Meta refresh = 0 seconds
-
For a number of reasons I'm confined to having to do a client side redirect for html pages. Am I right in thinking that Google treats zero seconds roughly the same as proper 301 redirects? Anyone have experience with zero second meta refresh redirects, good or bad?
-
Interesting approach, thank you.
-
We just went through a situation like this with a pretty decent size client - 400+ ,htm pages that couldn't be redirected to .aspx due to us not being able to modify IIS settings on the server; and the url directory paths were all different too - basically a nightmare.
Like you probably already know, it could go either way with a meta refresh. You'd probably be ok, but I'd avoid if possible. Our solution worked really well, but it's specific to windows servers.
Our solution was to create a spreadsheet with 2 columns - left was all the .htm pages to be redirected - the right- the new .aspx page that it should 301 redirect to. We then wrote a script to dynamically create new copies of the .htm pages and insert a runatserver redirection code snippet at the top of each that pointed to the proper redirect page.
1 month out, everything looks good. No issues and the site is kickin.
-
Thanks.
-
Unfortunately, I've seen mixed reviews on this one, test-wise. The inconsistency is why we don't recommend it (as GNC said). Generally, though, I'd say it's better than nothing.
-
Thanks for the reply Cowboy.
301 is the ultimate destination but could be months or year away for reasons beyond my control and there is enough juice being lost to warrant a temporary solution. I've seen the references to Google and meta refreshses, which is why I posed the question, but I've also seen people say 0 second refreshes have worked.
I just want to make sure nobody had a story like: "we did that once and dropped off the index", etc. I'm thinking that the temporary gain is worth the risk if any, unless I hear differently from somebody.
-
Hi Derek:From the Moz manual, "Meta refreshes do pass some link juice but are not recommended as an SEO tactic due to usability and the loss of link juice passed"
Also, some SEO's feel that Google looks askance at their use.
There's no way to talk them into a 301 redirect, huh?
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
-
Open Graph Meta Description...
Does my html meta description tag have to be the same as my Open Graph meta description? I'm having problems pulling through my meta description into Google SERPs and I wondered if its because my 'OG' data is not consistent? Thanks Guys, Kay
Technical SEO | | eLab_London0 -
Dynamic content in meta tag
Hi There, A quick query, If few stats digits or numbers are taken in Meta description and they change daily that's why meta description changed regularly. example : current stats: 2859594 hosted sites, 99.57% uptime last week, 59.52% positive social media user sentiment, and 43 user reviews. changes in digits effect SEO Ranking? Rajiv
Technical SEO | | gamesecure0 -
My SERP meta description is displaying 315 characters...
Hi Mozzers, We have recently taken the #2 spot for our main keyword in Google UK serp. I just checked again and we have dropped to #4 and our meta description is no longer there as it has been replaced with some homepage content... 315 characters of homepage content right up to the full stop. I'm a little confused. A couple of our competitors meta descriptions are showing the same, extra long homepage text instead. Is there something totally normal and harmless causing this or do I need to be monitoring/changing something? Has Google made an update to allow for longer meta decs? Any advice appreciated! sWrBcuB.png
Technical SEO | | SanjidaKazi0 -
Meta description and Meta Keywords
Hi, We are new to SEO and have some meta Q's Should Meta descriptions and meta keywords be different on every page? Is it bad to have the same meta data repeated on the site? If it has to be different does it have to be totally different per page of just slightly different? Should the description contain keywords is there an advantage to that? Thanks Andrew
Technical SEO | | Studio330 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Would you move the site to a different host or change packages at a significant expense in order to eliminate the meta refresh
When I began working with a site (http://www.visix.com) , I discovered a number of hosting constraints that hampered some SEO related changes I wanted to make. A year later, the site was teetering on the 1st page for a particular keyword of choice and when the Panda & Penguin updates happened, the site got passed by 3M & Amazon, both much bigger sites. (was #11, now #13) Now I'm thinking I should try and use the homepage to rank for keyword "digital signage software", where originally I was making progress with an inner page. Now I am revisting the homepage meta refresh and need to decide if it is enough of an issue to warrant a hosting change. http://www.visix.com has a meta-refresh "0" seconds to http://www.visix.com/index.aspx I know sites can rank well with these, although I don't know the level of handicap that it has. In an article here, http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/redirection there is a statement saying that a meta-refresh will not pass as much link juice as a 301 redirect. I have read about every opinion I can find, and would appreciate other's opinions on the matter. The host is Network Solutions and the hosting package does not allow 301 redirects, among other things. Would you move the site to a different host or change packages at a significant expense in order to eliminate the meta refresh or is it not a big deal on a well established site? Thanks very much for your feedback!
Technical SEO | | IntegralOCR30 -
Why has Google removed meta descriptions from SERPS?
One of my clients' sites has just been redesigned with lots of new URLs added. So the 301 redirections have been put in place and most of the new URLs have now been indexed. BUT Google is still showing all the old URLs in the SERPS and even worse it only displays the title tag. The meta description is not shown, no rich snippet, no text, nothing below the title. This is proving disastrous as visitors are not clicking on a result with no description. I have to assume its got something to do with the redirection, but why is it not showing the descriptions? I've checked the old URLs and he meta description is definitely still in the code, but Google is choosing not to show it. I've never seen this before so I'm struggling for an answer. I'd like to know why or how this is happening, and if it can be resolved. I realise that this may be resolved when Google stops showing all the old URLs but there's no telling how long that will take (can it be speeded up?)
Technical SEO | | Websensejim0 -
Meta tag "noindex,nofollow" by accident
Hi, 3 weeks ago I wanted to release a new website (made in WordPress), so I neatly created 301 redirects for all files and folders of my old html website and transferred the WordPress site into the index folder. Job well done I thought, but after a few days, my site suddenly disappeared from google. I read in other Q&A's that this could happen so I waited a little longer till I finally saw today that there was a meta robots added on every page with "noindex, nofollow". For some reason, the WordPress setting "I want to forbid search engines, but allow normal visitors to my website" was selected, although I never even opened that section called "Privacy". So my question is, will this have a negative impact on my pagerank afterwards? Thanks, Sven
Technical SEO | | Zitana0