Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Why Doesn't Cre8 Redirect To One Of The Versions?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 07:04 AM

It has always irked me that the forum still has both versions, non-www and www.

I just looked and both homepages (cre8asiteforums.com) have PR5. Not that it matters, but it means that inbound links are split between the two. Why don't we setup a simple 301 redirect for this one?

I understand that this issue must have been discussed, but I didn't find the thread on the forum nor I really see how adding three lines to .htaccess can kill a forum from traffic, as, I believe, it has much more work to do already.

Thus, I see two reasons to implement a 301 www to non-www redirect.

First, we are an educational community and we should stand by our words and practice what we preach. Thus, a 301 redirect to one of the versions is what needs to be done, because we advise our members to do it - and we also do it for our own websites, so why not?

Secondly, when the search engines have a clear vision of only one version, they'll redirect the link weight from both versions to the single one (you knew this, didn't you?), so we'd get more traffic, in result. I can't see how more visitors, readers, members and, lastly, advertising revenue (and consequential Cre8 students) can hurt.

I'd say that the non-www version may be preferred, because it'd be easier to identify and remember. However, the choice of which version to go with isn't as important as actually doing something about it, so I am not that picky.

I have tested Cre8 with a John's www or non-www tool, which recommended the www version, because Yahoo didn't find any links to the non-www version, which seems a stretch to me, though. I don't think it is that important to pick a version for the SEs, because with time all links will be accounted for, anyway.

So, what do you think?

#2 bragadocchio

bragadocchio

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 15634 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 07:23 AM

I agree.

It should. I'd prefer the www version.

I'm going to ask our tech admins if they will set up a 301 for us.

#3 joedolson

joedolson

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Technical Administrators
  • 2902 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 09:51 AM

Good thought, Yuri - probably just an oversight! Cre8asite has definitely tended to spend more time just being a forum than practicing the techniques we discuss... :)

#4 JohnMu

JohnMu

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3518 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 10:27 AM

Something I've been wanting for a long time now as well .... would be to reduce the number of indexable URLs to a minimum. All those search- and print-preview URLs make it hard to search the site through something like Google. I bet it would help to push some more "value" towards the main threads as well :). However, all of that isn't as easy to fix as the www/non-www issue.

John

#5 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 08:28 PM

Glad it isn't a problem, Bill.

On second thought, it'd be nice to roll out the 301 redirect after the PR update finishes (in a week?), so we'd get some statistics on the influence of one version redirect during the following months, when the SEs will be recalculating link value.

It'd make a good case study, I think. Of course, that's just a thought, not even a suggestion.


Yeah, those duplicate threads I've been noticing for a while:
- individual posts, other than threads
- lo-fi threads
- print views

all showing the same thread! Maybe there should be a default URL with minimum parameters, or something? Then again, it'd require some more work, than the redirect, eh?

#6 DianeV

DianeV

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 7216 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 11:40 PM

I hate the w's (www), but that's just a personal/marketing preference.

If you've got a dedicated server or even a VPS, that would likely best be done in the httpd.conf file. Sure, you could do that in an .htaccess file, but that's not the best use of server/VPS resources. Or, as Ron Carnell explained at HighRankings at redirecting in httpd.conf:

... but the important thing to remember is that www.domain.com -- just like sub.domain.com -- is considered an entirely different entity than domain.com. A surfer or spider going to any of the three will receive the same 200 OK response code for a page request and won't readily be able to differentiate the domains.

The other important thing to realize, I think, is that in a more perfect world, we really don't want a Redirect sitting between domain.com and www.domain.com.



#7 bragadocchio

bragadocchio

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 15634 posts

Posted 02 May 2007 - 12:03 AM

In a more perfect world, hosts wouldn't set up pages with the assumption that people want the www and non-www URLs pointed to the same content. :D

#8 DianeV

DianeV

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 7216 posts

Posted 02 May 2007 - 12:06 AM

Or vice-versa. I can't think of a scenario in which I'd want site.com to go to one set of pages and www.site.com to go to another.

I've seen that kind of setup, but can't fathom why they'd do that.

#9 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 02 May 2007 - 12:46 AM

Some good points. I really don't see a reason for everyone to use the www subdomain (which it really is). I suspect it was used as a sign of an Internet address earlier - I am sure Bill has some reasons to suggest the www version, too.

Diane, what's the marketing perspective to use the non-www version? Shorter to read and relate or something different?

#10 DianeV

DianeV

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 7216 posts

Posted 02 May 2007 - 12:57 AM

That's just it. To me, site.com is simply clearer. Clearer to hear, and clearer to see. And given that most non-Web people are confused enough about Web stuff, why add to their confusion -- visual or aural?

#11 cvos

cvos

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 02 May 2007 - 02:10 PM

Don't feel bad. many high profile sites still cannot decide between www and non :)

http://www.seomoz.or...gg-million-code

#12 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 03:23 AM

It has always irked me that the forum still has both versions, non-www and www.

not anymore :)

In a desperate attempt to avoid procrastinating doing work (yes, I am one step away from procastinating :)), I made it redirect.

Any problems, let me know.

#13 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 04:02 AM

Yay! Now if someone marks the average daily/weekly traffic level and compares this to one in a month or two, that'd be sweet.

#14 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 10:05 AM

So, it's been more than a month, since we have one version of the forum.

Have the admins noticed any increase in search engine visitors?

Some info will be really appreciated :)

#15 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 11:32 AM

I never look, don't know about anyone else :)

The forum exists to allow us all to talk. No one hear makes a living from the forum, so I guess it never really mattered as much as more esoteric measures like "how good are the discussions" and we are more driven by questions like "what areas need more work to improve the conversation" than "how do we get more numbers".

I guess we are a quality over quantity forum.

Sorry bout that!

#16 Wit

Wit

    Sonic Boom Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1599 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 11:42 AM

Hehe surely someone is checking the rankings from time to time...

#17 JohnMu

JohnMu

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3518 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 12:32 PM

One thing I have noticed (or at least it seems that way :) ) is that lately there have been some new people joining up, posting new topics. That would be good - who cares about ranking, as long as interesting, new people find their way here and feel at home :)

John

#18 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 8995 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 12:33 PM

Well it's not me. :)

I thought Fred was doing it. :)

#19 tam

tam

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2023 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 12:58 PM

On the other hand numbers are kind of important to a forum. I don't mind talking to myself but it is nice to chat with others too :) I like Cr8asite because the discussions are very good but I do get frustrated/bored sometimes cos there aren't as many new posts. I guess on the whole quality is better than quantity but I do like to sit down and find lots of new & interesting posts to read :)

Good ranks = new people = new content/ideas/opinions = me happy

Tam

#20 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 07:15 PM

I wasn't talking about ranking particularly. I was wondering about the study case of redirecting one version to the other and the effects of it. If you don't want to give out such useful information for others to see, that's fine.

And yes, more visitors means more new members, which is good for the forums and the discussions.

Other than that, I am not particularly interested in getting the #3 spot for some weird phrases, too.



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users