301 issue in IE9
-
My development team recently discovered an issue with 301 redirects caching in IE9. They did some research and found the situation was very complicated so their solution was to use 302s and no longer use 301s. As a temporary solution to a few URLs I was okay with this, but we have a site redesign launching in a few months and I am quite worried if we have to do all of our redirects as 302s. Has anyone else had this issue with IE9 and 301s. I could use any advice on how to overcome this issue.
Thanks!
-
Haven't heard of that with IE9, but from an SEO standpoint, 302s everywhere is much more risky than a few 301s mis-firing as 404s. I get why they're concerned, but this is the wrong solution. Is there a way to set up the redirects within the page headers and only returns 302s for IE9, for the short-term. That's not ideal, but it's at least a stop-gap solution. I'm sincerely afraid their short-term "fix" could cause you long-term problems.
-
If they're permanent redirects, they should be done on your server so it shouldn't matter what browser the user is using. You're not doing the redirects with JavaScript, are you?
-
They told me the issue is causing the redirect script to break so redirects don't fire and we just get a 404. I will say I don't fully understand what is going on from a technical perspective. But, I understand that they want to stop using 301s and obviously that is scary to me as an SEO. I want to provide them with some more information or a solution so that they feel comfortable using 301s.
-
I'm not exactly sure what the problem you're having with IE9 is from the description, but all modern browsers are allowed to cache 301 redirects, not just IE9. 301 redirects are permanent redirects. If you set up a URL to 301 redirect to another URL, you should never change that redirect to point to another page. People who have been through the redirect before may cache it and the browser will put them through the redirect next time without hitting your server for the new page (after all, you told the browser it was a permanent redirect).
It looks like in IE9 it may be complicated to clear the 301 from the browser's memory (beyond just clearing the browser cache), so beware! Here's an article I found about that. And here's an article about undoing 301 redirect mistakes.
-
Hmm, this is the first I've heard of this issue since I rarely use IE9. But I found this which may help - http://agsci.psu.edu/it/how-to/topics/web/web-development/plone/internet-explorer-9-permanently-caches-redirects
It is very important that you use 301 redirects instead of 302 redirects if the pages are going to be permanently moved.
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
-
URL ASCII Characters Issue
Hi guys; Is there any different between URL whit capital ASCII code and URL with small ASCII Code? For example I have 2 URLS for one page like this: 1- 332-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B5%DB%8C%D9%84-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7.html 2- 332-%d8%aa%d8%ad%d8%b5%db%8c%d9%84-%d8%af%d8%b1-%da%a9%d8%a7%d9%86%d8%a7%d8%af%d8%a7.html both of them point to same page but no 1 is non SSL and no 2 is ssl version! and whole pges of site forces to https
Technical SEO | | seoiransite0 -
301 redirecting a previously abused URL
A client previously had their most important landing page at domain.com/example.htm They carried out the sort of link building that was commonplace a few years back (exact match anchors, paid blog links etc) targeting this URL, but they also got a bunch of legitimate decent quality links here. I believe they may have had a number of issues when link quality algo updates were rolled out, so rather than try and get links removed and go through the disavow process they instead decided to abandon this URL, let it 404 and start afresh at domain.com/example.html - updating all internal navigation, XML sitemaps etc. So fast forward to today. What is the best practice for this URL these days do we think? Is it now possible to 301 domain.com/example.htm > domain.com/example.html and recover whatever value may be left here? The argument for not doing so may be that you could pass over the negative metrics associated with the old URL, but would this not be handled by the real-time penguin update and the poor links just devalued rather than actually harming? And could this just be tested - i.e. add in the 301, monitor the impact and if things don't go the way we'd want then just remove the 301 again? Would be keen to get a few opinions on this. TIA
Technical SEO | | Salience_Search_Marketing0 -
I've had a sudden a increase in crawl issues as of yesterday (like 300 from a steady 10, does anyone else have this issue?
the main issue is that it's now indexing both www and http:// - anyone else got this issue or had any changes suddenly on their crawl results?
Technical SEO | | beckyhy0 -
How to correct a google canonical issue?
So when I initially launched my website I had an issue where I didn't properly set my canonical tags and all my pages got crawled. Now in looking at the search engine results I see a number of the pages that were meant to be canonical tagged to the correct page showing up in the results. What is the best way to correct this issue with google? Also I noticed that while initially I was ranking well for the main pages, now those results have disappeared entirely and deeper in the rankings I am finding the pages that were meant to be canonical tagged. Please Help.
Technical SEO | | jackaveli0 -
An odd duplicate content issue...
Hi all, my developers have just assured me that nothing has changed form last week but in the today's crawl I see all the website duplicated: and the difference on the url is the '/' so basically the duplicated urls are: htts://blabla.bla/crop htts://blabla.bla/crop/ Any help in understanding why is much appreciated. thanks
Technical SEO | | LeadGenerator0 -
301 Redirect Properly To Keep the Juice
I have a bunch of WP Blogs and was thinking of taking all linkjuice from these to my main money site. The most of the other WP Blogs is hosted at godaddy.com (domain and site) and I know they have a URL Redirects page in site manager but I`m not sure this is the right way to go. Also I wonder some of these sites have hundreds of blogposts there is no way I can "re-create" those on the money site but I am sure that is not a must-thing to do in order to keep the "juice" right or wrong? Last but not least, I was wondering if you think it would be best to redirect the sites to relevant pages on money sites. For instance if i had a domain called cheap-ties.com with 100 blogposts about this and on money site a webshop with a category called ties, should redirect to this or to main domain or doesnt it matter?
Technical SEO | | fAgBxa8b0 -
RSS Hacking Issue
Hi Checked our original rss feed - added it to Google reader and all the links go to the correct pages, but I have also set up the RSS feed in Feedburner. However, when I click on the links in Feedburner (which should go to my own website's pages) , they are all going to spam sites, even though the title of the link and excerpt are correct. This isn't a Wordpress blog rss feed either, and we are on a very secure server. Any ideas whatsoever? There is no info online anywhere and our developers haven't seen this before. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Kerry220 -
301 redirects inside sitemaps
I am in the process of trying to get google to follow a large number of old links on site A to site B. Currently I have 301 redirects as well a cross domain canonical tags in place. My issue is that Google is not following the links from site A to site B since the links no longer exist in site A. I went ahead and added the old links from site A into site A's sitemap. Unfortunately Google is returning this message inside webmaster tools: When we tested a sample of URLs from your Sitemap, we found that some URLs redirect to other locations. We recommend that your Sitemap contain URLs that point to the final destination (the redirect target) instead of redirecting to another URL. However I do not understand how adding the redirected links from site B to the sitemap in site A will remove the old links. Obviously Google can see the 301 redirect and the canonical tag but this isn't defined in the sitemap as a direct correlation between site A and B. Am I missing something here?
Technical SEO | | jmsobe0