Interesting 302 redirect situation - could they be a good idea??
-
Just started with a new SEO client. The site is built on Sharepoint Server 2007 running Windows Server 2003 R2 on IIS 6.5 (I know, fun times for me).
Being a standard crappy Windows setup, URLs and canonicalization is a huge issue: first and foremost, we get a 302 redirect from the root www.example.com to www.example.com/Pages/default.aspx
Now standard SEO best practices dictate that we rewrite and redirect these pages so they're clean URLs. However that may or may not be possible in the current environment - so is the next best thing to change those to 301s so at least link authority is passed better between pages?
Here's the tricky thing - the 302s seem to be preventing Google from indexing the /Pages/default.aspx part of the URL, but the primary URL is being indexed, with the page content accurately cached, etc.
So,
www.example.com 302 redirects to www.example.com/Pages/default.aspx but the indexed page in Google is www.example.com
www.example.com/sample-page/ 302 redirects www.example.com/sample-page/Pages/default.aspx but the indexed page in Google is www.example.com/sample-page/
I know Matt Cutts has said that in this case Google will most likely index the shorter version of the URL, so I could leave it, but I just want to make sure that link authority is being appropriately consolidated.
Perhaps a rel=canonical on each page of the source URL? i.e. the www.example.com/sample-page/ - however is rel=canonical to a 302 really acceptable?
Same goes for sitemaps? I know they always say end-state URLs only, but as the source URLs are being indexed, I don't really want Google getting all the /Pages/default.aspx crap.
Looking for thoughts/ideas/experiences in similar situations?
-
Unfortunately no - client is finally moving to 2013 which is on IIS7 and have proper rewrite facility.
There doesn't appear to be any decent way to accomplish it on 2010/IIS6.
-
I'm super super late on this, but, did you ever decide on a solution to this issue? Sharepoint 2010 runs into the same problems, and even though it looks to be solved in 2013, the install base of 2010 is still pretty large.
-
Thanks! Yeah site was set up not that long ago, but is a great example of why IT Departments should never be trusted to build websites.
I'm just trying to figure out what's even possible on the current platform.
-
Well share point is really for intranets not a internet website, if it is on iis6 then i was proaoably setup before much was known about SEO.
You can do the rewrites in iis6 uising a httpmoedel, i have an a example in both c# and VB on my website
http://thatsit.com.au/seo/tutorials/using-ihttpmodule-visual-basic
-
Obviously the 302 is not a preference - it's the way the system has been set up by IT staff who don't know any better. Removing it might not be as simple as flicking a switch as it is how Sharepoint displays content by default.
"/" doesn't render - it 302 redirects to /Pages/default.aspx - sorry I don't quite get what you're asking here?
As the website was built on Sharepoint and hacked to pieces with custom code, we're still trying to figure out what's actually possible from a URL rewrite perspective. Sharepoint is not a natively SEO-friendly system. Rewrites are possible in IIS7, but more difficult in IIS6
-
i dont think the 302 to /pages/default.aspx has anything to do with windows or asp.net, why not just just remove the 302?
What does "/" and pages/default.aspx render? the same page? then yes use a canonical, but one has to ask why have the 302 at all?
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
-
Would You Redirect a Page if the Parent Page was Redirected?
Hi everyone! Let's use this as an example URL: https://www.example.com/marvel/avengers/hulk/ We have done a 301 redirect for the "Avengers" page to another page on the site. Sibling pages of the "Hulk" page live off "marvel" now (ex: /marvel/thor/ and /marvel/iron-man/). Is there any benefit in doing a 301 for the "Hulk" page to live at /marvel/hulk/ like it's sibling pages? Is there any harm long-term in leaving the "Hulk" page under a permanently redirected page? Thank you! Matt
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | amag0 -
301 redirects Ruby on Rails
Can anyone point me to the best way to implement 301 redirects on a Ruby on Rails website?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brianvest0 -
What tags/coding are not good for SEO?
what tags/coding are not good for SEO? and also what tags not to include while creating website. For example - I read some where to avoid Span tag.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JordanBrown0 -
Circular Canonical/Redirect
My client's site has an issue (see below) and I'm wondering how much it could be affecting crawlability. Has anyone seen a major rankings bump after fixing something like this? 1. In each page the rel=canonical is pointing to the http version of the page while the http version is redirecting to the https version. Basically, a circular redirect-canonical loop is occurring.2. The sitemap.xml is also referring to the http version of the pages rather than the https.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | elenaroi0 -
How does Google treat chained 301 redirects?
I did the following two chained 301 redirects (A->B->C) Plural to Singular to New Domain A. http://domain1.com/filenames B. http://domain1.com/filename C. http://domain2.com/filename To new domain without www and then back to origining domain A. http://www.domain1.com/filename B. http://domain2.com/filename C. http://domain1.com/fifilename How much link juicy will be rediectetoto URL C in above two scenarios?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bull1350 -
Is there anything wrong with this 301 redirect?
I'll keep this one short and sweet 🙂 Many moons ago we used to have several different methods of sorting our products and this change in sort order was achieved by having ?dispmode=list or ?dispmode=grid after the product URL. Best part of a year ago we decided to scrap this feature and 301'd all the ?dispmode URL's back to the base URL. The funny thing is that Google don't seem to have dropped a single one of the old URL's from their index and a search for site:www.refreshcartridges.co.uk dispmode returns almost 8,000 results. This isn't a massive problem but I'd have expected in the past year they'd have picked up on a couple of the 301's and would have started removing the old results. I'd hate to think we were getting any kind of penalisation for duplicate pages. I know the answer to this question is going to be 'just be patient, the old results will disappear' but just to ensure we're not missing anything stupid. I'd really appreciate it if someone could check out www.refreshcartridges.co.uk/brother-c-223.html?dispmode=list to confirm there's nothing more we could be doing to get these old results removed from the index. Many thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ChrisHolgate0 -
Warning about a 302 redirect
Hello everyone, I'm testing the pro software and recently I installed an SSL Certificate on one of the websites I'm monitoring, I put in place an .htaccess directive to force all traffic to the secure version of the site (https) and I noticed how this raised a warning because my directive is forcing the traffic with a 302 redirect. These are the lines: _RewriteCond %{SERVER_PORT} 80 _ RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://example.com/$1 [R,L] I understand that this is not good so I figured since I'm already redirecting all www to -www I can force traffic that arrives trying to use www to the secure version like so: RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^example.com$ RewriteRule (.*) https://example.com/$1 [R=301,L] But this is not 100% effective because if someone visits the site directly on the -www version this person wont get redirected hence it wont be forced to see the https. So my question is: does anybody know of an alternate way to force traffic to the secure socket using a 301 instead of a 302? Oh boy, just by writing the question I think I may have figured it out, I'll post it anyways because (1) I could be wrong and (2) It could help someone else. It just hit me but the directive that is forcing www to -www specifies what type of redirect to do here [R=301,L]. So to try to answer my own question before even posting it this could probably do the trick: _RewriteCond %{SERVER_PORT} 80 _ _RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://example.com/$1 [_R=301,R,L] I'll be testing it out ASAP and again I'll post the question anyways just in case it doesn't work, in case someone has a good suggestion or to help someone that could be in the same situation. If this is turns out right I will need someone to slap me in the face 😐
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevenpicado0 -
What is a good content for google?
When we start to study SEO and how google see our webpage, one important point is to have good content. But, for beginners like me, we get lost on this. Is not so black and white: what for you is a good content? the text amount matters? there is any trick that all good content websites need to have?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Naghirniac0