Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
CNAME vs 301 redirect
-
Hi all,
Recently I created a website for a new client and my next job is trying to get them higher in Google.
I added them in OSE and noticed some strange backlinks. To my surprise the client has about 20 domain names. All automatically poiting to (showing) the same new mainsite now.
www.maindomain.be
www.maindomain.eu
www.maindomain.com
www.otherdomain.nl
www.otherdomain.com
...Some of these domains have backlinks too (but not so much).
I suggested to 301 redirect them all to the main site. Just to avoid duplicate content.
But now the webhoster comes into play: "It's a problem, client has only 1 hosting account, blablabla...".
They told me they could CNAME the 20 domains to the main domain. Or A-record them to an IP address. This is too technical stuff for me.
So my concrete questions are:
-
Is it smart to do anything at all or am I just harming my client? The main site is ranking pretty well now. And some backlinks are from their copy sites (probably because everywhere the logo links to the full mainsite url).
-
Does the CNAME or A-record solution has the same effect as a 301 redirect, from SEO perspective?
Many thanks,
Hans -
-
Hi Robert,
Thanks so much for your response! You really have been of great help. I'll try to arrange things the way you proposed.
Great to see people are willing to help each other here
Cheers,
Hans -
Forget the CNAME, A record as it is all poor advice. (Yes, I said it - poor advice). When you say only one hosting account, etc. (Hosting is virtual hosting. Only for the mainsite. If I was given acccess to the 20 others, I would put a .htaccess with a 301 redirect there. But that's not an option.) there are things that do not add up here. These others to be up MUST be hosted somewhere. Where? They are not parked domains if links are going to them and they link to main site. (They may be a dupe, but they exist.) So let's go another way. First, if you are familiar with ahrefs.com, this is where I am getting the data from. I like a lot of software, but ahrefs is a real go to for me on links at times (not the only one).
For these sites, compared to what you have coming into the main site, I see no tremendous value. Yes, the one has some links, but comparatively to the main site, I do not believe you are going to see much change if you do not have it - if any. But, you could see some change based on your having duplicate content all over Europe. You will end that by shutting these down. I think that is more important than the links issue.
If you want to give the client comfort I would suggest something we are doing with a client we are taking from about 50 domains (some with significant links others are so what domains) to ONE: We classified ours as Critical, Basic, and Goodbye. For the Critical it is full 301 etc. for the Basic it is a homepage to homepage (client had input on this) and for the others we are ending them with a domain to domain for 90 days then goodbye. NOTE: They actually had little duplicate content. We do a few a week and so far no loss. For yours do one of these every week or two and start with the nothing ones. Then if the last one www.vochtweringsbedrijf.nl and you turn it off and a week or two later you have an issue, you will know that is the issue and be able to choose to revive or not. (I do not think you will).
Make sure you look at analytics at traffic (my guess is it is little or none) for the sites and if one is getting a lot, then you have a reason to keep it. As it stands now, you are screwing up local, SEO overall, duped content, etc. This should be an improvement - based on the info I have at hand.
All the best, and welcome aboard Moz.
Robert
-
Hi Robert,
Thanks again for answerring and also for your understanding. I really appreciate that!
I'm new here in Moz, but what I like is the general intention to do things 'as they should be done'. That's exactly what I like to do myself (being a single entrepeneur and webdesigner trying to become better in seo btw).
But I also have to be realistic. If I let the hoster remove all the 'domain pointers' (or how should I call them?) and that would lead to their main site dropping in Google, that would not make them happy.
I'll try to be more concrete then. There is a main site, www.hetzuiden.nl. Doing pretty well in Google for some terms, but they want to do better.
If you look in OSE, you see domains like www.hetzuiden.eu, www.hetzuiden.be and www.vochtweringsbedrijf.nl as linking domains. Low DA, but still. If you visit these sites, you are in fact looking at the main site. Only the domain name stays visible in the browser.
If you visit www.vochtweringsbedrijf.nl in OSE you see backlinks too. Arranged by the SEO guy before me.
All together not impressive, but it could make a difference I guess. Especially because the duplicates are containing the same keywords. or am I thinking wrong here?
I hope the above explanation makes it easier to send me in the right direction
One concrete question: You made it clear that CNAME is not the way to go. Is the 'A record solution' also a no go?
Thanks a lot,
Hans
-
Hans,
I am following up as I hear the pain in your writing.I think we try to avoid bad absolutes here with a passion, but that most here is fairly straightforward. Per what Highland has, and what your needs are, the CName changes are not what I would do. Absolutely not. Ever. (Hope that is clear without telling you what you should do).
As to the problem with the other domains, it is difficult to give a do this or do that due to the fact we are seeing only example.com etc. and there is in no way anything close to the whole picture. It is kind of like going to the doctor and saying I have some pain. If you cannot give specifics, it is too hard to treat. She does not want to give you the wrong drug for the pain you have. We don't either.
To try and cover all of the permutations you could be facing is to have to write a text book in redirect how to, etc. So we are left with more generalities which is what we have given you along with some specifics.
You said this, "The only reason the 20 domain names exist, is to avoid competitors to registrate them." To me, that says, goodbye domains. You also said there are "some links to them," which generally means they were for more than registration prevention. If you do a domain to domain redirect (301 of homepage essentially) you will LIKELY get most of the juice, but your "webmaster" does not want to do that. So, what are your options now:
Shut them down or not. Those are the only options. The CName thing does nothing for you.
So, there you have the most direction I think anyone can give. I sincerely hope it helps,
Robert
-
Could anyone advice me, reading the above, what the right direction is?
-
Keeping the situation as it is. Duplicate content is not preferred, but it's not a crime either. And I'm not unintentionally harming my client by making the wrong choice now.
-
Continue with finding a solution for the situation. Whether that's via CNAME, A record or something else?
Thanks,
Hans -
-
Hi Highland,
Thanks for the explanation. I must admit these expressions are new to me (CNAME and A record). But I'll try to understand.
A few questions:
-
If I read your explanation, isn't the CNAME in fact my actual situation? otherdomain.nl showing the maindomain.nl website but with otherdomain.nl visible in the browser?
-
If I ask the hoster to go for the A record solution, do I have the same result as with a 301 redirect in a .htaccess file?
-
If so (see 2) does this A record solution also transfer the link value of the other domains to the main domain (just like with a 301-redirect in .htaccess)?
Many thanks,
Hans -
-
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your extensive answer!
Physically, there is only 1 website, www.maindomain.nl. Meaning that if I put the word 'moz' on the homepage, all 20 other domains immediately show 'moz' too.
So the other 20 domains are nothing but domain names. Showing the main site but under 20 different domain names.
The only reason the 20 domain names exist, is to avoid competitors to registrate them. And alos the believe (misunderstanding) that this would help them to be found in Google much better (with a lot of sites).
The SEO guy before me arranged some backlinks to some of the 20 domains. So they have some link value. And as they all have a link to the mainsite (due to the logo pointing to www.maindomain.nl) they could all be supporting the maindomain too a little?.
Hosting is virtual hosting. Only for the mainsite. If I was given acccess to the 20 others, I would put a .htaccess with a 301 redirect there. But that's not an option.
So part of the 20 domains have some link value, others haven't.
I hope this helps a little answerring the question :).
Many thanks,
Hans -
Highland,
Thanks for great server side explanation.
Hans,
Highland gives a very good explanation to the other side of the equation your webmaster was suggesting. The important thing for me is that it speaks to what your 'webmaster' was saying and that a CNAME record is not the same as a 301. What the webmaster suggests will do precisely what Highland says with regard to duplicate content and will have no benefit for passing link juice.
Best,
-
A CNAME is a DNS record that says that domainA.com lives where domainB.com is. That means you then do another lookup on domainB.com and get its A record. Somewhere down the chain you have to have an A record. An A record is what ties a domain to an IP.
The problem here is that a CNAME is not the same thing as 301. If you go to the CNAME as mentioned above, your browser will still say domainA.com. We use a CNAME because we have a load balancer with AWS. So our site resolves to a CNAME that resolves to the load balancer address but it still shows up as www.ourdomain.com. We have dozens of URLs like this pointed to the same hosting configuration and each domain is seen as the original TLD. This will cause duplicate content problems for your client.
The correct solution is to set them up with an A record pointed at a web server and then have your web server return a 301.
-
Hans,
In order to correctly answer this there is more data needed:
Is www.maindomain.com the Main Domain you are potentially pointing the others to?
With the other cctld's, (.eu, .nl, etc) are they sites that are up and running? What about the other .com?
Given you have 'OtherDomain.com's', are they similar sites with a different domain name or are they altogether different sites? Are there domains with languages that are not served by the Main Domain you are redirecting to? Have you looked at traffic to all in GA? What about local?
Is there a business purpose to any of the Non Main sites that would negate changing any of them? Make sure you have talked all the possibilities through with the client or you are going to cause yourself a problem. Please.
What type of "hosting account" is being used? Someone hosting a domain on a network solutions, bluehost, etc for $5 - $10 per month? Dedicated server? Semi dedicated server? etc.
I am not sure who the 'webmaster' is, but they need to understand the reasons you are contemplating this. Frankly, they seem to not want to do the 301's (given the size(# of urls) of the varying domains, varying url structures, are they all exclusively on LAMP stacks or exclusively on IIS, etc. it can be a daunting task.)
If they are simply domains that have no pages or pages with no real link value, a domain to domain redirect takes care of the rare bird who may have one in a bookmark, etc. and, if there is no real chance you would need to worry re bookmarks, you can simply turn them off.
So, you are at a place where you need to answer a lot of questions before you make a decision. A note here since you said, "...a new client.." is that if these are in the least extensive or are critical domains that you really need to be able to preserve the link value or the traffic from you should consider a fee for each domain like that. We charge US $250 for a simple domain to be redirected and a small domain (site) that is critical and has even 10 pages we charge a minimum of US $750. It can go up significantly from there. Why? Because we are a knowledge business and we have learned the knowledge at great cost to us. Also, there is risk involved in this and if something goes wrong, the client will be expecting you to handle it out of your pocket.
If you can answer the questions, I am sure some of us can assist you with the decision tree you face.
Best,
Robert
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
-
Delete old blog posts after 301 redirects to new pages?
Hi Moz Community, I've recently created several new pages on my site using much of the same copy from blog posts on the same topics (we did this for design flexibility and a few other reasons). The blogs and pages aren't exactly identical, as the new pages have much more content, but I don't think there's a point to having both and I don't want to have duplicate content, so we've used 301 redirects from the old blog posts to the new pages of the same topic. My question is: can I go ahead and delete the old blog posts? (Or would there be any reasons I shouldn't delete them?) I'm guessing with the 301 redirects, all will be well in the world and I can just delete the old posts, but I wanted to triple check to make sure. Thanks so much for your feedback, I really appreciate it!
Technical SEO | Oct 4, 2019, 2:20 PM | TaraLP1 -
I have a question about the impact of a root domain redirect on site-wide redirects and slugs.
I have a question about the impact (if any) of site-wide redirects for DNS/hosting change purposes. I am preparing to redirect the domain for a site I manage from https://siteImanage.com to https://www.siteImanage.com. Traffic to the site currently redirects in reverse, from https://www.siteImanage.com to https://siteImanage.com. Based on my research, I understand that making this change should not affect the site’s excellent SEO as long as my canonical tags are updated and a 301 redirect is in place. But I wanted to make sure there wasn’t a potential consequence of this switch I’m not considering. Because this redirect lives at the root of all the site’s slugs and existing redirects, will it technically produce a redirect chain or a redirect loop? If it does, is that problematic? Thanks for your input!
Technical SEO | Jun 1, 2023, 7:33 AM | mollykathariner_ms0 -
Redirect URLS with 301 twice
Hello, I had asked my client to ask her web developer to move to a more simplified URL structure. There was a folder called "home" after the root which served no purpose. I asked for the URLs to be redirected using 301 to the new URLs which did not have this structure. However, the web developer didn't agree and decided to just rename the "home" folder "p". I don't know why he did this. We argued the case and he then created the URL structure we wanted. Initially he had 301 redirected the old URLS (the one with "Home") to his new version (the one with the "p"). When we asked for the more simplified URL after arguing, he just redirected all the "p" URLS to the PAGE NOT FOUND. However, remember, all the original URLs are now being redirected to the PAGE NOT FOUND as a result. The problems I see are these unless he redirects again: The new simplified URLS have to start from scratch to rank 2)We have duplicated content - two URLs with the same content Customers clicking products in the SERPs will currently find that they are being redirect to the 404 page. I understand that redirection has to occur but my questions are these: Is it ok to redirect twice with 301 - so old URL to the "p" version then to final simplified version. Will link juice be lost doing this twice? If he redirects from the original URLS to the final version missing out the "p" version, what should happen to the "p" version - they are currently indexed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | Jun 13, 2014, 2:04 PM | AL123al0 -
301 redirect relative or absolute path?
Hello everyone, Recently we've changed the URL structure on our website, and of course we had to 301 redirect the old urls to the coresponding new ones. The way the technical guys did this is: "http://www.domain.com/old-url.html" 301 redirect to "/new-url.html"
Technical SEO | Oct 24, 2013, 7:01 AM | Silviu
meaning as a relative redirect path, not an absolute one like this:
"http://www.domain.com/old-url.html" 301 redirect to "http://www.domain.com/new-url.html" This happened for few thousands urls, and the fact is the organic traffic dropped for those pages after this change. (no other changes were made on these pages and the new urls are as seo friendly as possible, A grade on On-Page Grader). The question is: does the relative redirect negatively affects seo, or it counts the same as an absolute path redirect? Thanks,
S.0 -
Remove html file extension and 301 redirects
Hi Recently I ask for some work done on my website from a company, but I am not sure what they've done is right.
Technical SEO | Apr 11, 2013, 10:03 AM | ulefos
What I wanted was html file extensions to be removed like
/ash-logs.html to /ash-logs
also the index.html to www.timports.co.uk
I have done a crawl diagnostics and have duplicate page content and 32 page title duplicates. This is so doing my head in please help This is what is in the .htaccess file <ifmodule pagespeed_module="">ModPagespeed on
ModPagespeedEnableFilters extend_cache,combine_css, collapse_whitespace,move_css_to_head, remove_comments</ifmodule> <ifmodule mod_headers.c="">Header set Connection keep-alive</ifmodule> <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">Options +FollowSymLinks -MultiViews</ifmodule> DirectoryIndex index.html RewriteEngine On
# Rewrite valid requests on .html files RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME}.html -f RewriteRule ^ %{REQUEST_URI}.html?rw=1 [L,QSA]
# Return 404 on direct requests against .html files RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} .html$
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} !rw=1 [NC]
RewriteRule ^ - [R=404] AddCharset UTF-8 .html # <filesmatch “.(js|css|html|htm|php|xml|swf|flv|ashx)$”="">#SetOutputFilter DEFLATE #</filesmatch> <ifmodule mod_expires.c="">ExpiresActive On
ExpiresByType image/gif "access plus 1 years"
ExpiresByType image/jpeg "access plus 1 years"
ExpiresByType image/png "access plus 1 years"
ExpiresByType image/x-icon "access plus 1 years"
ExpiresByType image/jpg "access plus 1 years"
ExpiresByType text/css "access 1 years"
ExpiresByType text/x-javascript "access 1 years"
ExpiresByType application/javascript "access 1 years"
ExpiresByType image/x-icon "access 1 years"</ifmodule> <files 403.shtml="">order allow,deny allow from all</files> redirect 301 /PRODUCTS http://www.timports.co.uk/kiln-dried-logs
redirect 301 /kindling_firewood.html http://www.timports.co.uk/kindling-firewood.html
redirect 301 /about_us.html http://www.timports.co.uk/about-us.html
redirect 301 /log_delivery.html http://www.timports.co.uk/log-delivery.html redirect 301 /oak_boards_delivery.html http://www.timports.co.uk/oak-boards-delivery.html
redirect 301 /un_edged_oak_boards.html http://www.timports.co.uk/un-edged-oak-boards.html
redirect 301 /wholesale_logs.html http://www.timports.co.uk/wholesale-logs.html redirect 301 /privacy_policy.html http://www.timports.co.uk/privacy-policy.html redirect 301 /payment_failed.html http://www.timports.co.uk/payment-failed.html redirect 301 /payment_info.html http://www.timports.co.uk/payment-info.html1 -
How do I fix a 301 Redirect Loop?
Saturday I waas doing some correcting of some duplicate titles, including nofollowing tags, etc. (my main problem was duplicate titles due to tags and categories being indexed). Now this morning I see that one of my pages refuses to load, citing a 301 redirect loop. http://www.incredibleinfant.com/feeding/switching-baby-formula/ Originally, the page was posted under the wrong category. http://www.incredibleinfant.com/uncategorized/switching-baby-formula I resaved it under the correct category (feeding) and now it won't load. Can someone help me figure out how to correct this mess? Thanks so much Heather
Technical SEO | Dec 12, 2012, 1:25 PM | Gotmoxie0 -
How to create a delayed 301 redirect that still passes juice?
My company is merging one of our sites into another site. At first I was just going to create a 301 redirect from domainA.com to domainB.com but we decided that would be too confusing for customers expecting to see domainA.com so we want to create a page that says something like "We've moved. please visit domainB.com or be redirected after 10 seconds". My question is, how do I create a redirect that has a delay and will this still pass the same amount of juice that a regular 301 redirect would? I've heard that meta refreshes are considered spammy by Google.
Technical SEO | Jun 10, 2012, 6:04 PM | bewoldt0 -
Internal search : rel=canonical vs noindex vs robots.txt
Hi everyone, I have a website with a lot of internal search results pages indexed. I'm not asking if they should be indexed or not, I know they should not according to Google's guidelines. And they make a bunch of duplicated pages so I want to solve this problem. The thing is, if I noindex them, the site is gonna lose a non-negligible chunk of traffic : nearly 13% according to google analytics !!! I thought of blocking them in robots.txt. This solution would not keep them out of the index. But the pages appearing in GG SERPS would then look empty (no title, no description), thus their CTR would plummet and I would lose a bit of traffic too... The last idea I had was to use a rel=canonical tag pointing to the original search page (that is empty, without results), but it would probably have the same effect as noindexing them, wouldn't it ? (never tried so I'm not sure of this) Of course I did some research on the subject, but each of my finding recommanded one of the 3 methods only ! One even recommanded noindex+robots.txt block which is stupid because the noindex would then be useless... Is there somebody who can tell me which option is the best to keep this traffic ? Thanks a million
Technical SEO | Apr 13, 2012, 7:13 PM | JohannCR0