Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206 , register , free tools , login , search , pro membership , help , library , announcements , recent posts , open posts Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Can someone check this htaccess redirect for me? dzinerbear
Yesterday, someone wrote that a 301 redirect would be the best way to refer traffic from my www.abcwidgets.com URL to www.abc-widgets.com (where the site content actually exists).
I asked my hosting company for assistance with this, and they "helpfully" went ahead and put an htaccess file on the URL I wanted
I was hoping someone could look at the script that they used and make sure it's not going to cause me any problems with search engines.
RewriteRule .*(.*) [ ...] abc-widgets.com
redirect is working fine. There isn't, nor was there ever, any content on abcwidgets.com. So, I don't have to worry about any existing links. I just want to make sure the above script is a legitimate tool and that SE won't think I'm trying to pull a fast one.
If there never was any content or links to the first site why worry about a redirect? Just in case of type-ins?
I'm no expert on htaccess but this is what I have seen for
301 redirects. redirect 301 / [ ...] abc-widgets.com leoo24
i've seen it done mainly for branding purposes and not for SE placement, 301 is the correct way as far as google is concerned as it reads it that the content is no longer housed there and has permanently moved to the redirected site. jdMorgan
That is not a
301 redirect. It is, by default, a 302, and that will cause you problems. You need to have them change it to: RewriteEngine On RewriteRule .* http://abc-widgets.com/ [R=301,L] This code redirects requests for any resource on the www.abcwidgets.com domain to the home page of [ ...] abc-widgets.com
If you would rather
redirect to the same page that was requested from www.abcwidgets.com, use: RewriteEngine On RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://abc-widgets.com/$1 [R=301,L]
Use the WebmasterWorld
Server Header Checker [ webmasterworld.com] to verify both what I said about the 302 above, and that the modified code I posted invokes a 301.