Should I use a permanent redirect?

[blueharvest]

heres the problem..

When people type in my website address I want them to go to www.mysite.com/catalog/ rather than www.mysite.com/index.htm, should i set up a .htaccess for a permanent redirect or have an index.htm and have the visitor 'click here to enter' which is best from a SEO point of view? Will the spiders know where to look?

Thanks for your help.

[bhartzer]

The first thing you should do is see if you can modify your http.conf file (if you're using a Unix web server) to change the default home page of your site. If you're using a Windows server, you'll need to set that page as the home page of your site (I believe you do that in the Admin section).

If you cannot change the default home page of your site on your web server, then you need to set up a 301 Permanent redirect from your home page to the catalog page.

[Jerry]

I've honestly seen both methods work well, but if you have the opportunity, I'd follow the advice given above.

On my asp driven sites, I set up a permanent redirect on the default page when it's not possible to have the server configuration changed. I've found that these sites ranked just as well in the Se's as sites that have the default page changed in the configuration settings.

[DrTandem1]

Maybe I'm missing something here. Since you want the visitor to go to a subsequent file in the catalog directory rather than your index file of the same site, why are you redirecting? Why not just delete the current index file and move the catalog directory's content into its place?

[seolearner]

I wanted to ask all you people here that you mean to say that a redirected site makes no difference now and is picked by the spiders easily now. dont the google bots create any mess..i mean problem related to it now??

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by seolearner

I wanted to ask all you people here that you mean to say that a redirected site makes no difference now and is picked by the spiders easily now. dont the google bots create any mess..i mean problem related to it now??

Not exactly. The point of a 301 (permanent) redirect is to clearly state to the search engines that the old URL is no longer to be followed and is being replaced by the URL to which it is redirecting.

In other words, there is not much point in placing a permanent redirect away from an URL that you want to continue to use. As an index file (i.e. index.html) of a site in the main directory is the logical target of most traffic to a domain, I wouldn't recommend redirecting traffic away from it to an interior page in the same site.

It would be more logical to simply change the content of the original index.html to whatever content is on the subsequent page and then place a redirect from that subsequent page (in this example a page in the /catalog/ directory) to the index.html.

Unless you are changing domains, I can't think of a reason why you would want to direct traffic away from your domain's main file to an interior file of the same domain.

[seolearner]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Not exactly. The point of a 301 (permanent) redirect is to clearly state to the search engines that the old URL is no longer to be followed and is being replaced by the URL to which it is redirecting.

In other words, there is not much point in placing a permanent redirect away from an URL that you want to continue to use. As an index file (i.e. index.html) of a site in the main directory is the logical target of most traffic to a domain, I wouldn't recommend redirecting traffic away from it to an interior page in the same site.

It would be more logical to simply change the content of the original index.html to whatever content is on the subsequent page and then place a redirect from that subsequent page (in this example a page in the /catalog/ directory) to the index.html.

Unless you are changing domains, I can't think of a reason why you would want to direct traffic away from your domain's main file to an interior file of the same domain.

Well..thanks.I understood a bit not wholly!!Correct me if i am wrong you mean to say that if we are changing a the domain of the site then only we should redirect otherwise there is no reasons or say 'logic' for a Redirect.

[mawells]

I'm not saying that you should redirect within a domain, but I wanted to illustrate an instance when you might need to have something like this done.

Case in point: I have a Cold Fusion site that is hosted at a shared hosting company (very inexpensive). However, the home page is located in the cgi-bin - the only executable directory. Since this is discounted hosting, getting the default home page changed is not an option. I didn't use a redirect to solve the problem, however. I simply created a one-window frame with the target page cgi-bin/index.cfm.

To accommodate the search engines, I put a site map in the <noframes> tags and they seem to have all of the pages just fine.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by seolearner

Well..thanks.I understood a bit not wholly!!Correct me if i am wrong you mean to say that if we are changing a the domain of the site then only we should redirect otherwise there is no reasons or say 'logic' for a Redirect.

No, a 301 redirect is any time you want to move traffic away permanently from a URL.

Example 1:

You have a domain called mydomain.com, but for some reason you want to use mydomain2.com. You do not want to lose the traffic you have received from mydomain.com. So, rather than just deleting or abandoning it, you place a 301 redirect that moves the visitor (and search engines) to mydomain2.com.

Example 2:

You are redesigning your site and are changing and/or deleting some pages and directories. You have a page at mydomain.com/widgets.htm. You have a new page called mydomain.com/better-widgets.htm. As links and bookmarks may have been established pointing to widgets.htm, you do not want to lose this traffic. Also, no one (including the search engines) know about better-widgets.htm. You place a 301 redirect that moves anyone going to widgets.htm to better-widgets.htm.

In example 2, you would probably better off just changing the content on the original page, but that was just a simplified example. In reality, you may be creating a lot of new pages that have nothing to do with "widgets" while you are going to stop offering widgets altogether. So, new page names are in order to keep your design task easier to manage.

In summary, I just don't see any advantage to moving traffic away from your index.html file to an interior page in another directory on the same site. In all, when it's possible (practical), I think it's better to change content than redirect URLs.

[brian.mark]

Originally Posted by mawells

I'm not saying that you should redirect within a domain, but I wanted to illustrate an instance when you might need to have something like this done.

Case in point: I have a Cold Fusion site that is hosted at a shared hosting company (very inexpensive). However, the home page is located in the cgi-bin - the only executable directory. Since this is discounted hosting, getting the default home page changed is not an option. I didn't use a redirect to solve the problem, however. I simply created a one-window frame with the target page cgi-bin/index.cfm.

To accommodate the search engines, I put a site map in the <noframes> tags and they seem to have all of the pages just fine.

This is bordering on black hat. Any time you're giving the engines something different than visitors (a sitemap vs. the real page), be it through frames or cloaking, that's getting dark.

If you can use SSI, you could create an index file that includes your script. That's another option. A redirect isn't out of the question either, though. Shouldn't be too hard to throw into a .htaccess file.

Brian.

[mawells]

Without getting into a pissing match... SSI is not an option. I could use the <CFINCLUDE> tag but the page using the tag would have to reside inside the cgi-bin because it would be a .cfm page.

I agree with DRTandem1 - a 301 redirect would not be appropriate.

As far as "black hat" - Given that Google has it's Sitemap program which feeds it content that the site visitor does not see... I would hardly consider a site map in the <noframes> tag "black hat" or even "dark."

[brian.mark]

I am not following why a redirect isn't appropriate. Ever heard of a little site called "Amazon"? Their homepage does a 301 redirect and it hasn't harmed them much. Many sites do this. There are many cases where that's a best practice.

Brian.

[mawells]

Amazon.com uses a 301 redirect for a very specific purpose - it allows them to build a new site in a different directory, then simply redirect their home page when it's complete - which then allows them to redesign the previous site, etc., etc.

The original question in this forum had nothing to do with creating "seasonal sites" and could probably be handled as DrTandem1 explained - simply move the files to the root directory.

I was just trying to give an example where moving files to the root directory is not an option and a 301 redirect or a frame MAY need to be used - assuming that SSL is not an option, re-configuring your server is not an option, etc.

[seolearner]

Hey,Hey,hey!!Now here is the proper HOT HOT debate going on, on the redirection concept.
DrTandem1,Brian says that it not bad.
mawells does not agree with the fact, he says that,a site can go without it.
One fact that i also dont agree (of mawells's)is about using <no frame> and creating a site map particularly for search engines.

[DrTandem1]

Let me crystallize my position.

I think if you are going to redirect a page or site, a 301 redirect is the way to go for both the search engines and the human visitors. That being said, I think it is best to avoid redirects whenever practical.