homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.243.17.133
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

    
Will 301 Redirect Fix Supplemental Pages?
or will new page be supplemented too?
internetheaven




msg:3037035
 10:38 am on Aug 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Currently over 50,000 pages of our site (all from one folder) have just been made supplemental by Google. This is because Google (despite robot.txt telling them not too!) infiltrated our testing folder which has the exact same information as the one we leave open for indexing. i.e.

www.ourdomain.com/folder/page1.html
www.ourdomain.com/foldertest/page1.html

obviously we use that folder to tweak and test any changes to pages before putting them live. But Google is listing both sets of pages, only thing we can think of is that someone went to one of the test page whilst still having the Google toolbar on.

Anyway, the only solution we've come up with is to move the pages to a new folder e.g.

www.ourdomain.com/folder1/page1.html

and then 301 both:

www.ourdomain.com/folder/page1.html
www.ourdomain.com/foldertest/page1.html

to the new page. Obviously Google will find the new pages through the internal linking so should see them all as new pages. The 301 would make the indexing faster and stop 50,000 404 header returns which could really cause some problems with Google.

Anyone know if you 301 from a supplemented page to a new page if that page is automatically supplemented or not?

 

tedster




msg:3037408
 3:59 pm on Aug 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Maybe I misunderstand -- but why not use robots.txt to excude /foldertest?

To address the original question, URIs do not necessarily stay supplemental, and there is a googlebot that spiders suppemental urls. That bot is spidering more frequently, and I recently (this past weekend) saw over 1,000 suppemental listings return to regular status for one domain, so "supplemental" is not necessariy a graveyard. There's no reason to assume a 301 would make the new content inherit supplemental status.

But as I said, why not just exclude /foldertest through robots.txt and be done with it?

internetheaven




msg:3038524
 1:44 pm on Aug 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Maybe I misunderstand -- but why not use robots.txt to excude /foldertest?

No, just mis-read, I already said:

(despite robot.txt telling them not too!) infiltrated our testing folder

... and yes, my robots.txt file is valid. Last time they did this they did it to my admin area which wasn't very well written and the Googlebot followed all the "delete" links .... that was a very, very bad day ...

Halfdeck




msg:3038692
 3:25 pm on Aug 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Robots.txt doesn't keep Google out of a folder if there are links pointing to those urls. Use NOINDEX meta tag instead or password protect it with .htaccess. If you must link to those urls, flag those A HREFS with REL=NOFOLLOW.

As for the 301s, I woud not create a new folder to 301 the original. Just 301 the test pages to the originals, create a new test folder and conduct your experiments there.

[edited by: Halfdeck at 3:27 pm (utc) on Aug. 8, 2006]

internetheaven




msg:3041371
 4:08 pm on Aug 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just 301 the test pages to the originals, create a new test folder and conduct your experiments there.

Really? Even though both the test pages and originals are both supplemented right now you would say to 301 the supplemented test pages to the supplemented original pages and hope for the best? Why is that? And how long do you think it takes to get unsupplemented?

SEOPTI




msg:3042053
 12:58 am on Aug 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Look at the answer steveb posted:

[webmasterworld.com...]

twebdonny




msg:3042148
 2:51 am on Aug 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

robots.txt has zero effect on supps

Chris_H




msg:3042219
 4:58 am on Aug 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm curious to know how accurate steveb's answer is to 301's and supplementals, i.e. Google not obeying 301 on those pages.

If this is true, it goes a long way to explaining why we can't get our supplemental pages back into the main index.

Halfdeck




msg:3042541
 12:36 pm on Aug 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Even though both the test pages and originals are both supplemented right now

If both are supplemental, then you may have other problems besides duplicate content (i.e. similar description snippets, thin pages, etc).

Like steveb said, I haven't seen 301s on my supplmenetals followed either, but one can only hope. Anyway, I would figure out why the original went supplemental before creating a new folder, else those new pages may end up supplemental as well.

internetheaven




msg:3043998
 5:38 pm on Aug 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Anyway, I would figure out why the original went supplemental before creating a new folder, else those new pages may end up supplemental as well.

You mean you don't think that they went supplemental because there was an exact mirror in the test folder?

What other causes are there?

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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