Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.80.87.250
Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
I would strongly recommend not using meta refresh-type or JavaScript redirects like that if you have changed your URLs. Instead of using those kinds of redirects, try to have your server do a normal 301 redirect. Search engines might recognize the JavaScript or meta refresh-type redirects, but that's not something I would count on -- a clear 301 redirect is always much better.
[google.com...]
[edited by: tedster at 1:37 am (utc) on Jun 30, 2010]
We've had several discussions here regarding the use of meta refresh when 301s were not possible because there was no access to the .htaccess file.
HEADER
directive. You need two lines of code; one to specify the 301 response, the other for the redirected URL. The URL part must include both the protocol and domain name. For root and for folders do NOT include the index file filename in the URL.
An instant (0 seconds) meta refresh worked like a 302 redirect; a 5 second delay worked like a 301 redirect.
Or was this an SEO test that determined GOOG treated it he same way they treat a page delivered with a true 302 header?
Page A, 0 seconds meta refresh to Page B.
Page B's content indexed under Page A's url. Page A content not indexed, Page B url not indexed.
Page C, 5 seconds meta refresh to Page D.
Page C content/url not indexed. Page D content and url indexed.
It was, I set up the test
I would strongly recommend not using meta refresh-type or JavaScript redirects...
That's nonsense, if it works best for my visitors that's what I'll use and I strongly suggest right back at you google that you fix your end to deal with it. If you penalize me for doing what I think is best for my visitors then it reflects poorly upon you, not me.