Banned for redirects?

[jawn_tech]

Does Google ban or penalize for this type of thing?:

Our company launched a new improved website, but most of the page url's changed. Since our important keywords still bring up SE results with the former page descriptions and url's, I set up pages with those paths that automatically redirect to the equivalent page on the new site. Same IP, same domain, just different pages.

(There's a long story why the pages were built with filenames "index_##.htm", because of the software used... another topic)

ANYWAY, the script (automatically generated by the software) looks like this. Does Google frown on this? ---


<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript"><!--
var ixLoadPageURL = 'http://www.ourcompany.com/index_065.htm'; // Set URL to go to
var ixLoadPageDelay = 1; // Set delay in seconds
setTimeout('window.location.href=\''+ixLoadPageURL +'\';',ixLoadPageDelay*1000);
//--></SCRIPT>

[jestep]

Yes, google would almost definately penalize for that type of redirect. You need to do a 301 perminant redirect from each old page to each new page. You can use .htaccess or php to write the redirects.

[jawn_tech]

You can use .htaccess or php to write the redirects.

Thanks jestep. Can you (or anyone) direct me to a tutorial or examples of such? I'm not there yet, but I need to get a solution up quickly.

OR, would another option be to set up new pages to fill in the gaps -- not duplicate, but with variations, and upload them to the corresponding paths?

[jestep]

Try this thread:

http://www.highrankings.com/forum/in...showtopic=5644

[jestep]

Here's oe more:

http://www.webhostinghunter.com/rena...oving_page.php

[greeneagle]

jestep:

"You need to do a 301 perminant redirect from each old page to each new page."

____


Jestep, I am not clear here. Are you saying that the permanent 301 redirects from each page have to be done in the code on each page as opposed to server side permanent 301s for each page?

Thanks,
Ken

[bhartzer]

It would depend on how you want to redirect the visitors. If you want to redirect one visitor who comes to productpageA.html and redirect them to productpageA.php because the url changed, then you can do that with .htaccess and specify a specific redirect from one page to another.

But, if you're not concerned about specific pages, then you can do an overall "blanket" type of 301 redirect so that anyone going to siteA.com is forwarded to siteB.com.

In any case, it shouldn't be on on the actual html of the page (like using a javascript redirect or a meta redirect), it should be done on the server side.

[jawn_tech]

In this situation, the site hasn't really moved. The domain and server is the same. Only pages have changed. The site was given a new look, using software that builds pages and files them numerically. (Long story)

When the new site went up, product pages changed file names.

The problem is, in Yahoo and MSN the product keyword comes up as "www.oursite.com/productA.htm", cached from a long time ago (the old pages).

In Google, the same search shows the new page, "www.oursite.com/index_002.htm".

I erred by putting up blank pages with javascript redirects on the old paths so they would take the viewer to the new page. Google must have penalized, I think because now our product pages have all PR of 0. (Homepage PR 5 still intact).

So now what do I do? I can't just trash the index_002 page (and others like it) hoping Google will reindex more quickly than Y and M, because pending customers are currently looking at the new product links sent to them with quotes, etc. Temporarily I put up 'similar' content but changed text, but I'm worried for getting penalized for that too if the content is "similar" (right?)

301 redirecting is new to me, and I need to fix this problem "yesterday". It's a step up from my current experience level.

It's sort of sad if G sees java-redirects as spamming. I would think viewers would be grateful getting redirected, javascript or not, than ending up on a error page.

So I really need advice...

[bhartzer]

It's sort of sad if G sees java-redirects as spamming

Sorry, but I feel differently. Google should see it as spamming because 99.999 of websites who use it are up to no good.

To fix your issue, you need to use the 301 Permanent Redirect. If you're on a Unix web server, then you need to use the .htaccess file. You can redirect pageA.html to pageB.html and pageC.html to pageD.html all in one file. If your site is H-U-G-E, then it might slow the server down a little bit, but in the long run it's worth it. Chances are, though, the average user won't notice a difference.

Your PR0s might not actually be penalized, they just might not have links going to them and therefore Google cannot give them a high enough PR (thus the PR0). Make sure you fix your navigation and all the links to your internal pages so that the spiders cannot find any of the old pages easily.

Then, get rid of all your javascript redirects everywhere once the proper redirects are in place.

[greeneagle]

Do most hosting plans have CPanels or other access allowing direct control of server side 301 redirects?

Ken

[jawn_tech]

Google should see it as spamming

bhartzer I appreciate your opinion. 99.999%? Really? I don't doubt you, I just find it surprising, but you would know. Some software include the java redirect as a drag and drop element. That was this case, and it was not intended to be 'crafty', but rather as a service to human viewers. Not to mention I don't want potential customers to end up at an 'not found' page, which makes the unknowing frustrated with both us and the search engine.

Speaking of unknowing, my problem is 301 redirecting is a big jump to me, learning-wise. I need a crash course or 'for dummies' directions. Otherwise I need a plan 'B'.

[greeneagle]

Plan A - Create a custom 404 error page that catches all request errors and directs viewers back on track. ALL LINKS MUST HAVE COMPLETE URL! The code can usually be placed correctly through your Hosting Company's Control Panel.

Plan B - Most Hosting Control Panels allow server-side permanent 301 redirects. No need sloshing in js, other sloppy coding methods or risking SE frowns.

Plan C - A webmaster needs these level of controls. If your Host doesn't supply them - MOVE!

If you need a good inexpensive hosting company that is reliable and offers everything and more, even on smaller plans then PM me!

Ken

[rescom]

Is renaming your pages an option?
If not, why not create duplicate pages with the old names?

Having a page name like index001.htm may be a problem with Google also.

To help rankings in Google as well as Yahoo, MSN, etc, you want page names that contain keywords...such as

www.websitename.com/red-widget.htm

[bhartzer]

If your site is on a Unix web server than use .htaccess to redirect the pageA to pageB using a 301 Permanent Redirect. Don't mess with the control panel or anything like that, there's not need for it.

Honestly, the best way to handle this in my opinion is through .htaccess and the 301. It's really pretty simple to do, all in one text file.

Even if other search engines have the old page indexed the visitors as well as the search engines will be redirected to the new page.

[greeneagle]

The search engines will be redirected to the new page from the other pages on the Site if it is a real "permanent redirect".

We are not talking a new top level domain here. IMO - Accessing and Manipulating the .htaccess file is more difficult for most experience levels than the automated Host Cpanel process.

LOL - Just my opinion from one Texas boy to another..

Ken

[jawn_tech]

If not, why not create duplicate pages with the old names?

Isn't "duplicate pages" a violation? I wanted to do that, but I was under the impression it wasn't allowed.

[rescom]

A slight change in the page content eliminates any concern over dupliccate pages.

A search engine is ot a human and will see "slight"changes as a big deal.

[cbp]

A search engine is ot a human and will see "slight"changes as a big deal.

Have you read the patent that Google was assigned late last year for detecting "near duplicates"

CBP

[sfowler]

cbp, where can I find the text of this patent, I would be very interested in a look at it.
By the way, isn't the big Y still having problems with the 301 redirects? There is no point in doing something that makes one happy at the expense of a ban in the next SE.

[cbp]

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/google/
http://pr.typepad.com/pr_communicati...google_pa.html

CBP

[sfowler]

Thnaks. Almost sorry I asked, there goes my weekend!

[jestep]

Jestep, I am not clear here. Are you saying that the permanent 301 redirects from each page have to be done in the code on each page as opposed to server side permanent 301s for each page?

I usually usa a PHP based redirect if it is just a small number of pages. Otherwise I use a .htacess commend. If you do a 301 directly to the new page, PageRank will usually transfer after 1 or 2 updates. I've never had any problems using the php 301 redirect.

[jawn_tech]

Update -- Received a response from my inquiry to Google. Copied and pasted:

Thank you for your note. If your old URLs redirect to your new site using
HTTP 301 (permanent) redirects, our crawler will know to use the new URLs.
Changes made in this way will take six to eight weeks to be reflected in
our search results. For more information about 301 HTTP redirects, please
see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt

You can find additional information at http://www.google.com/webmasters/.
If we can assist you further, please let us know.