Redirect Chains - Accept the 301 chain or link from the original page??
-
Hi everyone,
I have a client that re-launched his site and it's gone from 100 pages to 1000 (new languages/increased product pages etc)
We've used 301's to map the old site to the new database driven site. BUT the new site is creating extremely long URL's:
e.g. www.example.com/example_example_example/example_example_example_example
Obviously I want to change these URL's:
THE PROBLEM.....
I am worried about the Chain Redirects. I know two 301 redirects is okay (although it's not great), but I wonder if there is an alternative:
When I've implemented the new URL structure the chain will look like this:
www.oldsite.com 301 redirects to www.newsitewithdodgyurls.com which then 301 redirects to www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com
Seeing as the new site has only been live for a month, and hasn't really gained many external links, should I:
301 from the original site (www.oldsite.com) straight to the new site (www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com)? If so, what would I do with the pages that I have not redirected? Let them 404?
OR
Leave the 301 chain in place?
Your advice, and any other suggestions would be much appreciated
Thanks
-
Thought in general you could use canonical tag cross domain too http://moz.com/blog/cross-domain-canonical-the-new-301-whiteboard-friday
-
Hi Ryan,
Thanks. I've confused the issue slightly. All these changes have been made on the same domain. It's only the URL structure that is changing. (sorry the examples I've used say something very different to that).
Your logic of finding mapping methods of redirecting is a solid plan though. I will work with the developer to implement it. And for anything I cant find logic for I will either 301 redirect or rel=canonical it.
Thanks again. That's hugely helpful.
-
Solution could therefore be to implement the rel=canonical tag on the intermediary site URL's pointing to the new site URL's
No.
The canonical tag can only be used within a domain.
Since you have determined the URL structure will change, I would recommend finding a logic that would apply to all URLs so you can map from the old site to the new one. Even if each logic piece only applied to 10% of the site, then you can map everything over in a total of 10 redirects.
If your current sites URL is www.oldsite.com/product1 and the new site URL is www.newsite.com/retail/us/stores/items/products/1 you can still use logic to make the conversion IF this same logic can be applied to all, or a worthwhile percentage, of the site.
-
Hi Ryan,
Thanks very much for responding in such detail, that's awesome.
Yeah, I think I'm abusing the 404 page a little. The vast majority of the thousand pages on the site will still exist but will be on different URL's (duplicate content ALERT!)
That as you rightly say could cause a problem for people landing on the site, and for duplicate content.
SO...
I don't want to do the thousands of individual redirects due to server load and potential penalties
Solution could therefore be to implement the rel=canonical tag on the intermediary site URL's pointing to the new site URL's, so although the pages aren't de-indexed, the new site URL's will soon be in a dominant position over the intermediary URL's in the serp's.
What do you reckon?
-
Hi James. Please allow me to offer some clarifications:
A. server speed- too many 301 redirects is going to put an unnecessary load on the server and reduce speed =BAD
The concern is HOW the redirects are made. If your client has a URL www.oldsite.com, and he moves his entire 10k page site to a new URL, www.newsite.com, and he keeps his URL structure the same at the new site, then the entire re-direct can be done in a single line. In this case there is absolutely no additional load on the server.
Alternatively, if the new site structure is such that hundreds of rules need to be written to properly complete the re-directs, then yes, your speed can be impacted as each request requires the server to iterate through hundreds of lines of code to seek a match.
You shared there would be a change to the URL structure. Your 301 logic would depend on if the change follows a logical pattern to where a regex mapping can be created in a few rules.
B. being penalised- too many 301 redirects can be viewed as aggressive PR sculpting and your 301's can be devalued
C. Avoiding 301 redirect chains- Matt Cutt's interview with Rand in 2010 said 301 chains are not a good thing as a general rule
This refers to chain 301s, a practice that I do not use and would never advise. Go to the original site and ensure each page is properly directed to it's final location.
You can redirect all 100k pages of site A to site B and that would not be considered "too many redirects" nor page sculpting. When you re-direct from site A to site X to site Y to site Z then to site B (the final destination), that would be considered too many re-directs. This could happen even if the re-directs were within the same couple of sites. Even if the re-directs all worked, each hop is a leak in the link juice pipeline.
404's are not necessarily a bad thing
I agree, but a 301 is far superior IF you are keeping the content.
Let's say someone is looking for an article on the 1982 Corvette Stingray. He locates a search result, clicks on it and is taken to the article on your site. He is a happy search engine user, and now a happy visitor on your site. Everyone wins.
Using the same example, the person gets a 404 page on your site. There is an extremely high chance the user will simply return to Google and move on to the next result. Everyone looses.
404s should be used for content when it is highly unlikely a user will ever look for it in a search result OR if you no longer have the content. You would never want to 404 a link when you still have the content and know where it is located.
With all of the above noted, I agree with your plan. The pages with no value, meaning the pages are not searched for or you no longer have the content, can 404.
-
Hi guys, thank you both for your responses.
I don't think I framed my question correctly though. The 301 redirect issues I am worried about are:
A. server speed- too many 301 redirects is going to put an unnecessary load on the server and reduce speed =BAD
B. being penalised- too many 301 redirects can be viewed as aggressive PR sculpting and your 301's can be devalued )(see here) =BAD
C. Avoiding 301 redirect chains- Matt Cutt's interview with Rand in 2010 said 301 chains are not a good thing as a general rule (no need to watch video, it's in the text below) = BAD
SO....
Ryan K, I agree with you in your decision to direct from old site direct to new site. However, 404's are not necessarily a bad thing (see google's stance)
Ryan P, I agree with your suggestion of a sitemap
** So my plan as far as I see it is this:**
1. 301 redirect all the original site (www.oldsite.com) pages to the new URL's at (www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com)
2. Any pages on the intermediary site (www.newsitewithdodgyurls.com) that have gained backlinks 301 them to the new site aswell
3. Let pages on the intermediary site with no SEO value 404
4. Create a prioritised sitemap (as per Ryan P's suggestion)
This solves the problem on chaining 301 redirects, it reduces the load on the server, and it avoids penalisation due to too many 301's
That's how I see it going down anyway. Would love to hear if you think that's the right plan of action.
Anyone else feel free to chip in aswell!!
-
With the addition of a sitemap specifying only the great URLs and rel=canonical on those pages you should have the situation cleaned up in a tidy way. It's not uncommon to have to redirect from a few older sources as a website ages.
-
I think the correct thing to do is pretty clear.
301 the pages from the original site to their new URLs directly just as you suggested.
what would I do with the pages that I have not redirected? Let them 404?
The right thing to do is redirect them properly. Why would you leave any pages as a dead end 404?
How much time and resources do you have available for this project. That answer should be balanced with other factors:
Are the existing links worth the effort? Is this an older site with high quality links?
What is your SEO rank worth? Is the site's sales dependent on SERP? Since you are posting here, I would assume the answer is yes.
With only 100 pages involved, I would do whatever it takes to ensure each page is properly redirected to the appropriate page on the new site.
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
-
301 Redirects - 4 sites into 1
Hey all, I have an SEO conundrum that seems to have no right or wrong answer. If you have 2 minutes I’d love to hear your opinion. The Situation
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PamelaH88
Our client has 4 ecommerce sites (Sites A, B, C & D) all selling the same products.
He wishes to to merge all 4 sites into a single site (Site A) Options
In order to maintain maximum SEO authority do we: A - Choose a single site (B, C, or D) with the most SEO authority/juice/power and 301 re-direct it into Site A
Or
B – 301 re-direct all 3 sites (B, C & D) into Site A Our experience says that 301’ing from a single site works well, but from multiple sites feels spammy and risky. Really keen too hear your thoughts.1 -
Site Merge Strategy: Choosing Target Pages for 301 Redirects
I am going to be merging two sites. One is a niche site, and it is being merged with the main site. I am going to be doing 301 redirects to the main site. My question is, what is the best way of redirecting section/category pages in order to maximize SEO benefits. I will be redirecting product to product pages. The questions only concerns sections/categories. Option 1: Direct each section/category to the most closely matched category on the main site. For example, vintage-t-shirts would go to vintage-t-shirt on main site. Option 2: Point as many section/category pages to larger category on main site with selected filters. We have filtered navigation on our site. So if you wanted to see vintage t-shirts, you could go to the vintage t-shirt category, OR you could go to t-shirts and select "vintage" under style filter. In the example above, the vintage-t-shirt section from the niche site would point to t-shirts page with vintage filter selected (something like t-shirts/#/?_=1&filter.style=vintage). With option 2, I would be pointing more links to a main category page on the main site. I would likely have that page rank higher, because more links are pointing to it. I may have a better overall user experience, because if the customer decides to browse another style of t-shirt, they can simply unselect the filter and make other selections. Questions: Which of these options is better as far as: (1) SEO, (2) User experience If I go with option 2, the drawback is that the page titles will all be the same (i.e vintage-t-shirts pointing to the page with filter selected would have "t-shirts" as page title instead of a more targeted page with page title "vintage t-shirts." I believe a workaround would be to pull filter values from the URL and append them to the page title. That way page title for URL t-shirts/#/?=1&filter.style=vintage_ would be something like "vintage, t-shirts." Is this the appropriate way to deal with it? Any thoughts, suggestions, shared experiences would be appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | inhouseseo0 -
Geoip redirection, 301 or 302?
Hello all Let me first try to explain what our company does and what it is trying to achieve. Our company has an online store, sells products for 3 different countries, and two languages for each country. Currently we have one site, which is open to all countries, what we are trying to achieve is make 3 different stores for these 3 different countries, so we can have a better control over the prices in each country. We are going to use Geoip to redirect the user to the local store in his country. The suggested new structure is to add sub-folders as following: www.example.com/ca-en
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ajarad
www.example.com/ca-fr
www.example.com/us-en
... If a visitor is located outside these 3 countries, then she'll be redirected to the root directory www.example.com/en We can't offer to expand our SEO team to optimize new pages for the local market, it's not the priority for now, the main objective now is to be able to control the prices for different market. so to eliminate the duplicate issue, we'll use canonical tags. Now knowing our objective from the new URL structure, I have two questions: 1- which redirect should we use? 301, 302?
If we choose 301, then which version of the site will get the link juice? (i.e, /ca-en or /us-en?)
if we choose 302, then will the link juice remain in the original links? is it healthy to use 302 for long term redirections? 2- Knowing that Google bots comes from US-IP, does that mean that the other versions of the site won't be crawled (i.e, www.example.com/ca-fr), this is especially important for us as we are using AdWords, and unindexed pages will effect our quality score badly. I'd like to know if you have other account structure in your mind that would be better than this proposed structure. Your help is highly highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.0 -
301 redirects and Blogger - moving blog
Is there any way to add 301 redirects to individual posts on a blogger-hosted blog? We're getting ready to finally move our blog off of Blogger and onto our own webserver. We're probably going to use BlogEngine.net to run it. right now the blog is located at blog.MySite.com. We're probably going to move it to MySite.com/Blog. We don't have any really popular posts and we only really get ~10 visits a day on about 70 posts. Just trying to figure out the best way to handle this without inadvertently shooting myself in the foot.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | _JP_0 -
Rel=canonical tag on original page?
Afternoon All,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jellyfish-Agency
We are using Concrete5 as our CMS system, we are due to change but for the moment we have to play with what we have got. Part of the C5 system allows us to attribute our main page into other categories, via a page alaiser add-on. But what it also does is create several url paths and duplicate pages depending on how many times we take the original page and reference it in other categories. We have tried C5 canonical/SEO add-on's but they all seem to fall short. We have tried to address this issue in the most efficient way possible by using the rel=canonical tag. The only issue is the limitations of our cms system. We add the canonical tag to the original page header and this will automatically place this tag on all the duplicate pages and in turn fix the problem of duplicate content. The only problem is the canonical tag is on the original page as well, but it is referencing itself, effectively creating a tagging circle. Does anyone foresee a problem with the canonical tag being on the original page but in turn referencing itself? What we have done is try to simplify our duplicate content issues. We have over 2500 duplicate page issues because of this aliasing add-on and want to automate the canonical tag addition, rather than go to each individual page and manually add this tag, so the original reference page can remain the original. We have implemented this tag on one page at the moment with 9 duplicate pages/url's and are monitoring, but was curious if people had experienced this before or had any thoughts?0 -
Is there an optimal ratio of external links to a page vs internal links originating at that page ?
I understand that multiple links fro a site dilute link juice. I also understand that external links to a specific page with relevant anchortext helps ranking. I wonder if there is an ideal ratioof tgese two items
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Apluswhs0 -
Will Google Visit Non-Canonicalized Page Again and Return Its Page's Original Ranking?
I have 2 questions about canonicalization. 1. Will Google ever visit Page A again if after it has been canonicalized to Page B? 2. If Google will still visit Page A and found that it is not canonicalizing to Page B already, will the original rankings and traffic of Page A returned to the way before it's canonicalized? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | globalsources.com0 -
Don't want to lose page rank, what's the best way to restructure a url other than a 301 redirect?
Currently in the process of redesigning a site. What i want to know, is what is the best way for me to restructure the url w/out it losing its value (page rank) other than a 301 redirect?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | marig0