Server requests: 302 followed by a 200
-
Hi,
On an IIS system clicking a particular link the following response codes are returned:
GET /nl/nl/process?Someparameter1=1&Someparameter2=2
302 found
GET /nl/nl/SomeOtherPage.cms
200 OK
What concerns me, besides the obvious 302 and the cAmeLcAse canonical issues is the 200 response without a redirect.
What page will then be indexed, ranked and what effect does this have on the pagerank flow, if the 302 was to be changed into a 301?
Also would extention .cms be an issue?Thanks for any answers.
Edit. I contacted the developer. He says it's a rewrite, not a meta redirect.
I still think, this rewrite is an issue? Canonical maybe? -
So why is the rewrite not an issue?
Google sees the GET /nl/nl/process?Someparameter1=1&Someparameter2=2, never mind the 302 (which is a very obvious issue).
Then it sees the GET /nl/nl/SomeOtherPage.cms
To Googlebot it might as well be a meta redirect, which is an issue, as this will not pass pagerank. Server response is not different from a meta redirect....Or should I interprete the last GET in some other way?
I agree on the .cms
-
The rewrite is not an issue but you should change from 302 to 301 in order to pass the link equity to the new page.
As for the page name format, cms extension is not an issue from google's point of view. However from a user point of view that is not really friendly (not only the extension but the name in general). Since you can re-write the name as you want I would consider changing those into a more friendly look.
Hope it helps.
-
IIS loves 302s... Ask your developer to change the 302 to a 301 instead.
The indexed page will then be "/nl/nl/SomeOtherPage.cms" and the "link juice" will flow to it.
Also stick with lowercase in the urls.
The .cms extension is not an issue imo.
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
-
Index, follow on a paginated page with a different rel=canonical URL
Hello, I have a question about meta robots ="index, follow" and rel=canonical on category page pagination. Should the sorted page be <meta name="robots" content="index,follow"></meta name="robots" content="index,follow"> since the rel="canonical" is pointing to a separate page that is different from the URL? Any thoughts on this topic would be awesome. Thanks. Main Category Page
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Choice
https://www.site.com/category/
<meta name="robots" content="index,follow"><link rel="canonical" href="https: www.site.com="" category="" "=""></link rel="canonical" href="https:></meta name="robots" content="index,follow"> Sorted Page
https://www.site.com/category/?p=2&dir=asc&order=name
<meta name="robots" content="index, follow"=""><link rel="canonical" href="https: www.site.com="" category="" ?p="2""></link rel="canonical" href="https:></meta name="robots" content="index,> As you can see, the meta robots is telling Google to index https://www.site.com/category/?p=2&dir=asc&order=name , yet saying the canonical page is https://www.site.com/category/?p=2 .0 -
What should I do after a failed request for validation (error with noindex, nofollow) in new Google Search Console?
Hi guys, We have the following situation: After an error message in new google search console for a large amount of pages with noindex, nofollow tag, a validation is requested before the problem is fixed. (it's incredibly stupid decision taken before asking the SEO team for advice) Google starts the validation, crawls 9 URLs and changes the status to "Failed". All other URLs are still in "pending" status. The problem has been fixed for more than 10 days, but apparently Google doesn't crawl the pages and none of the URLs is back in the index. We tried pinging several pages and html sitemaps, but there is no result. Do you think we should request for re-validation or wait more time? It there something more we could do to speed up the process?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ParisChildress0 -
Internal search pages (and faceted navigation) solutions for 2018! Canonical or meta robots "noindex,follow"?
There seems to conflicting information on how best to handle internal search results pages. To recap - they are problematic because these pages generally result in lots of query parameters being appended to the URL string for every kind of search - whilst the title, meta-description and general framework of the page remain the same - which is flagged in Moz Pro Site Crawl - as duplicate, meta descriptions/h1s etc. The general advice these days is NOT to disallow these pages in robots.txt anymore - because there is still value in their being crawled for all the links that appear on the page. But in order to handle the duplicate issues - the advice varies into two camps on what to do: 1. Add meta robots tag - with "noindex,follow" to the page
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SWEMII
This means the page will not be indexed with all it's myriad queries and parameters. And so takes care of any duplicate meta /markup issues - but any other links from the page can still be crawled and indexed = better crawling, indexing of the site, however you lose any value the page itself might bring.
This is the advice Yoast recommends in 2017 : https://yoast.com/blocking-your-sites-search-results/ - who are adamant that Google just doesn't like or want to serve this kind of page anyway... 2. Just add a canonical link tag - this will ensure that the search results page is still indexed as well.
All the different query string URLs, and the array of results they serve - are 'canonicalised' as the same.
However - this seems a bit duplicitous as the results in the page body could all be very different. Also - all the paginated results pages - would be 'canonicalised' to the main search page - which we know Google states is not correct implementation of canonical tag
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html this picks up on this older discussion here from 2012
https://moz.com/community/q/internal-search-rel-canonical-vs-noindex-vs-robots-txt
Where the advice was leaning towards using canonicals because the user was seeing a percentage of inbound into these search result pages - but i wonder if it will still be the case ? As the older discussion is now 6 years old - just wondering if there is any new approach or how others have chosen to handle internal search I think a lot of the same issues occur with faceted navigation as discussed here in 2017
https://moz.com/blog/large-site-seo-basics-faceted-navigation1 -
Manual Penalty Reconsideration Request Help
Hi All, I'm currently in the process of creating a reconsideration request for an 'Impact Links' manual penalty. So far I have downloaded all LIVE backlinks from multiple sources and audited them into groups; Domains that I'm keeping (good quality, natural links). Domains that I'm changing to No Follow (relevant good quality links that are good for the user but may be affiliated with my company, therefore changing the links to no follow rather than removing). Domains that I'm getting rid of. (poor quality sites with optimised anchor text, directories, articles sites etc.). One of my next steps is to review every historical back link to my website that is NO LONGER LIVE. To be thorough, I have planned to go through every domain (even if its no longer linking to my site) that has previously linked and straight up disavow the domain (if its poor quality).But I want to first check whether this is completely necessary for a successful reconsideration request? My concerns are that its extremely time consuming (as I'm going through the domains to avoid disavowing a good quality domain that might link back to me in future and also because the historical list is the largest list of them all!) and there is also some risk involved as some good domains might get caught in the disavowing crossfire, therefore I only really want to carry this out if its completely necessary for the success of the reconsideration request. Obviously I understand that reconsideration requests are meant to be time consuming as I'm repenting against previous SEO sin (and believe me I've already spent weeks getting to the stage I'm at right now)... But as an in house Digital Marketer with many other digital avenues to look after for my company too, I can't justify spending such a long time on something if its not 100% necessary. So overall - with a manual penalty request, would you bother sifting through domains that either don't exist anymore or no longer link to your site and disavow them for a thorough reconsideration request? Is this a necessary requirement to revoke the penalty or is Google only interested in links that are currently or recently live? All responses, thoughts and ideas are appreciated 🙂 Kind Regards Sam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Sandicliffe0 -
Shall I use a 301 or 302 redirect when people leave the company?
Hello, At my company, we have instances where client-facing people leave the company and so we need to remove their profile page from the website. As opposed to people receiving a 404 when they search for them, I thought it would be best to divert visitors to a generic landing page to explain that the person they are looking for has left the company with details on how to get in touch. I'm tempted to use a 302 redirect so the person they are searching for stays in the search results longer. But longer-term, will this cause any harm? Should it be eventually be turned into a 301 redirect? Or should I just use a 301 in the first instance. Thanks in advance, Stu
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stuart260 -
Is a Dedicated Server a Worthwhile Investment?
Greeting MOZ Community: Our site is hosted on a virtual private server. Apparently there are dozens of other web sites hosted on the same server. The performance is usually pretty fast, with the site downloading in 1-3 seconds. However, a few times per month, the performance slows down, to say 5-6 seconds. Please see the attached image. I suspect this may have something to do with the other web sites on the server. Currently we pay about $60/month. A dedicated server would cost about $120/month. Would site performance be more consistent on a dedicated server? Could we enjoy potential SEO benefits by having our own server, i.e. could we rank slightly higher if the speed was more consistent and the performance slightly faster? Thanks, Alan 6D7kK61
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Sitelinks: Does Google Recognize Your Requests for Removal?
I've been trying to influence branded SERPs recently by demoting certain pages from appearing in the Sitelinks feature provided in Google's Webmaster Tools. However, despite demoting various URLs, they continue to appear for the branded SERPs nearly a week after they should've been suppressed. What is your experience with Sitelinks? Do links you request to demote ever disappear or change positions in the SERPs for you?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | eMagineSEO0 -
I have 4,100 302 redirects; How can I change so many to 301s
hi, i have way to many 302 redirects, how can i bulk change these to 301 i have started in cpanel but i could be old by the time i finsih
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | freedomelectronics1