Meta Refresh tag on cache pages- GRRR!
-
Hi guys,
All of our product pages originate in a URL with a unique number but it redirects to an SEO url for the user. These product pages have blocks on the page and these blocks are automatically populated with our database of content.
Here's an example of the redirect in place:
redirects to
The development team did this for 2 reasons. 1) our internal search needs the unique numbered urls for search and 2) it allows quick redirects as pages are cached.
The problem I face is this, the redirects from the cached are being tagged with 'meta refresh', yup, they are 302.
The development team said they could stop caching and respond dynamically with a 301 but this would bring in a delay. Speed wise, the cached pages load within 22ms and dynamically 530ms, so yeah half a second more.
Currently cached pages just do a meta refresh tagged redirect and I want to move away from this.
What would you guys recommend in such a situation? I feel like unless I place a 301, I'll be losing out on rank juice.
-
No problem at all.
As for a chain of redirects, this isn't how Google will see it. They even say that a redirect from one page to another is fine... it's when you get into the realms of 'page a --> page b --> page c' that it will become a problem.
A temporary redirect when used for a permanent move is a little dodgy to say the least and should be corrected. Also, what is the chance of 20 people hitting the same page at exactly the same second? And even if they do, it just means they each wait half a second rather than 22ms - I can see no problem with that whatsoever. Even at half a second, this is still very fast.
You can still cache pages through htaccess if you want - doesn't mean you have to ignore caching just because you do things the right way
Andy
-
Developer's argument is that a chain of redirects could add significant time to the real page. So the 1/2 second load time could go up if 20 people try and access the page at the same time. No good having a great page if it takes too long but then I'm going "c'mon we're not amazon or apple"
I'm with you though, I rather have the correct 301 redirect than a meta refresh, but i'm no expert when it comes to caching knowledge. My understanding is just that, it's a page that is cached so the system can load it quick for the search engine, that's it.
Do you think any additional value is there from an SEO standpoint in the caching? I know Google records a cached page but yeah, I see your point, better to get rid of the temporary redirect.
Thanks Andy, appreciate the feedback
-
I would sooner take the extra half a second to get this done correctly and as long as pages don't take like 4-5 seconds to load, then this really won't be an issue for Google. Don't forget, page speed is only one of hundreds of primary signals - content and quality are much higher up on the Google radar.
Remember, a 302 is supposed to be a temporary move. Do this the right way and don't look back
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
-
Images on their own page?
Hi Mozers, We have images on their own separate pages that are then pulled onto content pages. Should the standalone pages be indexable? On the one hand, it seems good to have an image on it's own page, with it's own title. On the other hand, it may be better SEO for crawler to find the image on a content page dedicated to that topic. Unsure. Would appreciate any guidance! Yael
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | yaelslater1 -
Increase in duplicate page titles due to canonical tag issue
Implemented canonical tag (months back) in product pages to avoid duplicate content issue. But Google picks up the URL variations and increases duplicate page title errors in Search Console. Original URL: www.example.com/first-product-name-123456 Canonical tag: Variation 1: www.example.com/first-product--name-123456 Canonical tag: Variation 2: www.example.com/first-product-name-sync-123456 Canonical tag: Kindly advice the right solution to fix the issue.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SDdigital0 -
SEO - is it site or page
Hi When we're talking about SEO does the search engine only look at the whole site in general or do they look at the individual page when we're talking about SERP? So if you have a keyword "my search term" Does the search engine look at the site first or the page with the term on then rank you or is it the page then the site.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Cocoonfxmedia0 -
Duplicate Pages #!
Hi guys, Currently have duplicate pages accross a website e.g. https://archierose.com.au/shop/cart**#!** https://archierose.com.au/shop/cart The only difference is the URL 1 has a hashtag and exclamation tag. Everything else is the same. We were thinking of adding rel canonical tags on the #! versions of the page to the correct URLs. But Google doens't seem to be indexing the #! versions anyway. Does anyone know why this is the case? If Google is not indexing them, is there any point adding rel canonical tags? Cheers, Chris https://archierose.com.au/shop/cart#!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jayoliverwright0 -
Page 1 Reached, Further Page Improvements and What Next ?
Moz, I have a particularly tricky competitive keyword that i have finally climbed our website to the 10th position of page 1, i am particularly pleased about this as all of the website and content is German which i have little understanding of and i have little support on this, I am pleased with the content and layout of the page and i am monitoring all Google Analytics values very closely, as well as the SERP positions, So as far as further progression with this page and hopefully climbing further up page 1, where do you think i should focus my efforts ? Page Speed optimization?, Building links to this page ?, blogging on this topic (with links) , Mobile responsive design (More difficult), further improvements to pages and content linked from this page ? Further improvements to the website in general?,further effort on tracking visitors and user experience monitoring (Like setting up Crazyegg or something?) Any other ideas would be greatly appreciated, Thanks all, James
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Antony_Towle0 -
Does Google still don't index Hashtag Links ? No chance to get a Search Result that leads directly to a section of a page? or to one of numeras Hashtag Pages in a single HTML page?
Does Google still don't index Hashtag Links ? No chance to get a Search Result that leads directly to a section of a page? or to one of numeras Hashtag Pages in a single HTML page? If I have 4 or 5 different hashtag link section pages , consolidated into one HTML Page, no chance to get one of the Hashtag Pages to appear as a search result? like, if under one Single Page Travel Guide I have two essential sections: #Attractions #Visa no chance to direct search queries for Visa directly to the Hashtag Link Section of #Visa? Thanks for any help
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Muhammad_Jabali0 -
Redirecting thin content city pages to the state page, 404s or 301s?
I have a large number of thin content city-level pages (possibly 20,000+) that I recently removed from a site. Currently, I have it set up to send a 404 header when any of these removed city-level pages are accessed. But I'm not sending the visitor (or search engine) to a site-wide 404 page. Instead, I'm using PHP to redirect the visitor to the corresponding state-level page for that removed city-level page. Something like: if (this city page should be removed) { header("HTTP/1.0 404 Not Found");
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rriot
header("Location:http://example.com/state-level-page")
exit();
} Is it problematic to send a 404 header and still redirect to a category-level page like this? By doing this, I'm sending any visitors to removed pages to the next most relevant page. Does it make more sense to 301 all the removed city-level pages to the state-level page? Also, these removed city-level pages collectively have very little to none inbound links from other sites. I suspect that any inbound links to these removed pages are from low quality scraper-type sites anyway. Thanks in advance!2 -
Should I remove Meta Keywords tags?
Hi, Do you recommend removing Meta Keywords or is there "nothing to lose" with having them? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet0