mishimainizu
Joined: Jan 19, 2006
# Posts: 32
|
Posted: 2006-Nov-22 09:14
Good day,
How would Google react if a 301 Redirect is implemented to effect a domain name change (including server change) AND at the same time the content of each page of the site is (quite considerably) changed too?
I am a bit worried about this compound change, as Google might get too upset. Would it be advisable to perform one operation at a time and see what happens in between?
Thanks
Akira Mishima
[ Message was edited by: g1smd 12/02/2006 08:01 am ... Reason: Fixed Typo ]
|
 |
oldwelshguy
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
# Posts: 79
|
Posted: 2006-Nov-22 12:48
Is the existing domain already spidered? THIS will be the lynchpin of how google treat the 301 intent.
If you 301 redirect match a url to another with different content but with the same file names, and google already had some or all of those pages indexed, then it is fair for it to assume that this is a bait and switch tactic.
If the new site is a new domain, then there should be no problem, OR if you 301 the domain, rather than a redirect match.
|
|
mishimainizu
Joined: Jan 19, 2006
# Posts: 32
|
Posted: 2006-Nov-23 07:30
Thank you oldwelshguy,
The existing domain is already spidered and well positioned in Yahoo Japan but not so well in Google Japan.
My site XXX.COM is currently a three-language site and I want to move the Japanese files (which positioning in the Japanese search engines interests me most over the other two languages) to a brand new XXX.JP domain which is not yet spidered. The XXX part of the domain will not change.
The old file names will not change either, but I would like to take advantage of this move to have the site restyled and made more SE-friendly.
Since I have been reading everywhere that 301 Redirects are not 100% safe and that nobody can assure you that the old site ranking will remain at least the same, I was wondering whether making this redirect operation and at the same time changing each file content would add more uncertainty to the whole thing.
Thanks again for any new reply
Akira Mishima
|
|
oldwelshguy
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
# Posts: 79
|
Posted: 2006-Nov-23 08:54
Ok rankings are a different matter entirely. if you are breaking up a site into smaller bits, then there is a fair chance the rankings will alter.
A 301 redirect is not instant in the eyes of the search engines, it takes Google a few months to transfer the link benefit from the old site to the new, so expect your search traffic to disappera for sure (assuming there is competition for phrases). The less competitive phrases will still appear in the SERP's.
Are you on Apache or Windoze? And do you have the redirect match code? a straight 301 is not good.
|
|
mishimainizu
Joined: Jan 19, 2006
# Posts: 32
|
Posted: 2006-Nov-23 09:23
Thank you again oldwelshguy,
I am on Apache and I have free access to the .htaccess file (the other idea would be to make the 301 Redirect using a PHP snippet in each of the files I want to move). As for the code, I think I have plenty of examples on the web.
What most confuses me is that, according to some others who made this type of redirection, their new site ranking was all right even after only a few days, reflecting almost entirely the previous site ranking.
Kind regards
|
|
oldwelshguy
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
# Posts: 79
|
Posted: 2006-Nov-23 15:42
With all 301's there is a room for error. And it is a risk you run. Here is the code you need to add to your HTACCESS
Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.yourolddomain.com
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.yournewdomain.com/$1 [R=permanent,L]
This will deliver any page request to the first domain, to the same url on the second domain.
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10465
|
Posted: 2006-Nov-23 22:34
You need somewhat more than that.
If the old domain is A and new domain is B, you will need to redirect:
A ---> www.B
www.A ---> www.B
B ---> www.B
However if this is only breaking part of a site off, you'll need the redirect code to test the requested URL to see if the redirect needs to be applied this time.
|
|
oldwelshguy
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
# Posts: 79
|
Posted: 2006-Nov-24 09:15
Your right, if only part of the site is being redirected, then the redirect is far more complicated 
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10465
|
Posted: 2006-Nov-24 21:05
It also depends whether both sites are going to be hosted on the same server, or on separate servers.
This is the basics:
Site A:
A/japan/file ---> www.B/file
www.A/japan/file ---> www.B/file
A ---> www.A
Site B (japan):
B ---> www.B
|
|
mishimainizu
Joined: Jan 19, 2006
# Posts: 32
|
Posted: 2006-Nov-25 05:10
Thank you all,
The new site will be hosted on a Japanese server (hopefully to improve the ranking of the Japanese pages); this server will host only the Japanese pages.
For the other two western languages I will keep using the current server in the USA.
Many thanks also for the redirection suggestions.
Kind regards
|
|
formerskeptic
Joined: Oct 05, 2001
# Posts: 301
|
Posted: 2006-Dec-02 15:44
Hi guys
I'm still trying to get a hang of redirects and how they affect rankings so please bear with me  . Say you have yourdomain.com ranked as #1, what happens if you do a 301 redirect to yourdomain.com/redesignedsite (which is still sitting on the same server btw) and all the files in your redesigned site have a noindex,nofollow tag? How would the bots react to that? Would G drop you're ranking after a few months due to the restrictions by the tag? I ask this because G seems to favor old tags (e.g H1 etc) in sites and ranks them quite highly. So if you don't want to jeopardize your ranking, why not tell the bots to keep your old site in place while you redirect your visitors to your new site that is mostly driven by style sheets as opposed to old H1 tags etc! There was a discussion on such a site with these tags that kept this site stagnated at the top. If you're interested in the thread, go to [link]
You're thoughts please 
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10465
|
Posted: 2006-Dec-02 15:59
Once a URL that used to directly serve content becomes a redirect to another place, the redirected URL is marked as Supplemental, and then shows in the index for one year before being dropped.
The content at the new URL may take a few weeks to be indexed, and will take many months to gain "trust". You can help things by getting external links updated to point to the new location.
If the content at the new location is marked as "noindex" then the new location will not be indexed. Once the old location URLs drop out of the index you will be left with nothing.
The fact that the old URLs continue to show in the SERPs is a good thing. Anyone clicking those links will be fed through to the correct site by the redirect that you have already installed.
Since Google now takes age of site and age of links into account in their algorithm, it is rarely a good idea to move an established site to a brand-new domain without a very good reaon to do so.
|
|
oldwelshguy
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
# Posts: 79
|
Posted: 2006-Dec-02 17:20
Sounds like someone is looking to spam Google here
|
|
formerskeptic
Joined: Oct 05, 2001
# Posts: 301
|
Posted: 2006-Dec-03 13:35
Thank you very much glsmd for clearing that up. I do appreciate this insight. Very thorough
And oldwelshguy, you're absolutely right. I'm trying to list multiple domains on google and have them all point to one domain, frustrate the hell out of my clients with the same content from multiple domains and to top it off, destroy my credibilty in the process. (lol)
You've misunderstood my intent. I was merely curious about how this redirect would affect rankings if you ushered your visitors to a redesigned site. In other words which would be a better option; drop all the spidered files that are sitting in your /home directory, put the new site there and wait another year for google to dance with your new site or simply point your visitors to the new site from the spidered files. I'm still contemplating on which is the best option.
Case in point, years ago if you clicked on hotmail.com, it would take you directly to that domain. But now, it points to some eye gouging url like login.live.com/login.srf blah blah blah which I believe is nowhere to be seen on google or any other SERP for that matter. Hotmail.com is still spidered at the top.
Now, if I may ask my accuser , do you believe that the richest man in the world (for now) is trying to pull a "fast one" over Google?
Your thoughts please!
|
|
oldwelshguy
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
# Posts: 79
|
Posted: 2006-Dec-03 20:31
FS, I am noit sure how to take your post, is it an attempt to rile me or just good humoured banter?
Anyhow, to anser your question with regard the richest man in the world.
Microsoft are simply using a 302 temporary redirect from hotmail.com to the login page. temporary redirected target pages should not be psidered because they are temporary.
I apologise if I have insulted you, but what you were suggesting can be determined as an attempt to spam, and Something I have always warned against is tswimming with the Tuna if you're a dolphin. Just because you are a dolphin does not stop you getting caught up in the tuna net
Using multiple redirects to one domain is a common spamm method, and if I thought it might be potential spam, then so might the search engine algorithms.
|
|
formerskeptic
Joined: Oct 05, 2001
# Posts: 301
|
Posted: 2006-Dec-04 13:35
You need not take my post to heart oldwelshguy but instead, as you put it, in good humour, hence all the smileys . Like I mentioned earlier, I am simply trying to learn about redirects and rankings.
And no you haven't insulted me my good man. No offence taken here. We're all here to learn are we not!
Speaking of learning, there's something new I've learn't today 302 temporary redirects. If I may ask, would this be a much better option to redirect to yourdomain.com/newsite and still keep a high ranking? What would be the implications?
|
|
oldwelshguy
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
# Posts: 79
|
Posted: 2006-Dec-04 14:23
302's are really not good for much LOL. They tell the Search Algo that the move is temporary. so effectively your old content should sit on the server. The problem comes though if the old and the nes content is available, honestly do not go there, it is an accident waiting to happen.
If you want proof of how dangerous a misunderstanding with the search engines and a 302 redirect can be, then read this. Business.com had a partial ban on over half of its content because of a badly handled 302 redirect The answer I should have said about the richest man in the world is that he don't care about Google because his mate steve said he is going to f******g bury Google :D
|
|
Prowler
Staff
Joined: Aug 14, 2000
# Posts: 1829
|
Posted: 2006-Dec-05 07:04
Interesting conversation from a former skeptic and an old welsh guy.
|
|
formerskeptic
Joined: Oct 05, 2001
# Posts: 301
|
Posted: 2006-Dec-05 12:49
Keen observation prawler. Stick around, it might get a little more interesting (Lol)
So guys, what would be the best option? As I mentioned earlier, here's the scenario;
1. mydomain.com is the old site which is spidered in both G & Y
2. mydomain.com/directory is the newsite which I don't want spidered neither do I want to re-write the files in mydomain.com.
3. I still want mydomain.com to be listed as is (and not mydomain.com/newsite) but when clients click on it, I want them to be redirected to mydomain.com/newsite
Now, I don't want to use a meta redirect or any .js based redirect code due to the obvious browser issues.
The only options I can think of are:
i) I could use a php redirect script in mydomain.com but the problem is the index is a .html file. So I'd have to rename the index to a php and embed the redirect code within it. Not sure what damage that my do with my rankings on either G or Y.
ii) Use a server side redirect which may result to G or Y dropping me like a stone.
Your inputs would be most welcome
|
|
Prowler
Staff
Joined: Aug 14, 2000
# Posts: 1829
|
Posted: 2006-Dec-08 15:06
>> I could use a php redirect script in mydomain.com but the problem is the index is a .html file.
No problem. You can issue a directive like the one provided below to apache - to treat your .html file as if it was a php file:
There is a performance issue associated with this technique though. It has an additional server overhead as the server has to parse all static pages. This might be a major factor for a busy site, but for most sites - this might be a small price to pay.
If you have originally arranged your internal linking structure like this: yourdomain.com/ (with a trailing slash) to point to your index file, you can simply change the index.html to index.php and no one will notice any change - including the search engines. Your server will serve the default page whatever extension it has.
|
|
Inbox
