GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Question for the SEO guys (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1112588)

newB 06-15-2013 09:10 AM

Question for the SEO guys
 
So, with the latest panda update or whatever it was, my site has taken a hit and I've been cleaning up my backlinks, which got me thinking.

Suppose you have a lot of backlinks pointing to www YOURDOMAIN but you have canonical links set to just YOURDOMAIN (without the www) Since the two are perceived by the search engines as being distinctly separate, does the www version pass PR/linkjuice to the canonical version?

If so, wouldn't it make sense to adjust your linkbuilding accordingly?

nexcom28 06-15-2013 09:39 AM

Well in my opinion you shouldn't concentrate on link building.

Matt Cutts says that SEOs spend too much time concentrating on building links for the search engines instead of surfers.
He recommends concentrating on building your audience through social media instead.

suesheboy 06-15-2013 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newB (Post 19671881)
Suppose you have a lot of backlinks pointing to www YOURDOMAIN but you have canonical links set to just YOURDOMAIN (without the www) Since the two are perceived by the search engines as being distinctly separate, does the www version pass PR/linkjuice to the canonical version?

It should not make a difference anymore but I have always put in the WWW and have htaccess rewrite to www anyhow.

Hope that helps

newB 06-16-2013 09:45 AM

I guess I need to clarify the question:
Do inbound links pointing to the non-canonical version of a page pass PR/linkjuice to the canonical version?

Zeiss 06-16-2013 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newB (Post 19672909)
I guess I need to clarify the question:
Do inbound links pointing to the non-canonical version of a page pass PR/linkjuice to the canonical version?

Think of it as 301 redirect. Got your answer now?

suesheboy 06-16-2013 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zealotry (Post 19672925)
Think of it as 301 redirect. Got your answer now?

I would not say that.

Google says that they take conical as a suggestion and don't always follow it. I would not take the chance that it would pass all juice.

newB 06-16-2013 11:37 AM

Found a video with Matt Cutts discussing it - the correct answer, at least for the time being, is 'yes'.

Zeiss 06-16-2013 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suesheboy (Post 19673015)
I would not say that.

Google says that they take conical as a suggestion and don't always follow it. I would not take the chance that it would pass all juice.

We're talking generic redirect to either www or non-www here. Not what the difference between 301 redirect and rel-canonical is. You would use the latter when the first is not possible.

icymelon 06-16-2013 01:03 PM

you need link diversity. Looks more like PR quality and related content is working better and better.

simoviciflorin 01-03-2014 09:26 AM

so untill you will not put a permanent redirect in your google webmastertools the version without www will be a "clean" version. u can start with a website from 0 with that. i made this thing 1 year ago whit one ofg mi sites...he went down in serp but after 4-5 moths he turned to do some good traffic..whitout linkbuilding

simoviciflorin 01-03-2014 09:27 AM

to be more explicit.. in the original version i was making something around 20k of traffic..even more..in the new version i am making 5-6k now.

FlowerKid 01-03-2014 12:35 PM

Fuck the Google

VinceRuth 01-03-2014 04:40 PM

You need backlinks diversity.Good luck.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123