> Google and Bing are pretty good at automatically canonicalizing these, but not perfect

I have been meaning to blog this - this leads to cloaking exploits. For eg. Google will figure out the shorter canonical link for a domain. So if you have www.lakers.com redirect to lakers.nba.com Google will treat 'lakers.com' as the canonical link and rewrite all the search results.

This can be exploited by registering a shorter domain and then pointing it to the real site, then waiting for Google to redirect it. For eg. Fred Wilson noticed that the guy who owns avc.com was redirecting to his blog. He thought the guy was being a good samaritan, until I pointed out that it was a cloak attack and he was trying to jack all of avc.blogs.com's Google juice.

You can avoid this by not letting Google or Bing setting the canonical and by specifying it with a rel='canonical' link or using Webmaster Tools. Do you know anything else about this Rand or have you seen it in the wild?

I talked to Fred about this after you pointed out, but there's basically no way that shorter url could have hijacked Fred's site. Way back in the mists of time we had things called "302 hijacks" but I haven't seen any attempts like that succeed in years.

Sorry, missed your reply. I was going to email you about Fred's blog but you were on holidays at the time, so I just asked him to setup the canonical in Webmaster Tools

Good that this doesn't work

one other thing why www is good for SEO. shitty URL parsers. lets say you make a press release. there is a high chance that www.example.org gets automatically parsed into a clickable link (sometimes it's nofollow, sometime it isn't) - on the other side, there is a high chance that example.org does not get parsed into a clickable link, so you would have to write http://example.org to make sure that it get parsed into a link, which is just ugly - and - most of the PR stuff are reluctant to do.

some URL parsers have caught up to non-www domains if you have a .com domain, but try it with an .io domain. it fails most of the time.

that means there are some interesting hipness tradeoffs

  * if you have a cool .io domain
  * you should have an uncool www

on other thing about non www domains. journalists always get it wrong: whatever you do, whoever you pitch, as soon as you end up in a big and might print newspaper (that also has a website) you will see your domain with www again.

Does anyone who is not a startup founders think kitschy foreign ccTLD domain names are cool? They just confuse users. I am waiting for the day the new Libyan government desides they don't want American companies exploiting .ly. That will be interesting to watch.

What Rand said. #include <ndaed_client_anecdote.h>

If anyone else is wondering how to do this on Heroku, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6179398/how-can-i-use-a-s... seems to be the canonical Stack Overflow question. I'm going to try the Rack::ReverseProxy suggestion myself sometime soon.

So you think it's worth the move to example.com/blog even if you already have an established blog.example.com?

That's been my experience. Not only will the blog's pages rank better by being on the main domain, they'll also help the rest of the site's content rank better by bolstering that location's authority.

That said, I don't want to suggest this is always true all the time or that Google/Bing never group subdomain authorities together, just that we've seen inconsistency and thus I'd recommend keeping them together.

But if your blog is hosted by a third party (say Posterous), having blog.domain.com is very easy to set up, but domain.com/blog isn't? (Is it actually even possible at all?)

This is a total pain in Tumblr. I don't even think it's possible, or at least, haven't figured it out in 3 days of trying. So now I'm weighing whether the community/distribution of Tumblr is worth trading for a little bit of SEO. In our case, a social iPhone app, I think we're keeping Tumblr.

The solution is to not have your blog hosted by a third party. Just use an off the shelft blogging platform