Question on 301s
-
Hi Everyone,
I have a questions on 301 redirects, i hope someone can give me some help on this.
There was some 301 redirects made on some of the URLs at the beginning of the year, however we are now re-structuring the whole website, which means the URLs which had been given a 301 redirect are now getting another 301.
The question is, should i delete the first 301 redirect from the htaccess file?
Kind Regards
-
Ryan your analogy is fantastic. I totally understand this now and it really makes sense to do it this way.
Thanks for being patient with me
Again thanks all for your feedback on this.
Kind Regards
-
Every URL which is no longer active would require a 301 redirect to the proper page. In the situation you describe:
/a should redirect to /abc
/ab should redirect to /abc
I recognize this seems confusing so forget it's a website for a moment. Think of it as mail after you move.
You lived at 100 Main Street. That is where you received your mail. Now you move to 200 Elm Street. You put in a forward order with the post office (a real world equivalent to a 301 redirect). Now any mail addressed to 100 Main Street will be received at 200 Elm Street.
Now you move again to 300 Wall Street. You would put in another forwarding order so your mail from 200 Elm Street gets delivered to your new address. This solution is fine BUT, your mail from 100 Main Street would be delayed. First it would get forwarded to the 200 Elm Street post office, who would then have to forward it to 300 Wall Street. This process is inefficient (in seo terms, you lose link juice).
You want to change your 100 Main Street forward order to direct your mail to the 300 Wall Street address. Now all of your mail is taken to the proper location in a single hop.
I hope this analogy helps!
-
What happens to the URL
If there are external backlinks going to the URL, are these not going to get lost?
Because as we have mentioned on these 301s, there has been 3 URLs in question.
Hope that makes sense.
-
In the simplest terms, the old page should always be directed to the new page. Think of it as a non-stop flight.
-
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for your feedback, however I am getting a little lost
So what your are saying if I understand is, the 301 should be this:
example.com/a is redirected to example.com/abc
Kind Regards
-
The only thing that concerns me is what CafePress had said "Google stops crawling a link after the 5th redirect or so."
You can offer 100 links on a page. All the links can be to "seomoz.org" and they will all be crawled even though the real URL is "www.seomoz.org" and all 100 links will get redirected.
What CafePress referred to is redirects for a single URL.
www.example.com/a redirects to /ab which redirects to /abc and so forth. A crawler will only follow a single URL so far through a chain of redirects before the PR is completely gone and it stops.
Therefore the preferred solution is to redirect any old or broken URLs to their new URL in a single redirect. I'll share an example based on your site:
Very old URL: example.com/a. It is redirected to example.com/ab
Old URL: example.com/ab. It is redirected to example.com/abc
You could leave these two redirects in place, as-is, and they will work, but it is not recommended. The reason is any traffic to /a will have a double re-direct. First the traffic will go to /ab then to the final destination of /abc. This double redirect is an unnecessary delay, it adds extra points of vulnerability and is a waste of SEO link juice. The preferred solution would be to modify the /a redirect to point to the /abc page directly.
I hope that makes sense.
-
Also, if a page is indexed, which is highly likely (due to XML sitemaps, Google Analytics, Google Toolbar etc), then just removing the 301 redirect (links or no links) means that when this page disappears due to the site changes then you will have an indexed page resulting in a 404 error.
I maintain that you should have single hop 301 redirects on all of the pages that will not be there or will have been moved due to the site updated.
I also agree with what Ryan Kent says about links - you may have some links that have been discovered but not yet recognized pr picked up. If there is a chance that the content has been indexed then it should have an appropriate redirect.
-
Hi Ryan,
The only thing that concerns me is what CafePress had said "Google stops crawling a link after the 5th redirect or so."
I have another issue regarding the 301 re-directs:
We have:
/abcd http://www.example.com/abcde this is actually a 301 on a product page, however we have the same product in a shop page /shop/abcd which we have decided to do away with the shop directory, is it best practice to also do a 301 from the /shop/abcd to /abcde?
Hope that makes sense.
Kind Regards
-
I don't agree with the recommendation to simply delete the 301 due to no visible links. There are two reasons why:
1. It is more work for you to go and research the links to each page
2. There can always be links you are not aware of such as bookmarks, e-mail links, links which don't show up for various reasons, etc.
Just simply modify the 301 to point to the correct URL and you are all set.
-
Thanks for the fantastic feedback.
An example of what has happened on the .htaccess:
/abc http://www.example.com/abcd - This is the 301 that was made in March this year.
/abcd http://www.example.com/abcde - This is the new 301
If i notice that there are no links going to /abc using Open Site Explorer should i just delete this 301?
Kind Regards
-
I would change the original 301 redirect to the new location.
I would then add an additional 301 redirect to the secondary page (the old redirect) to the new location.
So you will have your original URL and the older redirected URL both 301 redirected to where the content now resides. This way you only have one hop on the 301 redirects and you have both old URLs pointing to the new one.
-
should i delete the first 301 redirect from the htaccess file?
The best results would be achieved if each URL had a single 301 redirect to the target page. To that end, yes, you should delete the old 301 redirect and create a new one.
-
+1
Totally forgot about mentioning the inbound links part. Thanks for picking it up, Rick!
-
Hey Gary,
I partially agree with Cafe. However, I wouldn't remove any redirects for URLs which may have backlinks. Maybe it would be a good idea to figure out if any of the redirects which you are removing are from URLs that have earned links? An Open Site Explorer link export would help you figure out if any of those URLs still have value.
-
Hi Gary,
Yes, it is always a good idea to cut down the number of 301 redirects (or any redirects in general) because if I remember correctly, Google stops crawling a link after the 5th redirect or so. You also lose another 10% link juice for each additional redirect.
Lastly, don't forget to 301 redirect the URLs from the beginning of the year to the new re-structured website.
Hope that helps!
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
-
Launching large content project - date-stamp question
Hello mozzers! So my company is about to launch a large scale content project with over 100 pieces of newly published content. I'm being asked what the date-stamp for each article should be. Two questions:
Technical SEO | | Vacatia_SEO
1- Does it hurt article's SEO juice to have a lot of content with the same "published on" date?
2- I have the ability to manually update each articles date stamp. Is there a recommended best practice? p.s. Google has not crawled any of these pages yet.1 -
Questions about canonicals
Howdy Moz community, I had a question regarding canonicals. I help a business with their SEO, and they are a service company. They have one physical location, but they serve multiple cities in the state. My question is in regards to canonicals and unique content. I hear that a page with slightly differing content for each page won't matter as much, if most of the content is relevantly the same. This business wants to create service pages for at least 10 other cities they service. The site currently only have pages that are targeting one city location. I was wondering if it was beneficial to use a template to service each city and then put a canonical there to say that it is an identical page to the main city page? Example: our first city was san francisco, we want to create city pages for santa rosa, novato, san jose and etc. If the content for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, city were the same content as the 1st city, but just had the slight change with the city name would that hurt? Would putting a canonical help this issue, if i alert that it is the same as the 1st page? The reason I want to do this, is because I have been getting concerns from my copywriter that after the 5th city, they can't seem to make the services pages that much different from the first 4 cities, in terms of wording of the content and its structure. I want to know is there a simpler way to target multiple cities for local SEO reasons like geo targeted terms without having to think of a completely new way to write out the same thing for each city service page, as this is very time consuming on my end. Main questions? Will making template service pages, changing the city name to target different geographic locations and putting a canonical tag for the new pages created, and referring back to the main city page going to be effective in terms of me wanting to rank for multiple cities. Will doing this tell google my content is thin or be considered a duplicate? Will this hurt my rankings? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Disavow questions
Pretty sure I know the answers to these but someone asked me to make absolutely sure so here goes, any opinions welcome: If i disavow a whole domain does it include all sub-domains on the domain also?- my answer is clearly yes. If i have network of links really bad linking to my website that are already nofollow but awful websites to be linked on, is it worth putting them in the disavow list anyway to basically tell Google literally no association? I know the whole point of disavow is to essentially nofollow the link. Opinions much appreciated, thank you guys.
Technical SEO | | tdigital0 -
Pageing page and seo meta tag questions
Hi if i am using paging in my website there is lots of product in my website now in paging total paging is 1000 pages now what title tag i need to add for every paging page or is there any good way we can tell search engine all page or same ?
Technical SEO | | constructionhelpline0 -
Questions about root domain setup
Hi There, I'm a recent addition to SEOmoz and over the past few weeks I've been trying to figure things out. This whole SEO process has been a bit of a brain burner but its slowly becoming a little more clearer. For awhile I noticed that I was unable to get Open Site Explorer to display information about my site. It mentioned that that there was not enough data for the URL. Too recent of a site, no links, etc. Eventually I changed the the URL to include "www." and it pulled up results. I also noticed that a few of my page warnings are because of duplicate page content. One page will be listed as http://enbphotos.com. The other will be listed as http://www.enbphotos.com. I guess I'm not sure what this all means and how to change it. I'm also not really sure what the terminology even is and something regarding root domain seemed appropriate but I'm not sure if it is accurate. Any help/suggestions/links would be appreciated! Thanks, Chris
Technical SEO | | enbphotos0 -
Redirect question
I would like to redirect http://example.com/index.html to http://www.example.com/ Is the code below correct ? RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST}^example.comRewriteRule (.*) http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L] RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /index.html\ HTTP/ RewriteRule ^index.html$ http://www.example.com/ [R=301,L]
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
301 Redirect Question
I'm working on a site that has a lot of indexed pages and backlinks to both domain.com and www.domain.com. Will using a 301 redirect to send domain.com to www.domain.com merge all of the indexed pages and links over to www.domain.com, thereby strengthening the www?
Technical SEO | | Yo_Adrian0 -
Very, very confusing behaviour with 301s. Help needed!
Hi SEOMoz gang! Been a long timer reader and hangerouter here but now i need to pick your brains. I've been working on two websites in the last few days which are showing very strange behaviour with 301 redirects. Site A This site is an ecommerce stie stocking over 900 products and 000's of motor parts. The old site was turned off in Feb 2011 when we built them a new one. The old site had terrible problems with canonical URLs where every search could/would generate a unique ID e.g. domain.com/results.aspx?product=1234. When you have 000's of products and Google can find them it is a big problem. Or was. We launche the new site and 301'd all of the old results pages over to the new product pages and deleted the old results.aspx. The results.aspx page didn't index or get shown for months. Then about two months again we found some certain conditions which would mean we wouldn't get the right 301 working so had to put the results.aspx page back in place. If it found the product, it 301'd, if it didn't it redirected to the sitemap.aspx page. We found recently that some bizarre scenerio actually caused the results.aspx page to 200 rather than 301 or 404. Problem. We found this last week after our 404 count in GWMT went up to nearly 90k. This was still odd as the results.aspx format was of the OLD site rather than the new. The old URLs should have been forgetten about after several months but started appearing again! When we saw the 404 count get so high last week, we decided to take severe action and 301 everything which hit the results.aspx page to the home page. No problem we thought. When we got into the office on Monday, most of our product pages had been dropped from the top 20 placing they had (there were nearly 400 rankings lost) and on some phrases the old results.aspx pages started to show up in there place!! Can anyone think why old pages, some of which have been 301'd over to new pages for nearly 6 months would start to rank? Even when the page didn't exist for several months? Surely if they are 301's then after a while they should start to get lost in the index? Site B This site moved domain a few weeks ago. Traffic has been lost on some phrases but this was mainly due to old blog articles not being carried forward (what i'll call noisy traffic which was picked up by accident and had bad on page stats). No major loss in traffic on this one but again bizarre errors in GWMT. This time pages which haven't been in existence for several YEARS are showing up as 404s in GWMT. The only place they are still noted anywhere is in the redirect table on our old site. The new site went live and all of the pages which were in Googles index and in OpenSiteExplorer were handled in a new 301 table. The old 301s we thought we didn't need to worry about as they had been going from old page to new page for several years and we assumed the old page had delisted. We couldn't see it anywhere in any index. So... my question here is why would some old pages which have been 301'ing for years now show up as 404s on my new domain? I've been doing SEO on and off for seven years so think i know most things about how google works but this is baffling. It seems that two different sites have failed to prevent old pages from cropping up which were 301d for either months or years. Does anyone has any thoughts as to why this might the case. Thanks in advance. Andy Adido
Technical SEO | | Adido-1053990