 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
  • 1
    @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
1

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.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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