Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31
  1. #1
    casionmark is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2016
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    194
    Thanked 75 Times in 59 Posts

    Default www. at start of site URL

    Hi - is there any reasons to have / not have www. at the start of your site URL?

    Thanks,

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to casionmark For This Useful Post:

    BestBonusBets (11 January 2018)

  3. #2
    chaumi is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2013
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    398
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 154 Times in 129 Posts

    Default

    personal experience says no, have had sites with or without ranked equally. You'll need to have set preferred domain in GWT.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to chaumi For This Useful Post:

    BestBonusBets (11 January 2018), casionmark (11 January 2018), hcgroup (12 January 2018)

  5. #3
    toppcasino is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2017
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    SEO-wise it doesn't matter. Not sure about CTR though. I have pretty long URL so I prefer without www

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to toppcasino For This Useful Post:

    BestBonusBets (11 January 2018), casionmark (11 January 2018), hcgroup (12 January 2018)

  7. #4
    allfreechips's Avatar
    allfreechips is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    August 2010
    Location
    Ohio - The taxing state
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    88
    Thanked 506 Times in 290 Posts

    Default

    www is simply a subdomain. I think it goes back to the roots as in here is a way to view the domain on the World wide web as opposed to FTP ext..

    Should make 0 difference but you definately want to limit to one version..
    Allfreechips online casino guide offers online casino reviews from our members. Also our exclusive No Deposit casino bonuses are always up to date. See the latest slot machine reviews at Hotslot and exclusive no deposit casino bonuses as well with a good dose of daily online gambling news

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to allfreechips For This Useful Post:

    BestBonusBets (11 January 2018), casionmark (11 January 2018), PROFRBcom (11 January 2018)

  9. #5
    casionmark is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2016
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    194
    Thanked 75 Times in 59 Posts

    Default

    thanks - further basic question - if I owned .co.uk and .com what is the best configuration? I would mainly be targeting uk traffic on google, but to my mind I would rather make .com the primary URL if there is such a thing.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to casionmark For This Useful Post:

    BestBonusBets (11 January 2018), hcgroup (12 January 2018)

  11. #6
    allfreechips's Avatar
    allfreechips is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    August 2010
    Location
    Ohio - The taxing state
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    88
    Thanked 506 Times in 290 Posts

    Default

    Best to host in the UK and have site location set to UK more than having .***
    Allfreechips online casino guide offers online casino reviews from our members. Also our exclusive No Deposit casino bonuses are always up to date. See the latest slot machine reviews at Hotslot and exclusive no deposit casino bonuses as well with a good dose of daily online gambling news

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to allfreechips For This Useful Post:

    BestBonusBets (11 January 2018), casionmark (11 January 2018)

  13. #7
    GaryTheScubaGuy's Avatar
    GaryTheScubaGuy is offline In Memorium, 1966-2018
    Join Date
    December 2008
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    745
    Blog Entries
    22
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 429 Times in 205 Posts

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by casionmark View Post
    Hi - is there any reasons to have / not have www. at the start of your site URL?

    Thanks,
    Yes, it makes a difference, and once again, all aspects I'm about to tell you have been tested.

    Here's why -
    1. Google says so - https://goo.gl/F7dccm

    2. Check your back links to each version. In the past this number was waaaay off, now it's not so bad. You want all the juice possible going to one, not two, which is how Google used to see it. Now they say they don't but I have found differences in indexed pages search, backlink comparisons and even Google Images and MOST IMPORTANTLY IF ONE OR THE OTHER INCLUDES YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL LISTINGS on a brand search, and which URL it does it on. (you will have both, even HTTP and HTTPS but I usually take care of this with the htaccess file or a 301 from the HTTP to the https). This was meant by Google (they claim), to consolidate back links.

    3. Manually check your indexed pages site:yoursite.com and site: www.yoursite.com

    4. Once you have set your primary page, be sure to 301 the other to it

    5. Use https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/ to find potential other areas to clean up and speed up the page/site

    Tip: 301 or 302 redirect the non-http://www and the www version of the YourSite.com version as it seems to work as a catchall in many cases

    The end result you are trying to achieve is to funnel any link juice to a single PRIMARY URL. This means Google can search quicker so they can maintain their "Index it deep and index everything" approach, which they passed on as a benefit to collecting backlinks not properly formatted in to ONE SINGLE page, when they said before that and after that their algorithm is so friggin awesome it didn't matter, but somehow does now.

    One other issue I have found is the load times differ in some cases. In Google use Incognito which eliminates caching and check the load time using the redirect with a server-side htaccess and another test using the two REAL page URL's the same way. Basically just test load time for all the above on your primary money-site pages and you'll have your answer. And you will be surprised...especially if you are past AMP Integration and site element optimization (Ie. code, images, redirects, etc). Optimal page speed load max time is

    GTSG

    And if you're REALLY into it and want to give back, we haven't tested the difference between a 301 and a 302, but I have heard more than once a 302 is slightly quicker and isn't penalized like it used to be to sidestep spammers. In fact, link preservation is slight better using the 302. But this is testing that needs long permanent study as Google has changed it several times in favor of either strategy.

    MOZ wrote a good article on this pre-AMP and pre-Google Site Speed Analyzer Tool that's uncanny; https://goo.gl/TXKRsf (2015)

    Oh, and one more thing...you can do an all-encompassing HTACCESS and test that but it's almost always is slower
    Last edited by GaryTheScubaGuy; 11 January 2018 at 1:53 pm. Reason: added tip
    GaryTheScubaGuy

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GaryTheScubaGuy For This Useful Post:

    BestBonusBets (11 January 2018), PlayHunter (13 January 2018), toppcasino (11 January 2018)

  15. #8
    hcgroup's Avatar
    hcgroup is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    October 2017
    Posts
    322
    Thanks
    267
    Thanked 219 Times in 186 Posts

    Default

    Hi,

    All of my sites are www...

    And I have also redirected without www... versions to www versions...

    Please read the reason for this as stated below:

    "Why should I use www?


    You should use www because today you have a small web site, and tomorrow you want a big web site. Really big.

    The technical reasons to use www primarily apply to the largest web sites which receive millions (or more) of page views per day, web sites with a large number of services across several subdomains, and virtually any web site hosted in “the cloud” by an application service provider.


    Heroku, for instance, strongly recommends against using naked domains. When using a provider such as Heroku or Akamai to host your web site, the provider wants to be able to update DNS records in case it needs to redirect traffic from a failing server to a healthy server. This is set up using DNS CNAME records, and the naked domain cannot have a CNAME record. This is only an issue if your site gets large enough to require highly redundant hosting with such a service. But who doesn’t want their site to get that large? In order to not use www, you will have to run your own server farms and you will be unable to use such services to their fullest extent. (See also: Why does Heroku warn against “naked” domain names?)


    Another reason has to do with cookies. One common web site optimization is to serve static content from a subdomain, such as static.example.com. If you are using www, then this is no problem; your site’s cookies won’t be sent to the static subdomain (unless you explicitly set them up to do so). If you use the naked domain, the cookies get sent to all subdomains (by recent browsers that implement RFC 6265), slowing down access to static content, and possibly causing caching to not work properly. The only way to get around this problem and keep the naked domain is to buy a second domain name just for your static content. Twitter, for instance, which does not use www, had to buy new domain names just for static content. Of course, if you explicitly share your cookies across all your subdomains, for instance to implement single sign-on across various services on subdomains of your site (Google does this), then you too would have to buy a new domain name in this circumstance anyway. (See also: What’s the point in having “www” in a URL?)

    Speaking of cookies, if you decide to use the naked domain, but want to put services on subdomains and share cookies between them, you’ll quickly find out that it doesn’t work right in all cases unless you have a subdomain set the cookie — and then it doesn’t work for the naked domain. The fix for this is to use RFC 6265 (formerly RFC 2965) cookies, which can be shared between the naked domain and subdomains, but some popular web application packages still do not implement RFC 2965 properly or at all, let alone RFC 6265. (See also: Can subdomain.example.com set a cookie that can be read by example.com?)

    You may not run into any of these issues today, but as your web site grows, you eventually will. Using www today and in the future makes you more prepared to handle the challenges of growing a web site beyond a single server. It can be done without using www in many circumstances, but it’s much easier with."

    Thanks,

    Quote Originally Posted by casionmark View Post
    Hi - is there any reasons to have / not have www. at the start of your site URL?

    Thanks,

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hcgroup For This Useful Post:

    casionmark (12 January 2018), vtyunby65 (12 January 2018)

  17. #9
    GaryTheScubaGuy's Avatar
    GaryTheScubaGuy is offline In Memorium, 1966-2018
    Join Date
    December 2008
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    745
    Blog Entries
    22
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 429 Times in 205 Posts

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by hcgroup View Post
    Hi,

    All of my sites are www...

    And I have also redirected without www... versions to www versions...

    Please read the reason for this as stated below:

    "Why should I use www?


    You should use www because today you have a small website, and tomorrow you want a big website. Really big.

    The technical reasons to use www primarily apply to the largest websites which receive millions (or more) of page views per day, websites with a large number of services across several subdomains, and virtually any website hosted in “the cloud” by an application service provider.


    Heroku, for instance, strongly recommends against using naked domains. When using a provider such as Heroku or Akamai to host your website, the provider wants to be able to update DNS records in case it needs to redirect traffic from a failing server to a healthy server. This is set up using DNS CNAME records, and the naked domain cannot have a CNAME record. This is only an issue if your site gets large enough to require highly redundant hosting with such a service. But who doesn’t want their site to get that large? In order to not use www, you will have to run your own server farms and you will be unable to use such services to their fullest extent. (See also: Why does Heroku warn against “naked” domain names?)


    Another reason has to do with cookies. One common website optimization is to serve static content from a subdomain, such as static.example.com. If you are using www, then this is no problem; your site’s cookies won’t be sent to the static subdomain (unless you explicitly set them up to do so). If you use the naked domain, the cookies get sent to all subdomains (by recent browsers that implement RFC 6265), slowing down access to static content, and possibly causing caching to not work properly. The only way to get around this problem and keep the naked domain is to buy a second domain name just for your static content. Twitter, for instance, which does not use www, had to buy new domain names just for static content. Of course, if you explicitly share your cookies across all your subdomains, for instance, to implement single sign-on across various services on subdomains of your site (Google does this), then you too would have to buy a new domain name in this circumstance anyway. (See also: What’s the point in having “www” in a URL?)

    Speaking of cookies, if you decide to use the naked domain, but want to put services on subdomains and share cookies between them, you’ll quickly find out that it doesn’t work right in all cases unless you have a subdomain set the cookie — and then it doesn’t work for the naked domain. The fix for this is to use RFC 6265 (formerly RFC 2965) cookies, which can be shared between the naked domain and subdomains, but some popular web application packages still do not implement RFC 2965 properly or at all, let alone RFC 6265. (See also: Can subdomain.example.com set a cookie that can be read by example.com?)

    You may not run into any of these issues today, but as your website grows, you eventually will. Using www today and in the future makes you more prepared to handle the challenges of growing a website beyond a single server. It can be done without using www in many circumstances, but it’s much easier with."

    Thanks,
    Interesting, I'd love to ask the tester a few other questions, but maybe he read it somewhere reliable. What I CAN tell you is this is reliable because we ran all the above testing short of the last setup test I encouraged you or someone to try out and feedback. As it is, the research behind my results are in real-time and on existing real sites.

    1a. Not sure with who is Heroku and I would never use Akamai as they are inherently known for being slow 3rd party hosting - https://goo.gl/aJ1Y65

    1b. Who has a gaming affiliate site with 10,000 real pages let alone 100k or 1m? And where did you read the convoluted material that said all the mumbo-jumbo about static content on a subdomain? That's gibberish. With or without www the content is loaded and cached for either one, static issues are 0 issues in terms of one loading quicker than the other, which was one of the reasons for AMP and site-speed recently being named in the top 10 of optimization strategies.

    2.
    RFC 6265 was from 2011; 7 years ago. My results are over the past 12 months - this is convoluted material at best and a great example of where and who you listen to.

    3. "Naked" or non-www domains in most cases load quicker and if done right and your primary URL is valued graded or rated high enough, you may even get additional 1-20 spot listings. Subdomains, linked from the primary, inherit almost 100% of the domain strength, whilst appearing to Google as a completely different This is a great tactic for a penalized site, so I keep a backup on a subdomain with a new 'A Address' and the entire site's main pages live at all times on all potentially penalized sacrificial lamb sites.

    4. Granted, if cookies are your primary concern rather than page-speed (although they are there for primarily the same reasons, one-click funding and one-click sign-in, then you'll need to test these theories closer.

    (All we tested was page load speed differences and penalty recovery factor, and naked subdomains won in both cases. )

    IMHO subdomains are useful for these reasons;
    1. An Insurance company or an international law firm that has an Intranet just for their staff
    2. Someone that wants an https version of their site (but a naked domain can still be forwarded, although it slows things down a tad bit.
    3. To get out from under a penalty until the primary can be fixed or redirected. This works great if you have a Negative SEO campaign being run against you.
    4. To consolidate links going to http, https, www and non-www that have not been forwarded handled via an htaccess file or 301/302
    5. We want to try to rank positive brand posts and purge the bad ones, subdomains carry the weight of the primary (NOT THE PENALTIES unless the subdomain is what is being penalized) subdomains are great.

    But when there are no penalties for either comparing a domain versus a subdomain;
    1. The redirect may slow it down. Test both before deciding With DSL delivering most sites a 2.3 load time on a 58.8 dial-up, or an AMP optimized site will do fine.
    2. Do a search for google or google.com. In the top ten, you will find analytics.google.com, https://fieldguide.gizmodo.com, and their WIKIPEDIA listing is 10th!!
    3. Do a search for Geico...just their supplemental listings and their twitter feeds take up 1/2 the real estate. If they added a cheap and DMCA strategy they could use PPC to take another 15th of the front page (top 1-10) results. In the other TOP 10 Google results, you will find Press Releases near the bottom (But didn't split-tongue Google just say those don't work anymore?)

    I mean there are 1000's of listings for Geico. There is even a competing insurance broker showing in the top 10 on a subdomain - https://geico.referrals.selectminds.com/ - If Geico didn't optimize for play.google.com and have 4-6 twitter postings daily, plus a regular feed of press releases, look at all of the brokers, affiliates, and competition that will show in the top 10 and top 20, which are probably Affiliates or competition

    It takes 1/2 day to create the subdomain and a WP blog on a localized sever with geotargeting setting and meta's and feed alternate articles to it, or create a new subdomain (with the non-live version) with 100% backup and a robots.txt, htaccess or noindex, nofollow to prevent getting crawled, and also be ready when if a Competitor runs a negative SEO campaign.

    I can go on an on about subdomains, like uses in the Affiliate realm (adding their casino name as a subdirectory and hosting in the target geographic target), using for PPC, using for easier A/B testing, funnelling link juice to a new page or a new term I identified on Content Gap on hrefs or SEMRush, and so on. (Or in the case your operator will not give you any room to post fresh info to improve your rankings, then bolt-on a blog or forum (blog.yoursite.com or 888.yoursite.com, host it on a different server and send the traffic to the provider/operator via your (AFFID'd) squeeze page.

    Think outside the circle that surrounds the box, test everything, push all the rules until you get clues from the Google algorithm.
    Last edited by GaryTheScubaGuy; 11 January 2018 at 11:33 pm. Reason: Just because I always seem to have to
    GaryTheScubaGuy

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to GaryTheScubaGuy For This Useful Post:

    hcgroup (11 January 2018)

  19. #10
    GaryTheScubaGuy's Avatar
    GaryTheScubaGuy is offline In Memorium, 1966-2018
    Join Date
    December 2008
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    745
    Blog Entries
    22
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 429 Times in 205 Posts

    Default

    casionmark
    - Sure just redirect to the better ranking URL. I've had several Affiliates say their co.uk is ranking in a Google US search better than the .com, although I have yet to see proof. You can also target the US depending on the Operator, Payment Provider (and where you live), or if you intend going to the USA anytime soon, be sure to have your "I'm just an affiliate" reasoning available.

    GTSG
    Last edited by GaryTheScubaGuy; 11 January 2018 at 11:38 pm.
    GaryTheScubaGuy

  20. #11
    hcgroup's Avatar
    hcgroup is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    October 2017
    Posts
    322
    Thanks
    267
    Thanked 219 Times in 186 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GaryTheScubaGuy View Post
    Interesting, I'd love to ask the tester a few other questions, but maybe he read it somewhere reliable. What I CAN tell you is this is reliable because we ran all the above testing short of the last setup test I encouraged you or someone to try out and feedback. As it is, the research behind my results are in real-time and on existing real sites.

    1a. Not sure with who is Heroku and I would never use Akamai as they are inherently known for being slow 3rd party hosting - https://goo.gl/aJ1Y65

    1b. Who has a gaming affiliate site with 10,000 real pages let alone 100k or 1m? And where did you read the convoluted material that said all the mumbo-jumbo about static content on a subdomain? That's gibberish. With or without www the content is loaded and cached for either one, static issues are 0 issues in terms of one loading quicker than the other, which was one of the reasons for AMP and site-speed recently being named in the top 10 of optimization strategies.

    2.
    RFC 6265 was from 2011; 7 years ago. My results are over the past 12 months - this is convoluted material at best and a great example of where and who you listen to.

    3. "Naked" or non-www domains in most cases load quicker and if done right and your primary URL is valued graded or rated high enough, you may even get additional 1-20 spot listings. Subdomains, linked from the primary, inherit almost 100% of the domain strength, whilst appearing to Google as a completely different This is a great tactic for a penalized site, so I keep a backup on a subdomain with a new 'A Address' and the entire site's main pages live at all times on all potentially penalized sacrificial lamb sites.

    4. Granted, if cookies are your primary concern rather than page-speed (although they are there for primarily the same reasons, one-click funding and one-click sign-in, then you'll need to test these theories closer.

    (All we tested was page load speed differences and penalty recovery factor, and naked subdomains won in both cases. )

    IMHO subdomains are useful for these reasons;
    1. An Insurance company or an international law firm that has an Intranet just for their staff
    2. Someone that wants an https version of their site (but a naked domain can still be forwarded, although it slows things down a tad bit.
    3. To get out from under a penalty until the primary can be fixed or redirected. This works great if you have a Negative SEO campaign being run against you.
    4. To consolidate links going to http, https, www and non-www that have not been forwarded handled via an htaccess file or 301/302
    5. We want to try to rank positive brand posts and purge the bad ones, subdomains carry the weight of the primary (NOT THE PENALTIES unless the subdomain is what is being penalized) subdomains are great.

    But when there are no penalties for either comparing a domain versus a subdomain;
    1. The redirect may slow it down. Test both before deciding With DSL delivering most sites a 2.3 load time on a 58.8 dial-up, or an AMP optimized site will do fine.
    2. Do a search for google or google.com. In the top ten, you will find analytics.google.com, https://fieldguide.gizmodo.com, and their WIKIPEDIA listing is 10th!!
    3. Do a search for Geico...just their supplemental listings and their twitter feeds take up 1/2 the real estate. If they added a cheap and DMCA strategy they could use PPC to take another 15th of the front page (top 1-10) results. In the other TOP 10 Google results, you will find Press Releases near the bottom (But didn't split-tongue Google just say those don't work anymore?)

    I mean there are 1000's of listings for Geico. There is even a competing insurance broker showing in the top 10 on a subdomain - https://geico.referrals.selectminds.com/ - If Geico didn't optimize for play.google.com and have 4-6 twitter postings daily, plus a regular feed of press releases, look at all of the brokers, affiliates, and competition that will show in the top 10 and top 20, which are probably Affiliates or competition

    It takes 1/2 day to create the subdomain and a WP blog on a localized sever with geotargeting setting and meta's and feed alternate articles to it, or create a new subdomain (with the non-live version) with 100% backup and a robots.txt, htaccess or noindex, nofollow to prevent getting crawled, and also be ready when if a Competitor runs a negative SEO campaign.

    I can go on an on about subdomains, like uses in the Affiliate realm (adding their casino name as a subdirectory and hosting in the target geographic target), using for PPC, using for easier A/B testing, funnelling link juice to a new page or a new term I identified on Content Gap on hrefs or SEMRush, and so on. (Or in the case your operator will not give you any room to post fresh info to improve your rankings, then bolt-on a blog or forum (blog.yoursite.com or 888.yoursite.com, host it on a different server and send the traffic to the provider/opertor via your (AFFID'd) squeeze page.

    Think outside the circle that surrounds the box, test everything, push all the rules until you get hints from the Google algorithm.
    First of all, to be honest, when I read your posts, I feel myself hlghly information-miserable!

    What an in-depth knowledge and experience is this mate!?!

    I appreciate your lriceless contribution.

    I have set my 3 sites as www domains and also redurected the naked version to www via htaccess. Did i do right?

    I meaneven people enters it with www, it redirects to naked version.

    Shall I revert them to naked ones? Will it give harm to rankins and SEO? Or no need to?

    Thanks in advance.


    Sent by using Tapatalk Pro

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to hcgroup For This Useful Post:

    vtyunby65 (12 January 2018)

  22. #12
    GaryTheScubaGuy's Avatar
    GaryTheScubaGuy is offline In Memorium, 1966-2018
    Join Date
    December 2008
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    745
    Blog Entries
    22
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 429 Times in 205 Posts

    Default

    Been around awhile

    I set everything to non-www version because although google know its the same in your search query, the numbers don't add up the same even when they are delivering results - [link: GPWA.com and Link: www.GPWA.com] or [links: GPWA.com and Links: www.GPWA.com]

    Google was supposed to remove this information but you can still see the basic numbers.

    This can also be tested through LRT or SEO Powersuite or the easiest is ScreamingFrog

    GTSG
    Last edited by GaryTheScubaGuy; 12 January 2018 at 12:04 am.
    GaryTheScubaGuy

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GaryTheScubaGuy For This Useful Post:

    allaboutthebets (12 January 2018), hcgroup (12 January 2018)

  24. #13
    GaryTheScubaGuy's Avatar
    GaryTheScubaGuy is offline In Memorium, 1966-2018
    Join Date
    December 2008
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    745
    Blog Entries
    22
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 429 Times in 205 Posts

    Default

    Ps. One more thing (but we haven't tested this in a year) - identify how many links go to non-www version and www version. In the past, Google saw them as two different domains, (which is also why you can use them to recover from a penalty) in most cases non-www will outrank www just due to human nature being the path of least resistance; they don't want to type http:// , https://, or www. - we are too lazy.

    3rd-party backlink tools prove this. Just be sure to use the same exact search query
    GTSG

    Ps. If I get any slack or someone wants to question this I'll spend the time to get images in this, but atm it's a pain in the ass here as you need to post the image URL rather than just cut and paste... (lol...Human Nature)


    GTSG
    GaryTheScubaGuy

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to GaryTheScubaGuy For This Useful Post:

    hcgroup (12 January 2018)

  26. #14
    GaryTheScubaGuy's Avatar
    GaryTheScubaGuy is offline In Memorium, 1966-2018
    Join Date
    December 2008
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    745
    Blog Entries
    22
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 429 Times in 205 Posts

    Default

    Use the Grammerly plugin...I'll just leave it there :P
    GaryTheScubaGuy

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to GaryTheScubaGuy For This Useful Post:

    hcgroup (12 January 2018)

  28. #15
    hcgroup's Avatar
    hcgroup is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    October 2017
    Posts
    322
    Thanks
    267
    Thanked 219 Times in 186 Posts

    Default

    logically correct

    Quote Originally Posted by toppcasino View Post
    SEO-wise it doesn't matter. Not sure about CTR though. I have pretty long URL so I prefer without www

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to hcgroup For This Useful Post:

    vtyunby65 (12 January 2018)

  30. #16
    hcgroup's Avatar
    hcgroup is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    October 2017
    Posts
    322
    Thanks
    267
    Thanked 219 Times in 186 Posts

    Default

    I have always been using it with great LOVE!

    Do you recommend the pro version as well?

    has anyone tried it?

    Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by GaryTheScubaGuy View Post
    Use the Grammerly plugin...I'll just leave it there :P

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to hcgroup For This Useful Post:

    vtyunby65 (12 January 2018)

  32. #17
    GaryTheScubaGuy's Avatar
    GaryTheScubaGuy is offline In Memorium, 1966-2018
    Join Date
    December 2008
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    745
    Blog Entries
    22
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 429 Times in 205 Posts

    Default

    IMHO, you need to go Pro Mate
    GaryTheScubaGuy

  33. #18
    hcgroup's Avatar
    hcgroup is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    October 2017
    Posts
    322
    Thanks
    267
    Thanked 219 Times in 186 Posts

    Default

    I see mate. So you strongly think that it worths switching to pro right?

    Are you using PRO?

    What are the basic differences? Are there significantly added corrections on sentence strutures and grammar?

    Thanks in advance

    Quote Originally Posted by GaryTheScubaGuy View Post
    IMHO, you need to go Pro Mate

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to hcgroup For This Useful Post:

    vtyunby65 (12 January 2018)

  35. #19
    casionmark is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2016
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    194
    Thanked 75 Times in 59 Posts

    Default

    Hi - thanks for this comprehensive answer . Context here is a new website, so no backlinks or traffic at all currently. But what I think your'e saying is whichever you choose as primary URL (www. or non-www.) 301 re-direct the other to the primary one. Right?

    Which leads me to ask - is there any reason to choose www. over the non www. url?

    Thanks,

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to casionmark For This Useful Post:

    hcgroup (12 January 2018)

  37. #20
    allaboutthebets is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2017
    Posts
    373
    Thanks
    357
    Thanked 171 Times in 127 Posts

    Default

    I've always thought a www. first always looks better too
    www.bettingappguide.com - latest betting app reviews & guides for Android, iOS & mobile.
    www.androidbettingappguide.co.uk - Reviews, download guides & info for betting apps on Android devices
    www.bettingapps365com - Dedicated Android app store for all gambling apps
    www.bingoappguide.co.uk - Reviews & guides for all real money bingo apps
    www.appsdeapuestas.es - Apps de apuestas en Espana
    www.app-scommesse.com - Le ultime app di scommesse mobili
    www.pokerappguide.com

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to allaboutthebets For This Useful Post:

    hcgroup (12 January 2018)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •