Question on 301s
-
Hi Everyone,
I have a questions on 301 redirects, i hope someone can give me some help on this.
There was some 301 redirects made on some of the URLs at the beginning of the year, however we are now re-structuring the whole website, which means the URLs which had been given a 301 redirect are now getting another 301.
The question is, should i delete the first 301 redirect from the htaccess file?
Kind Regards
-
Ryan your analogy is fantastic. I totally understand this now and it really makes sense to do it this way.
Thanks for being patient with me
Again thanks all for your feedback on this.
Kind Regards
-
Every URL which is no longer active would require a 301 redirect to the proper page. In the situation you describe:
/a should redirect to /abc
/ab should redirect to /abc
I recognize this seems confusing so forget it's a website for a moment. Think of it as mail after you move.
You lived at 100 Main Street. That is where you received your mail. Now you move to 200 Elm Street. You put in a forward order with the post office (a real world equivalent to a 301 redirect). Now any mail addressed to 100 Main Street will be received at 200 Elm Street.
Now you move again to 300 Wall Street. You would put in another forwarding order so your mail from 200 Elm Street gets delivered to your new address. This solution is fine BUT, your mail from 100 Main Street would be delayed. First it would get forwarded to the 200 Elm Street post office, who would then have to forward it to 300 Wall Street. This process is inefficient (in seo terms, you lose link juice).
You want to change your 100 Main Street forward order to direct your mail to the 300 Wall Street address. Now all of your mail is taken to the proper location in a single hop.
I hope this analogy helps!
-
What happens to the URL
If there are external backlinks going to the URL, are these not going to get lost?
Because as we have mentioned on these 301s, there has been 3 URLs in question.
Hope that makes sense.
-
In the simplest terms, the old page should always be directed to the new page. Think of it as a non-stop flight.
-
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for your feedback, however I am getting a little lost
So what your are saying if I understand is, the 301 should be this:
example.com/a is redirected to example.com/abc
Kind Regards
-
The only thing that concerns me is what CafePress had said "Google stops crawling a link after the 5th redirect or so."
You can offer 100 links on a page. All the links can be to "seomoz.org" and they will all be crawled even though the real URL is "www.seomoz.org" and all 100 links will get redirected.
What CafePress referred to is redirects for a single URL.
www.example.com/a redirects to /ab which redirects to /abc and so forth. A crawler will only follow a single URL so far through a chain of redirects before the PR is completely gone and it stops.
Therefore the preferred solution is to redirect any old or broken URLs to their new URL in a single redirect. I'll share an example based on your site:
Very old URL: example.com/a. It is redirected to example.com/ab
Old URL: example.com/ab. It is redirected to example.com/abc
You could leave these two redirects in place, as-is, and they will work, but it is not recommended. The reason is any traffic to /a will have a double re-direct. First the traffic will go to /ab then to the final destination of /abc. This double redirect is an unnecessary delay, it adds extra points of vulnerability and is a waste of SEO link juice. The preferred solution would be to modify the /a redirect to point to the /abc page directly.
I hope that makes sense.
-
Also, if a page is indexed, which is highly likely (due to XML sitemaps, Google Analytics, Google Toolbar etc), then just removing the 301 redirect (links or no links) means that when this page disappears due to the site changes then you will have an indexed page resulting in a 404 error.
I maintain that you should have single hop 301 redirects on all of the pages that will not be there or will have been moved due to the site updated.
I also agree with what Ryan Kent says about links - you may have some links that have been discovered but not yet recognized pr picked up. If there is a chance that the content has been indexed then it should have an appropriate redirect.
-
Hi Ryan,
The only thing that concerns me is what CafePress had said "Google stops crawling a link after the 5th redirect or so."
I have another issue regarding the 301 re-directs:
We have:
/abcd http://www.example.com/abcde this is actually a 301 on a product page, however we have the same product in a shop page /shop/abcd which we have decided to do away with the shop directory, is it best practice to also do a 301 from the /shop/abcd to /abcde?
Hope that makes sense.
Kind Regards
-
I don't agree with the recommendation to simply delete the 301 due to no visible links. There are two reasons why:
1. It is more work for you to go and research the links to each page
2. There can always be links you are not aware of such as bookmarks, e-mail links, links which don't show up for various reasons, etc.
Just simply modify the 301 to point to the correct URL and you are all set.
-
Thanks for the fantastic feedback.
An example of what has happened on the .htaccess:
/abc http://www.example.com/abcd - This is the 301 that was made in March this year.
/abcd http://www.example.com/abcde - This is the new 301
If i notice that there are no links going to /abc using Open Site Explorer should i just delete this 301?
Kind Regards
-
I would change the original 301 redirect to the new location.
I would then add an additional 301 redirect to the secondary page (the old redirect) to the new location.
So you will have your original URL and the older redirected URL both 301 redirected to where the content now resides. This way you only have one hop on the 301 redirects and you have both old URLs pointing to the new one.
-
should i delete the first 301 redirect from the htaccess file?
The best results would be achieved if each URL had a single 301 redirect to the target page. To that end, yes, you should delete the old 301 redirect and create a new one.
-
+1
Totally forgot about mentioning the inbound links part. Thanks for picking it up, Rick!
-
Hey Gary,
I partially agree with Cafe. However, I wouldn't remove any redirects for URLs which may have backlinks. Maybe it would be a good idea to figure out if any of the redirects which you are removing are from URLs that have earned links? An Open Site Explorer link export would help you figure out if any of those URLs still have value.
-
Hi Gary,
Yes, it is always a good idea to cut down the number of 301 redirects (or any redirects in general) because if I remember correctly, Google stops crawling a link after the 5th redirect or so. You also lose another 10% link juice for each additional redirect.
Lastly, don't forget to 301 redirect the URLs from the beginning of the year to the new re-structured website.
Hope that helps!
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
-
SEO Question - Are 503/504 errors an issue?
Lately I've noticed more and more 503/504 errors being flagged in my MOZ reports. One week I had over 1300 errors show up. I checked Google Webmaster Tools and Bing Webmaster tools and noticed they were showing up in there too, although not near as many (50 or less per day). I contacted my hosting company about it and they said these were normal and that it was due to one nameserver reaching capacity, but that there was a backup nameserver that kicks in. I've seen one or two of these errors show up before, but never more than one or two a week. Is this something I should be concerned about?
Technical SEO | | Kyle Eaves0 -
Website Hierarchy Question / Discussion
Hey all, I am looking to get the opinions off the community to help settle a discussion / debate. We are looking at how a site is laid out and which is the preferred method. There are two options: www.site.com --> /category-page --> /product-page (With this option, you always have the domain name and then page, no matter where in the site you actually are, and how many clicks it took you to get there). Your URL to the end page here would be www.site.com/product-page www.site.com --> /category-page --> /category-page/product-page --> (With this option, you into a defined structure). Your URL to the end page here would be www.site.com/category-page/product-page If you have a moment, I would be interested to know your views on which you would consider to be your preferred method and why. Thanks, Andy
Technical SEO | | Andy.Drinkwater0 -
X-cart page crawling question.
I have an x-cart site and it is showing only 1 page being crawled. I'm a newbie, is this common? Can it be changed? If so, how? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | SteveLMCG0 -
Title Length Question?
So we have a lot of UGC on our site and so the title of pages is often created by the user and this has created about 400 pages with over 70 characters and I was just wondering what people think. I know typically keeping them short and sweet is the best thing, but what about when it's the user doing it? Should I go ahead and cut off the titles at 70 characters or keep them? I don't see it hurting traffic so I'm basically just looking for opinions right now.
Technical SEO | | KateGMaker0 -
Long Domain Name - Subpage URL Question
I have a long domain name, so domainname/services/page title can get pretty lengthy. I have a services page, as a summary page since there's a few of htem, with more detailed on the actual page. In this situation, would it be better to do domainname.com/services/service-name which can exceed the suggested 70 characters, or would it be a better idea to do domain.com/service-name and just have hte m under the services menu? Is there any advantage/disadvantage to going out 2-3 tiers? or having the sub pages of those services off the domain instead of a child of the root child page Please let me know if any clarification is needed. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | tgr0ss0 -
Robots.txt question
Hello, What does the following command mean - User-agent: * Allow: / Does it mean that we are blocking all spiders ? Is Allow supported in robots.txt ? Thanks
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
Very, very confusing behaviour with 301s. Help needed!
Hi SEOMoz gang! Been a long timer reader and hangerouter here but now i need to pick your brains. I've been working on two websites in the last few days which are showing very strange behaviour with 301 redirects. Site A This site is an ecommerce stie stocking over 900 products and 000's of motor parts. The old site was turned off in Feb 2011 when we built them a new one. The old site had terrible problems with canonical URLs where every search could/would generate a unique ID e.g. domain.com/results.aspx?product=1234. When you have 000's of products and Google can find them it is a big problem. Or was. We launche the new site and 301'd all of the old results pages over to the new product pages and deleted the old results.aspx. The results.aspx page didn't index or get shown for months. Then about two months again we found some certain conditions which would mean we wouldn't get the right 301 working so had to put the results.aspx page back in place. If it found the product, it 301'd, if it didn't it redirected to the sitemap.aspx page. We found recently that some bizarre scenerio actually caused the results.aspx page to 200 rather than 301 or 404. Problem. We found this last week after our 404 count in GWMT went up to nearly 90k. This was still odd as the results.aspx format was of the OLD site rather than the new. The old URLs should have been forgetten about after several months but started appearing again! When we saw the 404 count get so high last week, we decided to take severe action and 301 everything which hit the results.aspx page to the home page. No problem we thought. When we got into the office on Monday, most of our product pages had been dropped from the top 20 placing they had (there were nearly 400 rankings lost) and on some phrases the old results.aspx pages started to show up in there place!! Can anyone think why old pages, some of which have been 301'd over to new pages for nearly 6 months would start to rank? Even when the page didn't exist for several months? Surely if they are 301's then after a while they should start to get lost in the index? Site B This site moved domain a few weeks ago. Traffic has been lost on some phrases but this was mainly due to old blog articles not being carried forward (what i'll call noisy traffic which was picked up by accident and had bad on page stats). No major loss in traffic on this one but again bizarre errors in GWMT. This time pages which haven't been in existence for several YEARS are showing up as 404s in GWMT. The only place they are still noted anywhere is in the redirect table on our old site. The new site went live and all of the pages which were in Googles index and in OpenSiteExplorer were handled in a new 301 table. The old 301s we thought we didn't need to worry about as they had been going from old page to new page for several years and we assumed the old page had delisted. We couldn't see it anywhere in any index. So... my question here is why would some old pages which have been 301'ing for years now show up as 404s on my new domain? I've been doing SEO on and off for seven years so think i know most things about how google works but this is baffling. It seems that two different sites have failed to prevent old pages from cropping up which were 301d for either months or years. Does anyone has any thoughts as to why this might the case. Thanks in advance. Andy Adido
Technical SEO | | Adido-1053990 -
Are 301s advisable for low-traffic URL's?
We are using some branded terms in URLs that we have been recently told we need to stop using. If the pages in question get little traffic, so we're not concerned about losing traffic from broken URLs, should we still do 301 redirects for those pages after they are renamed? In other words, are there other serious considerations besides any loss in traffic from direct clicks on those broken URLs that need to be considered? This comes up because we don't have anyone in-house that can do the redirects, so we need to pay our outside web development company. Is it worth it?
Technical SEO | | PGRob0