Redirect Chains - Accept the 301 chain or link from the original page??
-
Hi everyone,
I have a client that re-launched his site and it's gone from 100 pages to 1000 (new languages/increased product pages etc)
We've used 301's to map the old site to the new database driven site. BUT the new site is creating extremely long URL's:
e.g. www.example.com/example_example_example/example_example_example_example
Obviously I want to change these URL's:
THE PROBLEM.....
I am worried about the Chain Redirects. I know two 301 redirects is okay (although it's not great), but I wonder if there is an alternative:
When I've implemented the new URL structure the chain will look like this:
www.oldsite.com 301 redirects to www.newsitewithdodgyurls.com which then 301 redirects to www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com
Seeing as the new site has only been live for a month, and hasn't really gained many external links, should I:
301 from the original site (www.oldsite.com) straight to the new site (www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com)? If so, what would I do with the pages that I have not redirected? Let them 404?
OR
Leave the 301 chain in place?
Your advice, and any other suggestions would be much appreciated
Thanks
-
Thought in general you could use canonical tag cross domain too http://moz.com/blog/cross-domain-canonical-the-new-301-whiteboard-friday
-
Hi Ryan,
Thanks. I've confused the issue slightly. All these changes have been made on the same domain. It's only the URL structure that is changing. (sorry the examples I've used say something very different to that).
Your logic of finding mapping methods of redirecting is a solid plan though. I will work with the developer to implement it. And for anything I cant find logic for I will either 301 redirect or rel=canonical it.
Thanks again. That's hugely helpful.
-
Solution could therefore be to implement the rel=canonical tag on the intermediary site URL's pointing to the new site URL's
No.
The canonical tag can only be used within a domain.
Since you have determined the URL structure will change, I would recommend finding a logic that would apply to all URLs so you can map from the old site to the new one. Even if each logic piece only applied to 10% of the site, then you can map everything over in a total of 10 redirects.
If your current sites URL is www.oldsite.com/product1 and the new site URL is www.newsite.com/retail/us/stores/items/products/1 you can still use logic to make the conversion IF this same logic can be applied to all, or a worthwhile percentage, of the site.
-
Hi Ryan,
Thanks very much for responding in such detail, that's awesome.
Yeah, I think I'm abusing the 404 page a little. The vast majority of the thousand pages on the site will still exist but will be on different URL's (duplicate content ALERT!)
That as you rightly say could cause a problem for people landing on the site, and for duplicate content.
SO...
I don't want to do the thousands of individual redirects due to server load and potential penalties
Solution could therefore be to implement the rel=canonical tag on the intermediary site URL's pointing to the new site URL's, so although the pages aren't de-indexed, the new site URL's will soon be in a dominant position over the intermediary URL's in the serp's.
What do you reckon?
-
Hi James. Please allow me to offer some clarifications:
A. server speed- too many 301 redirects is going to put an unnecessary load on the server and reduce speed =BAD
The concern is HOW the redirects are made. If your client has a URL www.oldsite.com, and he moves his entire 10k page site to a new URL, www.newsite.com, and he keeps his URL structure the same at the new site, then the entire re-direct can be done in a single line. In this case there is absolutely no additional load on the server.
Alternatively, if the new site structure is such that hundreds of rules need to be written to properly complete the re-directs, then yes, your speed can be impacted as each request requires the server to iterate through hundreds of lines of code to seek a match.
You shared there would be a change to the URL structure. Your 301 logic would depend on if the change follows a logical pattern to where a regex mapping can be created in a few rules.
B. being penalised- too many 301 redirects can be viewed as aggressive PR sculpting and your 301's can be devalued
C. Avoiding 301 redirect chains- Matt Cutt's interview with Rand in 2010 said 301 chains are not a good thing as a general rule
This refers to chain 301s, a practice that I do not use and would never advise. Go to the original site and ensure each page is properly directed to it's final location.
You can redirect all 100k pages of site A to site B and that would not be considered "too many redirects" nor page sculpting. When you re-direct from site A to site X to site Y to site Z then to site B (the final destination), that would be considered too many re-directs. This could happen even if the re-directs were within the same couple of sites. Even if the re-directs all worked, each hop is a leak in the link juice pipeline.
404's are not necessarily a bad thing
I agree, but a 301 is far superior IF you are keeping the content.
Let's say someone is looking for an article on the 1982 Corvette Stingray. He locates a search result, clicks on it and is taken to the article on your site. He is a happy search engine user, and now a happy visitor on your site. Everyone wins.
Using the same example, the person gets a 404 page on your site. There is an extremely high chance the user will simply return to Google and move on to the next result. Everyone looses.
404s should be used for content when it is highly unlikely a user will ever look for it in a search result OR if you no longer have the content. You would never want to 404 a link when you still have the content and know where it is located.
With all of the above noted, I agree with your plan. The pages with no value, meaning the pages are not searched for or you no longer have the content, can 404.
-
Hi guys, thank you both for your responses.
I don't think I framed my question correctly though. The 301 redirect issues I am worried about are:
A. server speed- too many 301 redirects is going to put an unnecessary load on the server and reduce speed =BAD
B. being penalised- too many 301 redirects can be viewed as aggressive PR sculpting and your 301's can be devalued )(see here) =BAD
C. Avoiding 301 redirect chains- Matt Cutt's interview with Rand in 2010 said 301 chains are not a good thing as a general rule (no need to watch video, it's in the text below) = BAD
SO....
Ryan K, I agree with you in your decision to direct from old site direct to new site. However, 404's are not necessarily a bad thing (see google's stance)
Ryan P, I agree with your suggestion of a sitemap
** So my plan as far as I see it is this:**
1. 301 redirect all the original site (www.oldsite.com) pages to the new URL's at (www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com)
2. Any pages on the intermediary site (www.newsitewithdodgyurls.com) that have gained backlinks 301 them to the new site aswell
3. Let pages on the intermediary site with no SEO value 404
4. Create a prioritised sitemap (as per Ryan P's suggestion)
This solves the problem on chaining 301 redirects, it reduces the load on the server, and it avoids penalisation due to too many 301's
That's how I see it going down anyway. Would love to hear if you think that's the right plan of action.
Anyone else feel free to chip in aswell!!
-
With the addition of a sitemap specifying only the great URLs and rel=canonical on those pages you should have the situation cleaned up in a tidy way. It's not uncommon to have to redirect from a few older sources as a website ages.
-
I think the correct thing to do is pretty clear.
301 the pages from the original site to their new URLs directly just as you suggested.
what would I do with the pages that I have not redirected? Let them 404?
The right thing to do is redirect them properly. Why would you leave any pages as a dead end 404?
How much time and resources do you have available for this project. That answer should be balanced with other factors:
Are the existing links worth the effort? Is this an older site with high quality links?
What is your SEO rank worth? Is the site's sales dependent on SERP? Since you are posting here, I would assume the answer is yes.
With only 100 pages involved, I would do whatever it takes to ensure each page is properly redirected to the appropriate page on the new site.
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
-
Redirect Chain Advice
Hi, i hope you can help. My site crawl is showing that I have a redirect chain on my home page. Basically it shows I am going from : http: > https: > https://www. I need everything to go from http:// and http://www directly to https://www. without the chain. Below is a copy of the htaccess, can anyone see if there is an error in there that could be causing it. RewriteEngine On
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DaleZon
RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301] BEGIN WordPress <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteRule ^index.php$ - [L]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule . /index.php [L]</ifmodule> END WordPress In addition, i have seen that they have a plugin called SSL insecure content fixer installed. It is showing this under its status: Array ( [HTTPS] => on [PHPHANDLER] => /usr/local/php70/bin/php [HTTP_X_REAL_IP] => 109.158.20.158 [HTTP_X_FORWARDED_PROTO] => https ) I think possibly this might have something to do with the issue, any thoughts are appreciated Thanks0 -
Should i redirect this page?
Hi I have the following 2 pages: http://www.over50choices.co.uk/Funeral-Planning.aspx http://www.over50choices.co.uk/Funeral-Planning/Funeral-Plans.aspx My dilema is that google sees the words "funeral planning" & "funeral plans" as the same thing, which might explain why the "funeral plan" page is not ranked v well. My issue is that the "funeral planning" page is at category level and introduces the wider subject of funeral planning, which isnt just funeral plans, so if i 301 my "funeral plan" page i will have no where to talk about funeral plans. My question is, Is the "funeral plan" page not ranked v well because of this or do i just need better optimisation of the funeral plan page so google is clear which is the key focus for each page? Thanks Ash
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AshShep10 -
Best way to move a page without 301
I have a page that currently ranks high for its term. That page is going away for the main website users, meaning all internal site links pointing to that page are going away and point to a new page. Normally you would just do a 301 redirect to the new URL however the old URL will still need to remain as a landing page since we send paid media traffic to that URL. My question is what is the best way to deal with that? One thought was set up a canonical tag, however my understanding is that the pages need to be identical or very close to the same and the landing page will be light on content and different from the new main page. Not topically different but not identical copy or design, etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
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 -
What is the Proper Use of 301 redirects for SEO purposes?
I heard and read from different sources that 301 redirects from aged domains with healthy link profiles is great to boost a sites rank as oppose to building a site around the page and linking it to the domain you want to rank. Whats is the best practice for this strategy? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | junkcars0 -
Changing a parent category and 301 redirecting
I have a set of three pages that are subpages of a parent. The structure is as follows: mysite.com/directory/personal-widgets mysite.com/directory/commercial-widgets mysite.com/directory/widgets-services The partent page name "directory" really isn't working for where I want these pages to evolve. So I want to change it to "guides" In a world without worrying about google, I would simply change the parent page to guides, so they look like this, and be done with it: mysite.com/guides/personal-widgets But, the obvious problem is that I have external links to the page now. And the pages have a nice PR. And they also have Facebook page Likes and I don't know if I'll lose those. I know that if I should do this I should redirect the pages to the new pages of course. My question is: Will redirecting the old URL to the new URL with a 301 cause anything negative to happen that I might not be expecting? Does Google dislike Redirects for any reason, or understand they are sometimes necessary?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bizzer0 -
Very Puzzled --- 301 ReDirects Did Not Work - Lost Rankings - Any Thoughts?
This one has us stumped and frustrated, hopefully someone out there in SEOMoz land can give us some thoughts and/or suggestions on what's going on and how to remedy. This is a follow-up to a post I made awhile back. Here is an excerpt from the original post -- We currently have 3 different versions of our State Business-for-Sale listings pages - the versions are: Version 1 -- Preferred Version (Links on Homepage www.businessbroker.net) http://www.businessbroker.net/State/Vermont-Businesses_For_Sale.aspx Title = Vermont Business for Sale Ads - Vermont Businesses for Sale & Business Brokers - Sell a Business on Business Broker (I realize the title needs work) Version 2: (Links on this page: http://www.businessbroker.net/listings/blistings.ihtml) URL Prior to 301 change --- http://www.businessbroker.net/Businesses_For_Sale-State-Vermont.aspx Title = Vermont Business for Sale | 120 Vermont Businesses for Sale | BusinessBroker.net Version 3: (Links on this page: http://www.businessbroker.net/businessesforsale.ihtml) URL Prior to 301 change --- http://www.businessbroker.net/listings/business_for_sale_vermont.ihtml Title = Vermont Businesses for Sale at BusinessBroker.net - Vermont Business for Sale While the page titles and meta data are a bit different, the bulk of the page content (which is the listings rendered) are identical. OK, so we decided to test this on 5 of our State pages - I will use VERMONT in this discussion. We did 301 ReDirects on Version 2 and Version 3 -- they now redirect to Version 1 - we did the redirects and also changed the URL's on the pages. Prior to the change, we were ranking for keywords like "Vermont Business for Sale" and some other similar keywords -- on 1st page of Google --- now, we have lost our rankings big time. Did we do something wrong? I thought when you did 301's the majority of link juice was supposed to be preserved (losing 10% or so) -- this didn't happen in our case. Any help on what we can do would be appreciated. We only did 5 States as a test and also noticed big drops for Maine as well. These were both states where VERSION 2 was the page that was showing up in SERPs. Thanks in advance for wading through this long post and any help you can provide!! Matt
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MWM37720 -
Should I 301 Redirect Old Pages to Newer Ones?
I know there is value having lots of unique content on our websites, but I'm wondering how long it should be kept for, and if there is any value in 301 redirecting it? So, for example we have a number of pages on our website that are dedicated to single products (blue widget x, blue widget y, red widget x, red widget y). Nice unique content, with some (but not many) links. These products are no longer available though and have been replaced. So I'm faced with three choices: 1. Leave it as it is, and hope it adds to the overall site authority (by value of being another page), and also perhaps mop up a few longer tail keywords. Add a link to the replacement product on these pages; 2. 301 redirect these pages to the replacement products to give these a bit of a boost, and lose the content; 3. 301 redirect these pages to the replacement products and move all the old content to a new 'blue widgets archive' and 'red widgets archive' page? Would appreciate everyones thoughts!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BigMiniMan0