Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
We have a PR7 site and are considering hiding file extensions in our URLs (for example, "news.aspx" would become just "news").
We plan to redirect traffic from the old URLs to the new ones using 301-redirects.
The question is, will Google discard the PR (inbound links) for the old URLs (for example "news.aspx") or will it "move" to the new URLs (for example, "news")?
Thanks for any informed opinions.
PS - the index page is the most visited page and it fortunately doesn't need redirecting because we don't expose the "index.aspx" filename.
My advice is don't do it, there's no crime in having file extensions and there is no justification for any pain that might come from changing URLs and forever managing the redirects.
Not really. Most probably you can configure your server so the old extensions work with the new technology as well. Don't we do that with htm fiels that are in fact php?
Look at you address bar right now. This page's URL ends with .htm. Yet almost all pages on this site are generated using a cgi script, and the file extension is actually ".cgi".
Since you are contemplating removing extensions from .aspx URLs but still using .aspx technology until your change-over, it should be obvious that the URL-path extension has little to do with the actual filepath extension. That is, mapping an extensionless URL to a .aspx file (now) is no different than mapping an extensionless URL to a .php or .jsp file (later).
Another obvious example is that you've already got "/" mapped to "/index.aspx" -- so the URL-to-filename "association" concept should be obvious.
But since there are apparently two goals here -- To go extensionless and to change the underlying server technology, one could also make the argument that if you were willing to take a temporary ranking hit now because you thought you had to change the URLs, then it might indeed be a good time to go extensionless -- Certainly better in most cases than in the end-of-year holiday shopping season.
On the other hand, if you sell lawn and garden supplies in the northern hemisphere, then now is probably not a good time... :) But as already mentioned, you will take a temporary hit in the SERPs if you change your URLs, and you will have to leave the 301 redirects from old to new URLs in place forever (or at least for years) if you want to continue to retain the PR from the old URLs.
Your previous .aspx URL PageRank will flow through the 301 redirects. However, it will take time --days to weeks to months-- for G to accomplish this initial flow, and this will only happen if there is only one 301 redirect per old URL: Be sure that any URL you redirect reaches the correct URL in one single 301 redirect, and don't "chain" multiple redirects. A good test is to request an old URL from a non-canonical variant of your domain. For example, if your canonical domain is www.example.com, then request "example.com.:80/old-url.aspx", and make sure that the domain, port, and URL-path are all canonicalized to "www.example.com/new_url" in one single 301 redirect. If not, then your redirect rules are likely not in the correct order (put the most-specific ones first).
I used the word "flow" above to try to make clear that a 301 does not accomplish a "one-time permanent switch-over" of PR from the old URL to the new; Instead, the PR flows through the 301 redirect continuously, and if the 301 is removed, then the PR ceases to flow.
Jim
If a document A gets e.g. 1000 inbound links and document B gets e.g. 2000 inbound links, and then document A redirects to B, which redirects to C, then A and B should have no PR, and C should have the PR of A+B+C with identical inbound links merged (disregarded for A and B). Am I missing something?
[edited by: true_INFP at 3:57 pm (utc) on Mar. 14, 2009]
Run a tight ship, and rely on the search engines to 'get it right' as little as possible; All those back-end canonicalization/de-duplication and Webmaster Tools clean-up functions are unnecessary on a properly-configured server, and they do not scale well to an ever-expanding Web.
Jim
Redirect existing PR5 URL 'A' to new URL 'B' which redirects to new URL 'C' which redirects to new page at 'D'.
Redirect existing PR5 URL 'X' directly to new page at 'Y'.
Wait several months, and then look at the toolbar for both URL 'D' and URL 'Y'.
I'd re-iterate what I said about running a tight ship but on the other hand, perhaps you're a competitor in my niche. In that case, go ahead and use as many levels of redirects as you like -- just to make your job easier, of course. ;)
Jim
Ideally, Google should confirm this officially.
Google reps have said publicly to "avoid chains of 301 redirects." Sometimes PR might still pass, but sometimes it won't.
Here's an official Q&A
Quentin, Vancouver: How many chained 301 redirects does Google not "like"?Nathan J: It's ok to chain a few together; I would avoid doing a whole bunch, like 20 or 30. :)
JohnMu: As far as I know, the HTTP 1.0 standard allows for a maximum of 5 redirects for a URL. That said, search engines might treat it in different ways, so I'd recommend reducing the redirects to a minimal number.
Googles 3rd Live Webmaster Chat [groups.google.com]
That chat has a wealth of official responses from Google about various "corners" in the way Google works.
To appreciate more about why you don't get a black and white answer, it helps to appreciate the spamming history that Google must work with.
There were all kinds of redirect games that used to work to manipulate Google rankings. This was before the average webmaster even heard of 301 and 302. So Google had to put a lot of trust-checking in place to short-circuit those manipulations. So today, a particular 301, individual or chained, might transfer PR, anchor text and whatever eventually - but it may also be a slow, slow process.
Google reps have said publicly to "avoid chains of 301 redirects."
Did they? Nathan J apparently said "It's ok to chain a few together".
Read a reply from Berghausen of Google.
A few of chain redirects seems to be OK but it would not be recommended.
...a few months later...
Q: I've dropped rankings and my site is purer-than-pure, whiter-than-white, non-manipulative. What happened?
A: It's REALLY hard to diagnose as there is multiple instances of short-cutting involved. Google might take a dim view of this and that as they try to judge intent, hard to be sure really.
Q: How are you supposed to avoid penalties given G's capricious nature
A: Use best practice.
--------------
Some things SEO are an art, such as structure and content. Some are science, such as a properly configured server. Why push the envelope when there IS a correct answer.
If you do not clear up your redirects now, chances are you never will (or and/or it will be insanely hard). Eventually you will have a chain that DOES breach the limits, what happens then.
