301 Redirects
-
Moz pro have crawled my site a few times now and is reporting 105 cases of 301 redirect.
Looking at some examples IE
http://www.indigocarhire.co.uk/faq/young-driver-car-hire/bromley
redirected to
http://www.indigocarhire.co.uk/faq/young-driver-car-hire/bromley/
only difference i can see is the traling /.... there is nothing set up in webmaster or in the website itself, so how come this and another 104 are being flagged as 301
Appreciate any help or advice
Thanks
-
Hi Robert, any updates?
-
Great, thanks for checking in, and looking forward to your confirmation!
-
Hi Christy
yes i think this issue is now sorted. ill double check the next time the MOZ report is run
-
Hi Robert, were you able to sort this issue out? We would love an update!
-
Really appreciate your help Lynn
-
Hi Robert,
It must be in your htaccess file, 301 redirects don't happen by themselves (perhaps this is the default wordpress htaccess behavior now?, I cannot recall off hand).
If you want to get rid of the notices and reduce the 301 redirects on the site as much as possible (which is best practice) then yes export the list and see where the pages that 301 are referenced from. One example I see is here http://www.indigocarhire.co.uk/uk-car-hire/scotland/ where the last link to Dundee airport is without a slash. If you add the slash then you have gotten rid of one of those notices! I expect you will find that they all slipped in through a common process, but it shouldn't take long to sort them out.
-
HI Lynn, i see the option in Yoast but it is unchecked.
So you suggest that i export the list, visit each URL and add a trailing / to those missing them?
Really appreciate your help Lynn, Chris & Michael
-
Hi Robert,
I suspect you have checked the 'enforce a trailing slash' option in the Yoast SEO plugin (under the permalinks section) but are linking to the pages without the trailing slash somewhere on your site. If you download the moz report in csv you can filter the results for 301 redirects = true and then the far right hand column will tell you which page linked to it. They are notices by the way not errors.
-
Hey Robert, give these answers pertaining your question a read and see if they help:
-
That is definitely a 301 redirect to the trailing slash URL. Good tool to check with is Fiddler.
Unless you have amended the htaccess file directly then a plugin must be making this setting, possibly something like the Robots Meta plugin.
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
-
Website's server IP address is redirected to blog by mistake; does Google responds?
Hi all, Our website's server IP address is set to be redirected to our blog by mistake and it stayed same for months. Is there any way Google recognises it and how it responds if so? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz1 -
Link reclamation and many 301 redirect to one URL
We have many incoming links to a non existing pages of a sub-domain, which we are planning to take down or redirect to a sub-directory. But we are not ready to loose pagerank or link juice as many links of this sub-domain are referred from different external links. It's going to be double redirect obviously. What is the best thing we can go to reclaim these links without loss of link juice or PR? Can we redirect all these links to same sub-domain and redirect the same sub-domain to sub-directory? Will this double redirect works? Or Can we redirect all these links to same sub-domain and ask visitors to visit sub-directory, manual redirection? How fair to manually redirect visitors? Any other options? Thanks, Satish
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Case Sensitive URL Redirects for SEO
We want to use a 301 redirect rule to redirect all pages to a lower case url format. A 301 passes along most of the link juice... most. Will we even see a negative impact in PageRank/SERPS when we redirect every single page on our site?
Algorithm Updates | | tcanders0 -
Have name.org want to get name.com should .com redirect to .org or other way around?
Its a non profit organization. With name.org acquired in 2006. name.com will be acquired soon. In SEO terms it would make sense for me just to get .com and redirect to the original .org but from the standpoint of 7 year history of name.org is it worth keeping or its irrelevant or not that important or really important. I am in the process of rebuilding the site other than the initial domain home links to other pages do not matter at the moment. Thanks Mozzies
Algorithm Updates | | vmialik0 -
301 Redirects?
Hello fello Mozzers, I have just read a post about 301 redirects on the Blog. A great read and has provided me with a bit more insight and highlights what could be a potential issue for a managed site I look after. On this website I manage, I have inherited a .htaccess file with literally hundreds of non file based existant 301 links. e.g. redirect 301 /dealerbrandname http://www.domain.com/ So we have lots of dealers and they place a link on there site to http://www.domain.com/dealerbrandname We then redirect it to the homepage or a relevant topic page along with some tracking variables. Is this likely causing significant issues, based on the post I read I imagine it will be, but anymore thoughts on this would be hugely helpful. CheersTim
Algorithm Updates | | TimHolmes0 -
301-Redirects, PageRank, Matt Cutts, Eric Enge & Barry Schwartz - Fact or Myth?
I've been trying to wrap my head around this for the last hour or so and thought it might make a good discussion. There's been a ton about this in the Q & A here, Eric Enge's interview with Matt Cutts from 2010 (http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/interview-matt-cutts-012510.shtml) said one thing and Barry Schwartz seemed to say another: http://searchengineland.com/google-pagerank-dilution-through-a-301-redirect-is-a-myth-149656 Is this all just semantics? Are all of these people really saying the same thing and have they been saying the same thing ever since 2010? Cyrus Shepherd shed a little light on things in this post when he said that it seemed people were confusing links and 301-redirects and viewing them as being the same things, when they really aren't. He wrote "here's a huge difference between redirecting a page and linking to a page." I think he is the only writer who is getting down to the heart of the matter. But I'm still in a fog. In this video from April, 2011, Matt Cutts states very clearly that "There is a little bit of pagerank that doesn't pass through a 301-redirect." continuing on to say that if this wasn't the case, then there would be a temptation to 301-redirect from one page to another instead of just linking. VIDEO - http://youtu.be/zW5UL3lzBOA So it seems to me, it is not a myth that 301-redirects result in loss of pagerank. In this video from February 2013, Matt Cutts states that "The amount of pagerank that dissipates through a 301 is currently identical to the amount of pagerank that dissipates through a link." VIDEO - http://youtu.be/Filv4pP-1nw Again, Matt Cutts is clearly stating that yes, a 301-redirect dissipates pagerank. Now for the "myth" part. Apparently the "myth" was about how much pagerank dissipates via a 301-redirect versus a link. Here's where my head starts to hurt: Does this mean that when Page A links to Page B it looks like this: A -----> ( reduces pagerank by about 15%)-------> B (inherits about 85% of Page A's pagerank if no other links are on the page But say the "link" that exists on Page A is no longer good, but it's still the original URL, which, when clicked, now redirects to Page B via a URL rewrite (301 redirect)....based on what Matt Cutts said, does the pagerank scenario now look like this: A (with an old URL to Page B) ----- ( reduces pagerank by about 15%) -------> URL rewrite (301 redirect) - Reduces pagerank by another 15% --------> B (inherits about 72% of Page A's pagerank if no other links are on the page) Forgive me, I'm not a mathematician, so not sure if that 72% is right? It seems to me, from what Matt is saying, the only way to avoid this scenario would be to make sure that Page A was updated with the new URL, thereby avoiding the 301 rewrite? I recently had to re-write 18 product page URLs on a site and do 301 redirects. This was brought about by our hosting company initiating rules in the back end that broke all of our custom URLs. The redirects were to exactly the same product pages (so, highly relevant). PageRank tanked on all 18 of them, hard. Perhaps this is why I am diving into this question more deeply. I am really interested to hear your point of view
Algorithm Updates | | danatanseo0 -
Google is forcing a 301 by truncating our URLs
Just recently we noticed that google has indexed truncated urls for many of our pages that get 301'd to the correct page. For example, we have:
Algorithm Updates | | mmac
http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html as the url linked everywhere and that's the only version of that page that we use. Google somehow figured out that it would still go to the right place via 301 if they removed the html filename from the end, so they indexed just: http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/ The 301 is not new. It used to 404, but (probably 5 years ago) we saw a few links come in with the html file missing on similar urls so we decided to 301 them instead thinking it would be helpful. We've preferred the longer version because it has the name in it and users that pay attention to the url can feel more confident they are going to the right place. We've always used the full (longer) url and google used to index them all that way, but just recently we noticed about 1/2 of our urls have been converted to the shorter version in the SERPs. These shortened urls take the user to the right page via 301, so it isn't a case of the user landing in the wrong place, but over 100,000 301s may not be so good. You can look at: site:www.eventective.com/usa/massachusetts/bedford/ and you'll noticed all of the urls to businesses at the top of the listings go to the truncated version, but toward the bottom they have the full url. Can you explain to me why google would index a page that is 301'd to the right page and has been for years? I have a lot of thoughts on why they would do this and even more ideas on how we could build our urls better, but I'd really like to hear from some people that aren't quite as close to it as I am. One small detail that shouldn't affect this, but I'll mention it anyway, is that we have a mobile site with the same url pattern. http://m.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html We did not have the proper 301 in place on the m. site until the end of last week. I'm pretty sure it will be asked, so I'll also mention we have the rel=alternate/canonical set up between the www and m sites. I'm also interested in any thoughts on how this may affect rankings since we seem to have been hit by something toward the end of last week. Don't hesitate to mention anything else you see that may have triggered whatever may have hit us. Thank you,
Michael0 -
Domain Deindexed because of Redirect
I think this is an interesting topic to discuss though I'm looking for answers too. One of my well performing domain deindexed by Google today. Reason: Redirect from a 9 year old Deindexed domain (Must be penalysed) I believe this is done by one of my competitor. What you people suggest me to do now? Don't you think if this is the way Google treat the redirects after Penguin anybody can use this technique to harm their competitors?
Algorithm Updates | | HeIsHere0