homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.182.191
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

    
Virtual Hosting conundrum
My own fault really
futureX




msg:109834
 12:58 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

I've got a website which is virtually hosted on another website, i.e. it used to be www.domain.com/website/ - and I have already got a PR of 4 for this website at that address, but I had to change the URL, now it is virtually hosted on www.website.com, but the old site still exists, all the links on the site now point to the new address. But google will see both sites as seperate. How do I tell google that i want the new address to stay, and more importantly is there any way I can get google to transfer the PR over from the old site.

Theoretically once google has been to the old site again (all links from the old site are now translated to the new site url) it will know that the site kind-of no longer exists there. Will google penalise me?

 

mcavic




msg:109835
 4:19 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you use 301's to redirect each page on the old site to a page on the new site, it'll redirect the visitors, the bots, and transfer the PR.

Lots of users will keep bookmarks to the old site forever, though.

GoogleGuy




msg:109836
 9:06 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just use a 301 from pages on the old site to pages on the new site. While you're at it, try to hunt down all the backlinks to the old site (with Google and ATW and AV and ... so that you find out as many backlinks as possible). Then just drop a short note to folks that link to the old address that says "I've moved. Could you update your link from yyy to zzz? Thanks!" Most spiders should be able to get it right just from the 301, but having all the old backlinks updated to the new location certainly can't hurt to help make it easier to figure out. :)

bignet




msg:109837
 9:17 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Quality Guidelines - Basic principles:

Make pages for users, not for search engines.

as for
Then just drop a short note to folks that link to the old address that says "I've moved. Could you update your link from yyy to zzz? Thanks!"

G may drop you for doing that )see floridamesss(

GoogleGuy




msg:109838
 9:21 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey bignet, it's perfectly legit to let someone know that you've moved to a new web address. The alternative (stale links pointing to wrong or missing locations) would be worse for users.

bignet




msg:109839
 9:34 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy
thanks for the info. my mistake

Then just drop a short note to folks that link to the old address that says "I've moved. Could you update your link from yyy to zzz? Thanks!"

futureX did not ask people to link to his site. they just did. G can figure this out and not penalise his site

apollo




msg:109840
 2:35 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Bigent wrote
>>>as for Then just drop a short note to folks that link to >>>the old address that says "I've moved. Could you update >>>your link from yyy to zzz? Thanks!"

>>G may drop you for doing that )see floridamesss(

I have read googleguy's response and understand that the specified action will not result in the penalty you said might occur, but would you give a link to the penalty you are referring to or describe it more fully. (is it a penalty for contacting people and asking them to change their links?)

Thanks

mcavic




msg:109841
 2:51 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

is it a penalty for contacting people and asking them to change their links

People really need to stop with this penalty paranoia. 100% sure way to avoid penalties:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

If Google can't see you, then they can't penalize you based on your content. ;)

apollo




msg:109842
 3:26 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

mcavic wrote:
>>People really need to stop with this penalty paranoia. 100% sure way to avoid penalties:

do you know what the penalty is that bignet is discussing with google guy?

if you know, what gives you the right to judge others as being 'paranoid' for also wanting to know?

if you do not know, you do not seem to be a competent search engine optimiser if you believe that wanting to know about it is an indication of 'paranoia' (In this case I wonder why you are reading this forum if you are not interested in understanding how google works).

GoogleGuy




msg:109843
 5:42 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey all, we're just talking about moving websites. Just nuts and bolts; no penalties/paranoia needed. Asking people to update their links to point to wherever your site moved to is perfectly natural.

mcavic




msg:109844
 6:27 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

In reference to the original question, GG, correct me if I'm wrong here:

Google doesn't, in general, penalize for duplicate content. Tons of sites have domain.com and www.domain.com which appear as duplicates, but Google just disregards one of them in any particular SERP. Still, a 301 redirect is the proper way to deal with this.

If you have two sites that are the same except that one of them says We've moved; Please update your links... that shouldn't really draw a penalty.

Now, if you have multiple domains like WidgetWorld.com, WorldOfWidgets.com, and MyWidgetFactory.com, and the content is all the same (not redirected), then that appears to be a deliberate spam attempt to push more of your competetors out of the SERPs.

futureX




msg:109845
 9:46 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the help guys, using 301 redirects I have now redirected all the important URIs and my old links still work perfectly :D And I have already changed most of the incoming links to the new URL including DMOZ (hopefully dmoz will update it before google and the other mirrors grab it) :)

Only problem is that I think i have missed this months major crawl, may have to wait a while for google to realise what is going on, and in the meantime google might not like what i have done :O

Ulkari




msg:109846
 10:30 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

I did just that: I moved my website to a new URL 9 months ago (updated all links on the old site, asked everyone to change their links, but could not put 301s on the old site), but it seems that Google took it as duplicate content and I'm still penalized (PR 0, absent from SEPRs).

Hissingsid




msg:109847
 11:47 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey all, we're just talking about moving websites. Just nuts and bolts; no penalties/paranoia needed. Asking people to update their links to point to wherever your site moved to is perfectly natural.

Hi GG,

Could you please give me some guidance on whether it is better to have .htaccess do a permanent redirect from a directory, that has been emptied, to an alternative page or have a custom 301 page.

Does it matter how you do this as far as Googlebot is concerned? Paranoia has me thinking that just about anything I inocently do may be misinterpreted because someone somewhere has found a way to misuse it.

My concern is that if Googlebot tries to crawl to a dead link and is redirected it may see this as duplicate content or does it note the 301 returned and stop crawling?

many thanks

Sid

futureX




msg:109848
 1:37 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just another quick question regarding this...

Now that I have put 301 redirects on the site (which uses php for dynamic content) i have redirected the php file and now any links that come in that look like this [domain.com...] are converted to this [website.com...] will the pr be put onto the new website, or will it be put on the old address, as the link still points to the old address. There a hundreds of links that still use the old address (which i cannot get people to change), i'm still a little wary of the change.

mcavic




msg:109849
 3:25 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

will the pr be put onto the new website, or will it be put on the old address

A 301 redirect should transfer the PR to the new page. It'll take some time for that to take effect, of course.

whether it is better to have .htaccess do a permanent redirect from a directory, that has been emptied, to an alternative page or have a custom 301 page.

Either way should be fine. Google hits links, not directories. So if it hits a /path/file.html, and gets a redirect, it won't know if it's because the directory is redirected, or because the file is redirected.

crawl to a dead link and is redirected it may see this as duplicate content or does it note the 301 returned and stop crawling

A 301 doesn't have any content, just a new url. So there's nothing to be duplicate. When it sees a 301, it understands, and moves on to the new URL.

The exception here is Inktomi - last I checked, it still didn't follow 301's correctly. Instead of replacing the old url with the new one, it would keep using the old url, but index it with the content from the new page. That's 302 behavior. On Inktomi, this would lead to duplicate pages, but I don't think they care. That's their fault, anyway.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved