sherwoodseo
msg:723886 | 3:53 pm on May 22, 2006 (gmt 0) |
JB, there's a ton of discussion about Google and 301 problems, post-Big-Daddy: [google.com...] I'm trying to determine if I can still rely on 301's as a convenient option for moving a site, or if I should recommend to client to just stay put until this all washes out. Anyone else have some observations/experiences?
|
pmac
msg:723887 | 4:01 pm on May 22, 2006 (gmt 0) |
over the course of the last couple of months, I have done several 301 redirects on pages that reside on old established domains to pages on new domains. In every instance it has been the kiss of death. Pages that would previously score well for its targeted kw's, would drop out of the index, yet the target of the 301 would be buried in the serps.
|
Skier
msg:723888 | 11:08 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0) |
There are so many threads describing pages lost/dropped following attempts to "clean up" sites. It is not just 301's, but almost every method of removing, renaming or blocking pages have been causing problems. It seems to me that G is having a bad reaction to a whole concept of eliminating pages that have been around for a while. I have my own version of this problem and have been searching the various threads for a comparable situation to mine. I haven't found it exactly, but I am struck by the common theme showing up in so many threads. Removed or not, old pages and their characteristics such as PR and inbound links, seem to be having excessive and continuing influence over current SERPs. Some have suggested that BD has been constructed on foundations made from an outdated index. I suspect that something like that underlies all this. Or is it that we haven't had a real index update for a long time, and much of G's core data is simply out of date?
|
g1smd
msg:723889 | 11:30 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0) |
All of the 301 redirects that I did in the first 9 months of 2005 are working fully as expected. All of the pages of the new site are fully indexed. For those that were done before 2005 June, the redirected URLs appear to have been dropped from the results. For those actioned after 2005 June, the redirected URLs still show up as Supplemental Results, but clicking on any of those takes you through to the correct page on the new site anyway.
|
pmac
msg:723890 | 11:35 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>>>after 2005 June, the redirected URLs still show up They get indexed..... they just don't score anymore.
|
Dayo_UK
msg:723891 | 11:38 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>>>>They get indexed..... they just don't score anymore. My experiences too. As at the last PR update they also have got the correct PR (so it seems) - they just don't score as Pmac says.
|
montefin
msg:723892 | 11:55 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0) |
g1smd wrote: <<after 2005 June, the redirected URLs still show up as Supplemental Results, but clicking on any of those takes you through to the correct page on the new site anyway.>> Same post-June '05 dating here, for those that show up...there are several that were sitemapped out of existence as far as Google is concerned via their robots.txt monkey wrench.
|
|
