URL change extension to .php from .htm
-
I am looking at changing the platform of an established (7 years) site to PHP based.
Currently most of the URLs have the file extension .htm (“x.com/filename.htm” ) with some URLs being indexed as directory URLs (“x.com/directory/” feeding from “x.com/directory/index.htm”)
So I am considering two options
-
A. Changing just file extensions & create 301 redirects, (x.com/samefilename.htm” -> “x.com/samefilename.php”) and for directory URLs (“x.com/samedirectory/index.htm” -> “x.com/samedirectory/index.php”)
-
B. At the same time taking the opportunity to change the file hierarchy to be more user / seo friendly by changing all URLs to directory URLs – this would be a more extensive redirect than just changing the file extension.
I am interested in what risks / impact would there be of this and the questions I would like some help with are:
- Are there any short term risks to rankings with a filename extension change like this?
- Should an exercise like this be staggered or is it ok to carry out the site-wide change in one go?
- Does a more extensive filename and structure redirect like in option B above introduce more risk than just changing to the .php extension or would the search engines consider this the same?
- For the directory URLs do I even need a 301 redirect after changing index.htm to index.php or will the Search engines not even recognise a change (indexed URL will remain the same)?
Your opinions on the above questions and any other advice / experience you can share would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Adrian.
-
-
Istvan makes a number of good points and Matt Cutts has certainly alluded to a loss of some link juice when using 301's, although Google's official line is that there is no loss. I'd not seen the 15% number before, which is certainly high enough to be discernible above the 'noise'.
I support his contention that, in terms of getting existing inbound links repointed, it's best to focus on the few high value links and then look for new links driven by quality content. This has the double benefit of cleansing some of the now-devalued link types, whilst appealing to Google's measurable preference for 'fresh' links.
-
Hi Adrian,
with a 301 you lose aprox 15% of link juice (don't remember who gave that exact number, but i still have that in my mind )
So basically if you can change the links that you have control of, it will help. with other links... try to focus more on gaining new link partnerships. the 301 will lose some of the link juice, but new partners will push the link diversity and will help you more.
I hope it helped and good luck ;-),
Istvan
-
Thanks Istvan and Alan for the responses.
On the subject of incoming links - I can change internal links and inbound links from other sites I control however the vast majority of links will still point to the old page location so my follow up question is just how serious is this link juice loss due to the 301 and is this a serious enough reason to not do the change and keep the locations as they are now?
-
Thank you Alan
-
Istvan is give a good answer, i would add one thing, make sure all your internal links point to the new urls, dont rely on the 301, as as Istvan stated, they will leak a little link juice.
-
Hi Adrian,
We had a similar problem not as long ago (changing the website extension from .html to .aspx). What we have experienced is, that the website traffic and rankings went down for aprox. 1-2 week, then it came back up without any problem.
I would suggest to go for all change at one time instead of going with partial rewrite, then again some partial rewrite. (Before you put it alive, test all your links! check for broken links and make sure the redirects are right)
After the website deploy you should resubmit a new sitemap in GWT.
The 301 should be done, so after resubmitting your sitemap in GWT you will not face any duplicate content issue.
The negative part: you will lose some of the link juice thanks to the 301. If you have the possibility contact the webmasters who are already linking to your website and ask them kindly to resolve the URL issue (at least for the highest authority links you have gained in time).
I hope that helped,
Istvan
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
-
Is it Detrimental to Repeat a Word in Our URL?
Hey guys! We run a tour company in Barcelona. Our company name is Barcelona Experience. We're customizing our URL's to include keywords which can be found in all the important areas on the page (title tage, meta descp., etc).
Technical SEO | | BarcelonaExperience
We want to change "www.barcelonaexperience.com/bike-tours" to "www.barcelonaexperience.com/barcelona-bike-tours"
We're worried the repetition of "barcelona" could be a bad thing. True, or not true? Thanks!0 -
Should I change or redirect this URL?
Happy Friday everyone! I just noticed that one of our Attorney Profile's url's is wrong. We used to have someone named "Dana Fortugno" as our Family Law attorney, but when he left, (over two years ago) we hired "Scott Finelli." The person who setup the site, just changed the information on the page not url. So instead of it saying "http://www.kempruge.com/scott-finelli-jd-llm/;" it says "http://www.kempruge.com/dana-fortugno-jd-llm/." I'm considering taking all the content on the page with the wrong url, copying it to a new page with the correct URL and 301 redirecting (what would now be a blank page) to the new page with the correct URL. Is this the best way to handle this? Also, I don't believe there are many SEO concerns regarding the pages specifically. The profile pages aren't what we rank for in any of our Family Law related keywords. I am worried about having a completely blank page that just 301 redirects as looking bad to google, but not sure if it would? As always, thank you for your time and any assistance you can provide. Ruben
Technical SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Special characters in URL
Will registered trademark symbol within a URL be bad? I know some special characters are unsafe (#, >, etc.) but can not find anything that mentions registered trademark. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | bonnierSEO0 -
Second URL
Hi We have a .com and a .co.uk Main website is .co.uk, we also have a landing page for the .com If we redirect the .com to the .co.uk, will it create duplicate content ... May seem like a silly question, but want to be sure that that the visitors cant access our website at both urls, as that would be duplicate content Thanks in advance John
Technical SEO | | Johnny4B0 -
SEO URLs?
What are the best practices for generating SEO-friendly headlines? dashes between words? underscores between words? etc. Looking for a programatically generated solution that's using editor-written headlines to produce an SEO-friendly URL Thanks.
Technical SEO | | ShaneHolladay0 -
Lost FaceBook Shares with URL change
I recently changed the URL of a page and used a 301 redirect from old to new. I just realized I lost all my Facebook shares. Now it shows 0 on that page. What can I do to get back my count of shares? I cannot find any information.
Technical SEO | | MiamiWebCompany0 -
Duplicate canonical URLs in WordPress
Hi everyone, I'm driving myself insane trying to figure this one out and am hoping someone has more technical chops than I do. Here's the situation... I'm getting duplicate canonical tags on my pages and posts, one is inside of the WordPress SEO (plugin) commented section, and the other is elsewhere in the header. I am running the latest version of WordPress 3.1.3 and the Genesis framework. After doing some testing and adding the following filters to my functions.php: <code>remove_action('wp_head', 'genesis_canonical'); remove_action('wp_head', 'rel_canonical');</code> ... what I get is this: With the plugin active + NO "remove action" - duplicate canonical tags
Technical SEO | | robertdempsey
With the plugin disabled + NO "remove action" - a single canonical tag
With the plugin disabled + A "remove action" - no canonical tag I have tried using only one of these remove_actions at a time, and then combining them both. Regardless, as long as I have the plugin active I get duplicate canonical tags. Is this a bug in the plugin, perhaps somehow enabling the canonical functionality of WordPress? Thanks for your help everyone. Robert Dempsey0 -
Directory URL structure last / in the url
Ok, So my site's urls works like this www.site.com/widgets/ If you go to www.site.com/widgets (without the last / ) you get a 404. My site did no used to require the last / to load the page but it has over the last year and my rankings have dropped on those pages... But Yahoo and BING still indexes all my pages without the last / and it some how still loads the page if you go to it from yahoo or bing, but it looks like this in the address bar once you arrive from bing or yahoo. http://www.site.com/404.asp?404;http://site.com:80/widgets/ How do I fix this? Should'nt all the engines see those pages the same way with the last / included? What is the best structure for SEO?
Technical SEO | | DavidS-2820610