On Aug 25, 4:05 pm, sunshine <sdghshsdjj...@yahooodfg.com> wrote:
> I'm definitely gonna have to pick one or the other and use a redirect.
>
> At the minute, I can be simultaneously logged in under say the www version
> of my site; and not yet logged in at the non-www version of my site....and
> vice versa.
>
> Or I can log in as two different users, simultaneously.....using the www
> and non-www uls.
>
> Crazy scenario.

Hmm... redirect? Well I usually advertise the non WWW version of a
domain, but at the server www & non-www are resolved by the same web
site instance in IIS... no redirecting. It's the same site.

..oO(SpaceGirl)

>Hmm... redirect? Well I usually advertise the non WWW version of a
>domain, but at the server www & non-www are resolved by the same web
>site instance in IIS... no redirecting. It's the same site.

From a UAs point of view http://www.example.com and http://example.com
are two entirely different servers, hence two different sites. Using
both URLs without redirecting leads to duplicated content in search
engines, proxy caches etc. A bad idea. There should be only _one_
canonical URL, the other(s) should be redirected with a 301 status.

Micha

Michael Fesser <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message:
sb06d3pil6r6b26f63mcqg6cbv173cb6bs@4ax.com,

> .oO(SpaceGirl)
>
>> Hmm... redirect? Well I usually advertise the non WWW version of a
>> domain, but at the server www & non-www are resolved by the same web
>> site instance in IIS... no redirecting. It's the same site.
>
> From a UAs point of view http://www.example.com and http://example.com
> are two entirely different servers, hence two different sites. Using
> both URLs without redirecting leads to duplicated content in search
> engines, proxy caches etc. A bad idea. There should be only _one_
> canonical URL, the other(s) should be redirected with a 301 status.
>
> Micha

Well, at least we can all agree on that. :-)

--
Red

Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
> Michael Fesser <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message:
> sb06d3pil6r6b26f63mcqg6cbv173cb6bs@4ax.com,
>
>> .oO(SpaceGirl)
>>
>>> Hmm... redirect? Well I usually advertise the non WWW version of a
>>> domain, but at the server www & non-www are resolved by the same web
>>> site instance in IIS... no redirecting. It's the same site.
>> From a UAs point of view http://www.example.com and http://example.com
>> are two entirely different servers, hence two different sites. Using
>> both URLs without redirecting leads to duplicated content in search
>> engines, proxy caches etc. A bad idea. There should be only _one_
>> canonical URL, the other(s) should be redirected with a 301 status.
>>
>> Micha
>
> Well, at least we can all agree on that. :-)

Perhaps!


--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com