Comments on: Sitemaps with www vs. non-www

By: joe

joe — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:38:44 +0000

Hey Matt – the link to the support answer is broken! any chance of geting it fixed!

By: km

km — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:03:03 +0000

How about the sub domain name ?

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:35:05 +0000

I had this same problem on my site so I wrote an article on it.

By: Deborah

Deborah — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:44:43 +0000

Does having a post in multiple blog categories create duplicate content?

By: Home Furnishings

Home Furnishings — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:27:21 +0000

One feature in Google sitemap I found useful was to tell Google to change displaying your search result all with “www”, in addition to making sure all your urls are using “www”.

By: AJ

AJ — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:59:43 +0000

Quick question on how can I submit a sitemap if my host does not allow ftp? Thanks.

By: Bruce Prochnau

Bruce Prochnau — Sat, 13 May 2006 00:31:08 +0000

I’m presently researching duplicate content issues. I have seen that having different url’s for the same content is duplicating content.

At the sqaame time I notice that you have that on your own site. In individual posts and category url’s.
For example:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/fun-with-trends/
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/type/googleseo/
Both have the article “Fun With trends”
I was starting to think blogs were bad for duplicate content, some have the same article in three or four places.
Main page as a new post.
In a category Archive.
In a date archive.
On its own page, ie: permalink
Am I wrong?

By: Hampstead

Hampstead — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:49:32 +0000

Matt,

The whole issue with canonical URLs and multiple URLs is pretty much understood now. Indeed, Google has guidelines for this, but there has also been much talk about duplicate content within the site.

I vaguely remember a while ago Google Guy saying that 85% uniqueness page-to-page was required.

Can you be any more specific? Or, at least agree?

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 06:44:10 +0000

Quite confused on the www vs non-www issue. The basic question for me is which one is best to use? After lots of reading I could not figure that out for some odd reason.

Please don’t laugh (I am not a Geek) but I always somehow assumed it was best to get both listed in G. Therefore, with some sites about 1/2 are www and 1/2 without (done by design). Should I not do that anymore?

Also, I have a site which is a PR5 with WWW but PR3 without. Does that mean if we 301 the non-www to the www my PR5 would gain even more PR, perhaps become a PR8 since the PR3 could be added to the PR5 number? Or is there perhaps some other PR achievable (or perhaps it has no effect at all).

A reply on these issues would be most appreciated. Thanks Matt.

By: kz

kz — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:06:02 +0000

Our company has a webhosting business, and I’m not sure, so I’m asking: our hosted homepages are accessible with and without www, but neither responses a redirect, but simply put you the same page. And if our custumers use relative link, it remains the same. E.g.: http://www.webtown.hu and http://webtown.hu are the same page, with relative links. Is good for us (for our customers), or not?