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
-
Redirect wordpress.com and internal link ?
Hi Moz Fans, First of all, I need to say thanks to all of answer to previous post. And today i also have the another question that similar to that post. Because our website using Wordpress.org as our CMS for blog post then easier to redirect by point to new site, According to setting site URL ? However in our each blog articles also have anchor text as internal link that link to another blog post, Which mean those link will be automatic redirect to new URL. So once Google bot re-crawl our website when we tell the Google by webmaster tools and the redirection we using 301. What will be happen when Google Bot crawl those link again We need to changes those link as well Keep same with redirection. Nothing happen
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ASKHANUMANTHAILAND0 -
Internal links to preferential pages
Hi all, I have question about internal linking and canonical tags. I'm working on an ecommerce website which has migrated platform (shopify to magento) and the website design has been updated to a whole new look. Due to the switch to magento, the developers have managed to change the internal linking structure to product pages. The old set up was that category pages (on urls domain.com/collections/brand-name) for each brand would link to products via the following url format: domain.com/products/product-name . This product url was the preferential version that duplicate product pages generated by shopify would have their canonical tags pointing to. This set up was working fine. Now what's happened is that the category pages have been changed to link to products via dynamically generated urls based on the user journey. So products are now linked to via the following urls: domain.com/collection/brand-name/product-name . These new product pages have canonical tags pointing back to the original preferential urls (domain.com/products/product-name). But this means that the preferential URLs for products are now NOT linked to anywhere on the website apart from within canonical tags and within the website's sitemap. I'm correct in thinking that this definitely isn't a good thing, right? I've actually noticed Google starting to index the non-preferential versions of the product pages in addition to the preferential versions, so it looks like Google perhaps is ignoring the canonical tags as there are so many internal links pointing to non-preferential pages, and no on-site links to the actual preferential pages? I've recommended to the developers that they change this back to how it was, where the preferential product pages (domain.com/products/product-name) were linked to from collection pages. I just would like clarification from the Moz community that this is the right call to make? Since the migration to the new website & platform we've seen a decrease in search traffic, despite all redirects being set up. So I feel that technical issues like this can't be doing the website any favours at all. If anyone could help out and let me know if what I suggested is correct then that would be excellent. Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Guy_OTS0 -
Is 301 redirecting your index page to the root '/' safe to do or do you end up in an endless loop?
Hi I need to tidy up my home page a little, I have some links to our index.html page but I just want them to go to the root '/' so I thought I could 301 redirect it. However is this safe to do? I'm getting duplicate page notifications in my analytic reportings tools about the home page and need a quick way to fix this issue. Many thanks in advance David
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | David-E-Carey0 -
Rel Canonical Link on the Canonical Page
Is there a problem with placing a rel=canonical link on the canonical page - in addition to the duplicate pages? For example, would that create create an endless loop where the canonical page keeps referring to itself? Two examples that are troubling me are: My home site is www.1099pro.com which is exactly the same as www.1099pro.com/index.asp (all updates to the home page are made by updating the index.asp page). I want www.1099pro.com/index.asp to have the rel=canonical link to point to my standard homepage www.1099pro.com but any update that I make on the index page is automatically incorporated into www.1099pro.com as well. I don't have access to my hosting web server and any updates I make have to be done to the specific landing pages/templates. I am also creating a new website that could possible have pages with duplicate content in the future. I would like to already include the rel=canonical link on the standard canonical page even though there is not duplicate content yet. Any help really would be appreciated. I've read a ton of articles on the subject but none really define whether or not it is ok to have the rel=canonical link on both the canonical page and the duplicate pages. The closest explanation was in a MOZ article that it was ok but the answer was fuzzy. -Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stew2220 -
2 links from the same external page question
Hi, I have always thought if 2 links on a single page, both going to the same url wouldnt pass PR from both. I watched a Matt Cutts vid and he was saying in the original algo it was built in that both links would pass PR. So for example if I guest posted say 1000 words and this article had 2 links pointing to the same url would they both work? Cheers
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bondara0 -
Redirecting a redirect - thoughts?
Hi! A client has just had 14k 404s pop up in his WMT. I think this is because a page that they redirected to had moved. My question is, can I clean these up by redirecting the page the original redirect was one? If so, will it have any negative impact?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | neooptic0 -
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 -
Choose of destination for a 301 redirection
Hi, I had a website paris-football.com which ranked quite well on specific request as 'paris football" and "paris foot". I decided 2 months ago to stop this website as I had no time to update it and it was quite rubish in terms of content and make a redirection to a better quality website. I decided to redirect to the deep url http://www.sportytrader.com/paris-foot.php . The destination Url has not beneft from the redirection and has even seen its rankings drop since the redirection. do you think that it would have been better to redirect to the Home Page http://www.sportytrader.com ? Do you think that I can still change the destination url ? Thanks a lot for your help,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jarnac0