How can I redirect incoming links from an old version of my site ending in .ctlg and .ivnu?
-
My original site was published in 2001 using "version 2" software from Ivenue, the hosting company that I signed up with at that time. The site's structure was built in such a way that the primary category pages ended in the extension .ivnu. Product or item pages on the shopping cart side ended in the extension .ctlg. My site's name was and is [Lamplight Feather, Inc.](<a class="webkit-html-attribute-value webkit-html-external-link" href="http://www.tonyhill.net/" target="_blank">http://www.tonyhill.net/</a>). We built our business between 2001 and 2011 and by the last three years (2009 - 2011) of using their version two were averaging a million dollars per year in gross sales.
We decided to "upgrade" to Ivenue's "version 3" in 2011 to take advantage of some more modern options and because their newer software created web pages ending in .html which we thought more desirable. We made the switch in late 2011. But it was a disaster. Traffic and sales dropped precipitously. For the past two years (2012-2013) our annual gross sales average dropped to $400,000. (Two other factors were involved beside losing the many incoming links and link juice we had built up over the years: Panda came in that fall and my little niche market (decorative feathers) was flooded with competitors.)
However as I try to rebuild our traffic and business little by little, I am stumped as to how to redirect the many incoming links that went to our first site's .ivnu and .ctlg pages. I have constructed redirects for some of our current but changed .html pages like this and put them in the file cabinet and they work:
For (example): http://www.tonyhill.net/feathers_c384589.html then
But trying the same thing for (example) http://www.tonyhill.net/craftfeathers.ivnu still returns a 404. Is there something I am missing. Ivenue is useless in this matter by the way. Their "technicians" are no help. I plan to be migrating my site once again to a new hosting company and hope to solve this problem before then. Thanks for the attention,
Tony Hill
This is an example from Google Webmaster of the type of links that show up as 404's that I would like to redirect:
| URL: | http://www.tonyhill.net/productCat96521.ctlg |
|
| Error details | Linked from | |
<colgroup><col></colgroup>
| http://www.tonyhill.net/productCat43986.ctlg |
| http://forum.muppetcentral.com/showthread.php?t=21416&page=2 |
| http://www.cosplay.com/showthread.php?p=3832751 |
| http://forum.muppetcentral.com/showthread.php?t=21416&page=2&highlight=fur |
| http://www.muppetcentral.com/forum/threads/puppeteers-resources-links.19330/page-2 |
| http://www.muppetcentral.com/forum/threads/how-do-you-like-my-puppets.18549/page-2 || | |
|
-
Dear Caitlin,
Thanks for pointing out that the redirects DID work. Duh. Not sure what happened when I checked and determined they were not working. However they are all Meta_Refresh redirects. It seems that Ivenue cannot install 301's on the server side. At least no one there I have talked to seems to know how. Presume there is a problem with the original proprietary software (.ctlg, .ivnu). I have another inquiry in with them today. So we shall see.
I do have a concern that the Meta_Refresh redirects are hurting my link juice. We are talking about several hundred (or more) incoming links that reference those .ivnu and .ctlg pages.
-
Hello Tony,
I wish I could be of more help. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with this platform. One thing that I noticed is that that you said the following link 404'd: http://www.tonyhill.net/craftfeathers.ivnu. However, for me, it loads just fine.
One recommendation I have would be to download the following redirect checker http://www.ayima.com/seo-knowledge/redirect-checker.html. Once in your dashboard it will notify you if a redirect that you implemented is properly resolving.
Remember to create 301 redirect not 302. 302 redirects are meant to be temporary and, as a result, link equity will not flow through them. 301 redirects are considered permanent.
I hope this provides some help! ^Caitlin
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
-
Best to Leave Toxic Links or Remove/Disovow on Site with Low Number of Linking Domains
Our site has only 87 referring domains (with at least 7,100 incoming links). LinkDetox has identified 29% of our back links as being toxic and 14% as being questionable. Virtually all of these links derive from spammy sites. We never received a manual penalty, but ever since the first Penguin penalty in 2012 our search volume and ranking has dropped with some uneven recover in the last 3 years. By removing/disavowing toxic links are we risking that over optimized link text will be removed and that ranking will suffer as a result? Are we potentially shooting ourselves in the foot? Would we be better to spend a few months building quality links from reputable domains before removing disavowing bad links? Or toxic links (as defined by LinkDetox) so bad that it should be a priority to remove them immediately before taking any other step? Thanks, Alan
Reporting & Analytics | | Kingalan10 -
Google Analytics Set-Up for site with both http & https pages
We have a client that migrated to https last September. The site uses canonicals pointing to the https version. The client IT team is reluctant to put 301 redirects from the non-secure to the secure and we are not sure why they object. We ran a screaming frog report and it is showing both URLs for the same page (http and https). The non-secure version has a canonical pointing to the secure version. For every secure page there is a non-secure version in ScreamingFrog so Google must be ignoring the canonical and still indexing the page however, when we run a site: we see that most URLs are the secure version. At that time we did not change the Google Analytics setup option to use: "https" instead of "http" BUT GA appears to be recording data correctly. Yesterday we set up a new profile and selected "https" but our question is: Does the GAnalytics http/https version make a difference if so, what difference is it?
Reporting & Analytics | | RosemaryB1 -
Site account in Google Analytics
Hello I have a question about my site account. On 2014, during a week, my ID tracking of Google Analytics was removed of the site, in this period the volume of users and sessions is lower than the other weeks. But I don't understand why are the sessions and users still reporting during this period without ID Tracking
Reporting & Analytics | | Arkix0 -
How to Detect Links within PDFs
Hi All, I have a funny situation that I would like some advice on handling... There are a handful of domains that were created several years ago in support of an offline to online campaign. These domains are simply vanity domains that use an IFrame at 100% to show the content of another page. Essentially, the content of the sites I manage are embedded into the frame on the vanity URL. Since I do not monitor or have access to any analytics for the vanity URLs, is there a way to tell how others are discovering those vanity URLs? As stated above, they were used on direct mail flyers two years ago and never appeared online. However, I still get a good deal of traffic from them and cannot believe people have hung onto those flyers in such volume. I have used Open Site Explorer for the vanity URLs, which show no links existing anywhere online. I am wondering if the vanity URLs may exist in pdf lists of local businesses that match my category, etc. Is there any way to tell how traffic finds those vanity URLs without analytics or discovered links through link profiling tools?
Reporting & Analytics | | dsinger0 -
Megamenu: Too many links really bad?
Hi there! Our site hosts paid training videos, and has a javascript menu that lists EVERY video on the site, and it is our most-used method of navigation. The menu is structured to look like the business software our training videos cover, so it's very intuitive for users. That said, since we currently have so many videos EVERY page has more than 250 links. The only way to get this down to under 100 as SEOMOZ recommends is to delete/hide the link from being seen by search engines. What should I do? Is the menu worth being visible to search engines? businessonetraining.com
Reporting & Analytics | | TigerSheep0 -
What tools are people using to analyse clicked links
Hi, What tools do you use/recommend to analyse what/where links are being clicked on a page. I have seen a few mentions about CrazyEgg but are there any free (but good) tools around worth using?
Reporting & Analytics | | NeilD0 -
Finding and removing "Bad" Back Links
In the process of trying to figure out where all of the “Bad” backlinks are coming from I used the SEOmoz Site Explorer. I can see the links that may be questionable but am not sure how to determine if these are the issue causing the loss of rank or could it be something else. On Google webmasters they list Siteloki.com as the one with the most links. The count is now at 13,005. (see attached WMT report)
Reporting & Analytics | | rdominey
I first noticed this a month ago, 6,742 links and have tried contacting them with no reply, no results, I have even posted on the site asking to be removed from their listing and not response. Website: www.getyourphotosoncanvas.com I do not understand why this site is not showing up in the Site Explorer link analysis report (See attached)? Could this be some sort of hack or hidden links that Site Explorer does not see? How do I determine if this is real or not, if it is the reason that Google is demoting us? Google says that we are not being manually penalized? 5zAQq Iz9ct0 -
If I change the URL of a page, but the old page canonicalizes to the new, do I need to change my Analytics goals to get data?
I changed the URLs of some pages recently (because the same thing that affects the internal anchor text also affects the URL - grr...) but considered it not a big deal because even if I looked at the source code of the old URL, the canonical tag was now pointing to the new one. The question is - if I had URL destination goals set up for those URLs in Google Anlaytics, do I now have to change them? Or does Google somehow know that anyone getting to the new URL is the equivalent of someone getting to the old URL because of the canonical tag that exists on the old URL source code? I still do see goal conversions for some of the old URLs even since I changed them - but it could be that people are still somehow finding the old URL somewhere - or that Google only reindexed it a week or so after I made the change. Any light to shed? Thanks in advance, Aviva B
Reporting & Analytics | | debi_zyx0