In the last few years, I have seen those sites that drop "wwww" from "URL". I was surprised that the profit (technical or otherwise) was on the "traditional" URL address?
None really. But this gives you an advantage of fewer URLs.
I think if the minimalist if there is no use of "www", then why add it?
From the SEO perspective, you should only support one version and the 3rd one should redirect it to 301. Consider this question:
http: // www .stackoverflow.com / questions / 2849358 / value-of-http-sitename-com-vs-http-www- Sitename -com
301 will redirect
People will link differently to your pages. With some www, without a few 301 you can ask search engines to give full page rank in a specific edition, which will otherwise spread to both.
Comments
Post a Comment