Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Sudden jump in the number of 302 redirects on my Squarespace Site
-
My Squarespace site www.thephysiocompany.com has seen a sudden jump in 302 redirects in the past 30 days. Gone from 0-302 (ironically). They are not detectable using generic link redirect testing sites and Squarespace have not explanation.
Any help would be appreciated.
-
It does make sense Stephen, but this bit bothers me:
The URL mappings must be used to redirect any link to a deleted page to an existent page.
If I am reading that correctly then are they saying that 404's can't exist, just 302's? You don't always want to direct someone to a page, especially if it isn't applicable. In many cases, a 404 would be the right thing to do if a page is just being removed.
Of course, if there is somewhere to redirect someone to, then you would do so with a 301 (permanent redirect) rather than a 302 (temporary redirect).
I don't really understand their system, so might be missing something in translation.
-Andy
-
Hey Andy,
Thanks for looking into this. I'm seeing them on the Crawl Diagnostics (Screenshot here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cne9w4etmqmr8kb/screenshot-analytics.moz.com 2015-07-27 15-07-24.png?dl=0 )
Squarespace support have said the following:
Juan U.: Thank you for waiting Stephen! The 302 redirects seems to be referring to the multiple redirects to the same page. The URL mappings must be used to redirect any link to a deleted page to an existent page. We've checked all the possible redirects to /services/dry-needling, and we found all possible combination of a page URL (tags, + symbols, refererences). All these redirects to the same page can be read as temporary redirects (302). They're not from a deleted page, but from a possible page.
Stephen: Ok, so should we clean up our url mappings to prevent this from continuing to happen?
Juan U.: Yes, that would be a great way to prevent any issue when the site's being evaluated by Moz. You can check any dead link on the site, with Google Search Console, this tool will help you find them and fix them. If any external link is pointing to a deleted page, you can request Google to remove it from the search results.
Make sense to you?
-
Hi Stephen,
What are you using to see 302 of them? I didn't get anything like that number when I looked. There is the off-site 302, but we're talking just a few.
-Andy
-
Hi Andy,
That seems to be how Squarespace deals with docs in general. The number of 302's rose from 50(roughly the number of PDF docs) to 302 from July 9ths crawl. For example there are PDFs on the following page:
http://www.thephysiocompany.com/injuries-and-conditions-treated
But it is still showing up as a 302.
Thanks,
Stephen
-
Hi,
the 302's mostly appear to be PDF documents. Does this sound right to you? Has this only just come to your attention, or have you recently uploaded lots of documents?
For example:
http://www.thephysiocompany.com/s/Clinic-Info-Patricks-Quay-Spec.pdf --> http://static1.squarespace.com/static/537b0649e4b0f6c6b6877a35/t/542be1d5e4b005bb34fa0cfb/1412162005901/Clinic+Info+-+Patricks+Quay-+Spec.pdf
-Andy
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Removing a large number of unnecessary pages from a site
Hi all, I got a big problem with my website. I have a lot of page, duplicate page made from various combinations of selects, and for all this duplicate content we've be hit by a panda update 2 years ago. I don't want to bring new content an all of these pages, about 3.000.000, because most of them are unnecessary. Google indexed all of them (3.000.000), and I want to redirect the pages that I don't need anymore to the most important ones. My question, is there any problem in how google will see this change, because after this it will remain only 5000-6000 relevant pages?
Technical SEO | | Silviu0 -
Can anyone tell me why some of the top referrers to my site are porn site?
We noticed today that 4 of the top referring sites are actually porn sites. Does anyone know what that is all about? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | thinkcreativegroup1 -
Is there a tool to see all redirects?
I'm thinking this is a silly question, but I've never had to deal with it I thought I'd ask. Ok is there a tool out there that will show all the redirects to a domain. I'm working on a project that I keep stumbling on urls that redirect to the site I'm studying. They don't show up in Open Site or ahrefs as linking domains, but they keep popping up on me. Any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | BCutrer0 -
Direct link vs 302 redirect
So we have recently relaunched a site that we manage. As part of this we have changed the domain. The webdesign agency that built the new site have implemented a direct link from the old domain to the new domain. What is best practice a direct link or a 302 redirect? Thanks
Technical SEO | | cbarron0 -
302 redirect used, submit old sitemap?
The website of a partner of mine was recently migrated to a new platform. Even though the content on the pages mostly stayed the same, both the HTML source (divs, meta data, headers, etc.) and URLs (removed index.php, removed capitalization, etc) changed heavily. Unfortunately, the URLs of ALL forum posts (150K+) were redirected using a 302 redirect, which was only recently discovered and swiftly changed to a 301 after the discovery. Several other important content pages (150+) weren't redirected at all at first, but most now have a 301 redirect as well. The 302 redirects and 404 content pages had been live for over 2 weeks at that point, and judging by the consistent day/day drop in organic traffic, I'm guessing Google didn't like the way this migration went. My best guess would be that Google is currently treating all these content pages as 'new' (after all, the source code changed 50%+, most of the meta data changed, the URL changed, and a 302 redirect was used). On top of that, the large number of 404's they've encountered (40K+) probably also fueled their belief of a now non-worthy-of-traffic website. Given that some of these pages had been online for almost a decade, I would love Google to see that these pages are actually new versions of the old page, and therefore pass on any link juice & authority. I had the idea of submitting a sitemap containing the most important URLs of the old website (as harvested from the Top Visited Pages from Google Analytics, because no old sitemap was ever generated...), thereby re-pointing Google to all these old pages, but presenting them with a nice 301 redirect this time instead, hopefully causing them to regain their rankings. To your best knowledge, would that help the problems I've outlined above? Could it hurt? Any other tips are welcome as well.
Technical SEO | | Theo-NL0 -
Staging site and "live" site have both been indexed by Google
While creating a site we forgot to password protect the staging site while it was being built. Now that the site has been moved to the new domain, it has come to my attention that both the staging site (site.staging.com) and the "live" site (site.com) are both being indexed. What is the best way to solve this problem? I was thinking about adding a 301 redirect from the staging site to the live site via HTACCESS. Any recommendations?
Technical SEO | | melen0 -
What to do with 302 redirects being indexed
Hi there, Our site's forums include permalinks that for some reason uses an intermediary URL that 302 redirects to the URL with the permalink anchor. For example: http://en.tradimo.com/learn/chart-analysis/time-frames/ In the comments, there is a permalink to the following URL; en.tradimo.com/co/50c450005f2b949e3200001b/ (there is no content here, and never has been). This URL 302 redirects to the following final URL: http://en.tradimo.com/learn/chart-analysis/time-frames/?offset=0&limit=20#50c450005f2b949e3200001b The problem is, Google is indexing the redirect URL (en.tradimo.com/co/50c450005f2b949e3200001b/) and showing duplicate content even though we are using the nofollow tag on these links. Ideally, we would directly use the last link rather than redirecting. Alternatively, I'd say a 301 redirect would be preferable. But if both aren't available, is there a way to get these pages out of the index? Is the canonical tag the best way? I really wish I could just add /co/ to the robots.txt file, but I think they would still be in the index, right? Thanks for your help!
Technical SEO | | etruvian0 -
Rel=Canonical on a page with 302 redirection existing
Hi SEOMoz! Can I have the rel=canonical tag on a URL page that has a 302 redirection? Does this harm the search engine friendliness of a content page / website? Thanks! Steve
Technical SEO | | sjcbayona-412180
