Redirects
-
Hello,
My question is: how important is it to wait for the a redirect to get seen and cached before you take down the old page?
More in depth: my old platform has seriously limited my ability to add sitemaps and make edits to htacces. I just want to change nameservers (which will delete everything on there) and upload the htaccess is that alright?
Another way of saying it: when redirecting a page, is it necessary for google to see the old page before it is deleted?
Thanks
Tyler
-
Hi Tyler.
Both the links you offer are to Dr Pete's profile page. I am presuming this response was shared with you for your private Q&A?
As a follow up to you or Dr Pete I would ask the following questions:
Would you agree the best method of redirect would be at the server level?
If so, would you agree that once a redirect is implemented at the server level there is no reason to keep the old page on the server, and that even if the old page was kept it would never be seen or crawled as long as the server redirect was in place?
If the answer to both of the above questions is yes, then it is in perfect alignment with the information I shared. If the answer is "no", then I would have further questions based on the response.
What method are you using for the redirection?
The first response I shared specifically clarified it was for a server (htaccess) redirect. I use that example since it is the most common form in my experience, but there are other ways to do it.
Thank you for sharing the reply. So far it sounds like it affirms the response I offered.
-
by http://www.seomoz.org/users/profile/22897
It depends a bit on how the redirect is implemented. People sometimes rush to remove an old page from links, XML sitemaps, etc. and then run into a bit of irony - if Google doesn't recrawl the old page, they don't see the redirect and may not process it (or they'll have to find the new page by themselves and kill the old page, which can take a lot longer).
If your redirect is at the server level, like an Apache htaccess directive, you may not need the old page to actually exist. The redirect will happen without it. Typically, though, I'd leave a reference to the old page, like a line in the XML sitemap, at least for a few weeks.
Of course, if the old page is frequently crawled (it has a lot of outside links, etc.), you may be just fine. It's typically deeper pages that dont' get crawled often that run into trouble.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying about changing nameservers (or how that ties to htaccess) though. What method are you using for the redirection?
-
I'm thinking that google may go back to the actual old page in some way.
To the best of my knowledge, that is simply not possible.
Google can choose to ignore the robots.txt. Google can choose to ignore a meta tag. Google can choose to do just about anything it wants with respect to page rankings and SERPs. What Google cannot do is access a page on a web server to which it does not have access.
Google cannot tell the web server "hey, I know you are showing a 301 here but I don't want to be redirected. Show me the original page instead". At least, they can't based on my understanding of how the web works. If I am mistaken, I would love to learn about it so I can improve.
-
interesting. the source was very reliable and actually I am agreeing with what you are saying. I'm thinking that google may (during this discussion in early 2010) go back to the actual old page in some way. Otherwise what would be the point of leaving it up? There may be a caviat in the googel algo that likes it when you seem transparent. This is the old page and this is the new page. Showing that you still have control over the old page. I understand that the googlebot wont even get to the page if it sees a redirect in the htaccess. So this is the reason for the question. I asked a private and question and we'll see what comes back.
-
In a normal web page request, the requested page is provided by the host server with a 200 header code.
In a 301 situation, the new page is returned with a 301 header code. This would happen whether the old page is present or not. Even if the old page was present, the hosting web server would not look at nor offer the old page.
If there is no additional information or context, I would stand by my original statement. My question to the person who is the source of the statement would be, what exactly is Google supposed to see on the page before it is redirected? What has changed from the last time Google saw the page?
-
Ryan,
No I'm not referring to a link.
There's nothing wrong with that statement and it was not taken out of context.
There's no additional information that I am concealing.The 301 can go up immediately. The question is can the old url be deleted before it has been cached as a new url. After it gets cached it will show as the new url in the serps. Then it's safe to be taken down.
-
The fine people at bruce clay said it's important to let the page be seen before deleting it.
Do you have a specific link? Something is wrong with that statement and I feel it must be taken out of context.
Or possibly there is additional details you have not shared? Has the page changed in some way? Let's say your page is crawled by Google every 2 weeks. So it was crawled last week and you decide today you wish to 301 the page. You are suggesting to wait a week to let Google re-crawl the page before 301'ing it. My question is, what has changed on the page since the last crawl? What do you wish Google to see?
-
The fine people at bruce clay said it's important to let the page be seen before deleting it.
-
when redirecting a page, is it necessary for google to see the old page before it is deleted?
If you are performing the redirect via htaccess, then no. A 301 redirect is simply a header code. It lets Google know the page which is being displayed is not the page requested, but a different URL. Google then understands the need to replace the old URL with the new one.
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
-
How to Choose destination page for a 301 redirect?
I am doing some SEO for a wedding chapel in Vegas. There are some old packages that no longer exist and the bounce rate for the page is high so I am planning to 301 the page. How to best determine the best 301 destination? I have a few options. As an example the page was optimized for garden weddings. The page itself does not place well in the SERPS for garden weddings in Las Vegas, but our outdoor wedding packages in Las Vegas page places in the top 10. So that page is in an option. However, there is a different location that has a garden setting. Is that a better choice? Some content might match better than others, but any page I choose would be relevant content. Thank you so much 🙂
Technical SEO | | leslieevarts0 -
Redirection in .htaccess
Hi All, The problem is with the .htaccess file I have written 301 redirection code for Apache server but once I upload .htaccess file from ftp the website is throwing 500 error. Please help as I'm new to the redirection files.
Technical SEO | | Bharath_ATZ0 -
301 redirect relative or absolute path?
Hello everyone, Recently we've changed the URL structure on our website, and of course we had to 301 redirect the old urls to the coresponding new ones. The way the technical guys did this is: "http://www.domain.com/old-url.html" 301 redirect to "/new-url.html"
Technical SEO | | Silviu
meaning as a relative redirect path, not an absolute one like this:
"http://www.domain.com/old-url.html" 301 redirect to "http://www.domain.com/new-url.html" This happened for few thousands urls, and the fact is the organic traffic dropped for those pages after this change. (no other changes were made on these pages and the new urls are as seo friendly as possible, A grade on On-Page Grader). The question is: does the relative redirect negatively affects seo, or it counts the same as an absolute path redirect? Thanks,
S.0 -
60% Internal Redirects
A new client I am working with has a site with over 9,000 internal 301 redirects. These are as a result of old links not being updated and the number of internal 301 redirects far outweighs the number of 'correct' links on the site. My personal opinion is that creates the risk of crawl errors/issues and whilst a 301 redirect is correct in this case, it does not negate the need to update internal links. The problem I have is that when I explain this to the client, they reply with an Matt Cutts video from 2008 that talks about 301 redirects being correct for site migrations. Even though the video is not entirely relevant to the point, I can not get the client to move from his position. Ideally, what I am looking for help with is the following: Am I right in my position that having this many redirects is a potential issue and that internal links should be updated? Does anyone know of any articles from 'notable/reputable' sources that I can use in order to support my position? Thanks in advance for your help.
Technical SEO | | MattHopkins0 -
CNAME vs 301 redirect
Hi all, Recently I created a website for a new client and my next job is trying to get them higher in Google. I added them in OSE and noticed some strange backlinks. To my surprise the client has about 20 domain names. All automatically poiting to (showing) the same new mainsite now. www.maindomain.nl www.maindomain.be
Technical SEO | | Houdoe
www.maindomain.eu
www.maindomain.com
www.otherdomain.nl
www.otherdomain.com
... Some of these domains have backlinks too (but not so much). I suggested to 301 redirect them all to the main site. Just to avoid duplicate content. But now the webhoster comes into play: "It's a problem, client has only 1 hosting account, blablabla...". They told me they could CNAME the 20 domains to the main domain. Or A-record them to an IP address. This is too technical stuff for me. So my concrete questions are: Is it smart to do anything at all or am I just harming my client? The main site is ranking pretty well now. And some backlinks are from their copy sites (probably because everywhere the logo links to the full mainsite url). Does the CNAME or A-record solution has the same effect as a 301 redirect, from SEO perspective? Many thanks,
Hans0 -
Can I do a redirect to a new domain name only a couple of weeks after having redirected to another domain?
I have a client with two website with very similar content. Both had a lot of inbound links and performed fairly well in SERPS. We recently combined both sites and have redirected one of the domains to the other. The traffic dipped slightly initially, but is recovering nicely. Now the client registered a new domain name he would like to use for the site. Should I wait a few weeks for everything to settle down after the first redirect/consolidation of sites before doing a new redirect to a new domain name, or should I not worry about having any issues with doing it right away?
Technical SEO | | Drewco0 -
Question concerning a 302 Redirect
Hi! I've already done some research on redirects, but I still have a question concerning a 302 redirect implemented at the homepage of a website. The Website www.domainA.com has a 302 redirect to www.domainA.com/content/.... Also all subsequent pages have the /content/ directory in their URLs: e.g domainA.com/content/products First thing I was wondering about, was the use of a redirect to a new site using an additional directory /content/... Why would anyone do this? Would it be enough to replace the 302 with a 301 redirect, or would you recommend to change the entire structure and eliminate this /content/ directory? The most logical structure would be www.domainA.com/products/.., and not www.domainA.com/content/products, right? Second thing: Given that 302 means temporary redirect, what are the actual implications when redirecting from domainA.com to domainA.com/content? I've heard that 302 redirects don't pass linkjuice and are detrimental for the site's rankings... What are the actual implications concerning the example above (302 redirect from domainA.com to domainA.com/content ? Would be great to get some advice about the first problem and maybe some insights about the second one concerning 302s in general. Thanks in advance! Cheers, Chris
Technical SEO | | adwordize0 -
301 redirect on the root of the site
Due to some historic difficulties with our URL Rewriter, we are in the position of having the root of our site 301 redirected to another page. So the root of our site: http://www.propertylive.co.uk/ has a 301 redirect to: http://www.propertylive.co.uk/home.aspx We're aware that this isn't great and we're working to fix this completely, but what impact will this have on our SEO?
Technical SEO | | LianWard860