HTTPS & 301s
-
Hi
- We have like most set up a redirect from HTTP to HTTPS.
- We also changed our website and set up redirects from .ASP pages to PHP pages
- We are now seeing 2 redirects in place for the whole of the website.
http.www.domain.com > https.www.domain.com (1) >> oldwebpage.asp >> new webpage.php (2)
The question is: Is there anyway of making the redirect 1 and not 2?
thanks
Enver -
Just to make sure I understand. Can you clarify the sequence of the changes and for how long? Do you know if one set of URLs has links to it or was ever indexed.
Let me explain.
It sounds like you had a site that was using http and was an asp site. So you had URLs like
http://www.website.com/file.asp (we will call this URL type A)
You then converted to https so the URLs were like
https://www.website.com/file.asp (we will call this URL type B)
You then updated to a PHP site so now with URLs are like this
https://www.website.com/file.php (we will call this URL type C)
You can setup 301s to go from A to B and then another set to go from B to C. Your question is can you setup a 301 to go from A to C, the answer is yes. You should do this. Anytime you can reduce the number of hops the better.
What you need to think about is, well, that about the A to B and the B to C redirects? Well, I would say at a minimum, you need to eliminate the A to B 301s as you have now decided to skip the "B" and go right to C. That works. What about the B to C 301 redirect? It depends. If you had version B of the website out for a while, and it was indexed by Google and you have links that are built to B version URLs, then yes, you need to leave the B to C redirects. You don't want to lose any of that equity.
Likewise, let's say you have a version D of the site that comes out a year later. You have lots of links into the C version of the site.
https://www.website.com/file.html
You then need the A urls to 301 to the D URLs (and get rid of the A to C 301s), you need the B URL to 301 to the D URLs and so on. In other words, go through another process of cleaning up the 301s and reducing the hops.
Why do all this. Two reasons. There will still be links to the A, B, C versions of the site. Google will still find them and crawl them and you want to get credit for those links to your site. Also, Google keeps an internal log of URLs and will check them from time to time, even if no one is linking to them. You want Google to find the right URL. In either case, if Google hits a version A URL, it would then have to go to version B via a 301 and then to version C. It can do it, but it would rather have 1 hop.
Side note. Try not to use global 301s, where you just 301 a bunch of pages to the home page. That does nothing for you as far as link equity. Try and make the 301s a 1 to 1 relationship as much as possible.
Take a look at this video and this backs up what I just said. The number of hops is discussed at about 3 min in. The whole video is worth watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lVPrYoBkA
-
I'm not sure I understand. What is wrong with the ASP -> PHP redirect?
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
-
Issue with GA tracking and Native AMP
Hi everyone, We recently pushed a new version of our site (winefolly.com), which is completely AMP native on WordPress (using the official AMP for WordPress plugin). As part of the update, we also switched over to https. In hindsight we probably should have pushed the AMP version and HTTPS changes in separate updates. As a result of the update, the traffic in GA has dropped significantly despite the tracking code being added properly. I'm also having a hard time getting the previous views in GA working properly. The three views are: Sitewide (shop.winefolly.com and winefolly.com) Content only (winefolly.com) Shop only (shop.winefolly.com) The sitewide view seems to be working, though it's hard to know for sure, as the traffic seems pretty low (like 10 users at any given time) and I think that it's more that it's just picking up the shop traffic. The content only view shows maybe one or two users and often none at all. I tried a bunch of different filters to only track to the main sites content views, but in one instance the filter would work, then half an hour later it would revert to no traffic. The filter is set to custom > exclude > request uri with the following regex pattern: ^shop.winefolly.com$|^checkout.shopify.com$|/products/.|/account/.|/checkout/.|/collections/.|./orders/.|/cart|/account|/pages/.|/poll/.|/?mc_cid=.|/profile?.|/?u=.|/webstore/. Testing the filter it strips out anything not related to the main sites content, but when I save the filter and view the updated results, the changes aren't reflected. I did read that there is a delay in the filters being applied and only a subset of the available data is used, but I just want to be sure I'm adding the filters correctly. I also tried setting the filter to predefined, exclude host equal to shop.winefolly.com, but that didn't work either. The shop view seems to be working, but the tracking code is added via Shopify, so it makes sense that it would continue working as before. The first thing I noticed when I checked the views is that they were still set to http, so I updated the urls to https. I then checked the GA tracking code (which is added as a json object in the Analytics setting in the WordPress plugin. Unfortunately, while GA seems to be recording traffic, none of the GA validators seem to pickup the AMP tracking code (adding using the amp-analytics tag), despite the json being confirmed as valid by the plugin. This morning I decided to try a different approach and add the tracking code via Googles Tag Manager, as well as adding the new https domain to the Google Search Console, but alas no change. I spent the whole day yesterday reading every post I could on the topic, but was not able to find any a solution, so I'm really hoping someone on Moz will be able to shed some light as to what I'm doing wrong. Any suggestions or input would be very much appreciated. Cheers,
Technical SEO | | winefolly
Chris (on behalf of WineFolly.com)0 -
Best Practices For Angular Single Page Applications & Progressive Web Apps
Hi Moz Community, Is there a proper way to do SPA (client side rendered) and PWA without having a negative impact on SEO? Our dev team is currently trying to covert most of our pages to Angular single page application client side rendered. I told them we should use a prerendering service for users that have JS disabled or use server side rendering instead since this would ensure that most web crawlers would be able to render and index all the content on our pages even with all the heavy JS use. Is there an even better way to do this or some best practices? In terms of the PWA that they want to add along with changing the pages to SPA, I told them this is pretty much separate from SPA's because they are not dependent. Adding a manifest and service worker to our site would just be an enhancement. Also, if we do complete PWA with JS for populating content/data within the shell, meaning not just the header and footer, making the body a template with dynamic JS as well would that effect our SEO in any way, any best practices here as well? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
What effect does HTTPS have on SEO for a public site?
I have a client who I've been working with for 4 months but getting NO TRACTION at all on their SERPS. This is unusual for me! The only difference to their site from other clients is that the whole site is https so I'm wondering if that's making a big difference. The site is: https://www.cnc-ltd.co.uk Any help of hints would be great thanks in advance Steve
Technical SEO | | stevecounsell0 -
Special Characters in Title Tags & Meta Descriptions
Do special characters, such as the "&" symbol or a "," in title tags and meta descriptions negatively affect your ranking in search engines? Any feedback is much appreciated. Thank you!
Technical SEO | | ZAG1 -
Duplicate Page Titles Warnings, htaccess Rewrite & Canonical Links.
Hey guys, Just signed up for a pro account and I am getting Duplicate Page Title warnings on links that are duplicate, rewritten for SEO, but have a canonical href tag. I have two sets of links in my store: SEO friendly: http://www.mysite.com/item/iphone-case Operational link: http://www.mysite.com/shop/product.php?pid=11 This operational link however has a href canonical tag pointing to the SEO friendly link as being the primary link. My question is; Do I need to worry about this Duplicate Page Title Warning if I am using a canonical tag on the Operational link pointing to the SEO friendly link? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | jason3600 -
302 or 301 redirect to https ?
I am redirecting whole site to https. Is there a difference between 302 or 301 redirect for seo? Site never been indexed. Planning to do that with .htaccess command RewriteCond %{HTTPS} !=on
Technical SEO | | Kotkov
RewriteRule ^(.*) https://%{SERVER_NAME}/$1 [R,L] There are plenty of ways http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/ssl-example-usage-in-htaccess.html Which way would be the best? Thanks is advance0 -
Htm vs. aspx page extensions & duplicate content
We have a client whose site is fairly new. There isn't much in the way of SEO results so far. In their content management system they have implemented friendly URLs and changed the extensions from aspx to htm. Now the htm pages are all indexed in Google but when I run a campaign report in SEOmoz it shows that all pages are duplicated with there being both htm and aspx pages for each page. Should we do 301 redirects from the aspx pages to the htm pages? Or would we be safe by removing the htm pages and letting Google reindex the site with the aspx page extensions? Does Google have any kind of preference as to what the page extensions are as long as the URLs include keywords?
Technical SEO | | IvieDigital0 -
Google & Separators
This is not a question but something to share. If you click on all of these links and compare the results you will see why _ is not a good thing to have in your URLs. http://www.google.com/search?q=blue http://www.google.com/search?q=b.l.u.e http://www.google.com/search?q=b-l-u-e http://www.google.com/search?q=b_l_u_e http://www.google.com/search?q=b%20l%20u%20e If you have any other examples of working separators please comment.
Technical SEO | | Dan-Petrovic3