Re^2: www.perlmonks.org vs. perlmonks.org

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: www.perlmonks.org vs. perlmonks.org by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2010 at 00:23 UTC
No, we don't want search engines indexing multiple version of the same page. It dilutes their usefulness and possibly the ranking of the pages.	[reply]
Re^4: www.perlmonks.org vs. perlmonks.org by szabgab (Priest) on Oct 31, 2010 at 04:33 UTC
For SEO purposes I think it would be better to have a single live site and the rest should redirect to the same address. As it is now, some people will link to http://www.perlmonks.org/ others to http://perlmonks.org/ and the other addresses. That will divide the inbound links and reduce the page rank of each page. That's true for all the nodes. -- Weekend SEO expert	[reply]
Re^5: www.perlmonks.org vs. perlmonks.org by ambrus (Abbot) on Oct 31, 2010 at 10:14 UTC
Actually the site owners can tell Google that the domains are equivalent, and which one should the search engine use. They can also tell the canonical address of each page separately, which could also be useful to make search engines know that /?node=1st+monasterians and /?node=149675 are the same as /?node_id=149675.	[reply]
Re^5: www.perlmonks.org vs. perlmonks.org by Anonymous Monk on Oct 31, 2010 at 10:40 UTC
As it is now, some people will link to http://www.perlmonks.org/ others to http://perlmonks.org/ and the other addresses. And they will promptly be told to use `[id://]` or `[href://]` for linking	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: www.perlmonks.org vs. perlmonks.org by JavaFan (Canon) on Oct 31, 2010 at 12:02 UTC
Re^3: www.perlmonks.org vs. perlmonks.org by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2010 at 00:29 UTC
I guess that is a bug. Going by the comment in perlmonks.org/robots.txt, it is not a bug, but rather deliberate. Perhaps, www.perlmonks.org, serves only periodic, static snapshots, rather than server intensive, dynamic content?	[reply]