Forum Moderators: open
We did this throughout the site using redirects to let google know the pages had changed.
BAD MOVE!
We then read (when its too late to change back) in the Google Guidlines that this can cause some havoc and ruin the sites PR and therefore ranking.
Well it has and now we only have 101 pages out of 8000 or so indexed and we rank nowhere - has anyone experienced this before and got any recommendations for getting out of this mess?
Its been 7 weeks and the site is being almost ignored.
Plus scripting in all the stuff to bring the user back to the page they found in the SERPs, usually a content page, is a pain, and fails if the user has either cookies or javascript turned off, which leaves them stranded.
I used to love frames, but they are just too much of a pain with too little benefit in almost every regard.
All you have to do to keep your current url's is keep the file names as you create the new site, for example the frame page can be the main index page fot that section, or an overview, or anything, just don't dump it, the content pages can keep the same file name.
It's much better to go dynamic and script in navigation stuff etc for site maintainabity etc, I've also found that browsers don't handle either framed or iframed content well at all, there is a significant delay in loading all the frames content pages, because first the browser has to build the frame container page, then it has to fill in the content html pages, it's very inefficient, a page with all the stuff that was on the frame and content sections loads much faster than the corresponding frame+nav+content pages, I just did this switch and there is no comparison, also less server load by quite a big factor.
There are specific instances where frames are really good, like bringing in content from outside your site, but even then there's other ways to do that.
Although we are a bit off the subject the spirit of this thread is about how we do makeovers of websites, enhance their appeal in the serps, and avoid penalties in the process from Google.
Lets imagine we have to add a lot of new interesting content to a site with,say,6 sub-themes.(My problem this coming week)
How do we make most of the index page?
How important is it to flag all the 6 sub-themes on the index page. What, and how many, outward links should we permit on the page. What internal links? And, should all these links be html links?
Is it true Google rewards pages which are very quick to download?
With the arrival of Braodband the temptation is very great to make bigger graphics with bigger file sizes and consequently slower download speeds on conventional connections.
Why do so many designers still indulge in huge graphics on the index page and also slow loading flash?
Am I a basket case to be viscerally against these practises?
Although we are a bit off the subject the spirit of this thread is about how we do makeovers of websites, enhance their appeal in the serps, and avoid penalties in the process from Google.
Lets imagine we have to add a lot of new interesting content to a site with,say,6 sub-themes.(My problem this coming week)
How do we make most of the index page?
How important is it to flag all the 6 sub-themes on the index page. What, and how many, outward links should we permit on the page. What internal links? And, should all these links be html links?
Is it true Google rewards pages which are very quick to download?
With the arrival of Braodband the temptation is very great to make bigger graphics with bigger file sizes and consequently slower download speeds on conventional connections.
Why do so many designers still indulge in huge graphics on the index page and also slow loading flash?
Am I a basket case to be viscerally against these practises?
Don't know, but noframes and noscript were spammed to hell last year.... they must have noticed.
>Is it true Google rewards pages which are very quick to download?
Too much bloated code could trip or slow the spider, otherwise I'm not aware of any discrimination.
>With the arrival of Braodband the temptation is very great to make bigger graphics with bigger file sizes and consequently slower download speeds on conventional connections.
images will not make any difference as far as I know.
>Am I a basket case to be viscerally against these practises?
No :) People wait a few seconds to see a page, or they go. Many machines still can't cope with complicated and large downloads.
What you did was start over again. It takes about 3 months to get that many pages indexed in G and that is if you have an old site with good pr that gets spidered a lot.
9 days ago I renamed 50 pages on my site. I edited the sitemap to reflect the new files names. 7 days after the change, the new pages were indexed by Google and ranking high.
I was expecting the pages to take a month, but I was wrong. I could not use 301 redirects because this site is on a shared server with a lazy administrator, nor could I use an .htaccess file because it's a IIS server.
There is absolutely no proof of that. But there is proof that users reward fast loading pages.
Spam filtering aside, it seems to me the 301's work just fine based on the performance of pages on this site and changes on other sites where pr transferred with no problem, and I expect the redirects to show up on the next pr update, which has been a long time coming. I'll see soon I'm sure.
All new pages indexed within 1 week. all ahve pr0 but rank as if they had the same pr as the prvious inner pages.Home page kept its ranking
did not bother with any 301's
I think having higher pr at the time of changing page names softens the blow
I've been checking eveyday to watch the new urls show up on Google and about 50% of the higher level pages have switched without any loss in rankings. Pages that are a few levels deep still show the old url.
So my experience is good and Google works properly for 301s.
I switched to a brand new site also and 301'd over 100 pages.
Did you switch the site from one domain to another domain with the 301's or just changed the file names on the same domain?
So I had to make a hard decision to remove the previos team, and completely rebuild the site using 100,000 staic HTML pages on the original www.widget.com domain that had a PR6.
The site was launched Sept 4 2004, and we used the 301 redirect from all the hostnames (http://ac-p.widget.com)to the main url www.widget.com. We are also using the 301 within the main URL www.widget.com for the links that are no longer valid and pointing to the home page. Now since the old pages in the site were using the 404 handlers to render pages, we could not use the 301 at the directory level, we had to use it at the root www.widget.com/dir1/dir2/partname.asp.
A few days after the site was launched Google picked up 88 pages, and since then no more pages are being indexed. Our sales have dropped by 95% and we are dying fast. It has been almost 30 days and no Googlebot. Is it possible that since we are using the 301 at the root directory for all the old urls in the site that are no longer valid that we are telling google that www.widget.com has pemanantly been removed? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
<FRAMESET ROWS="100%,*" cols="100%,*" border="0" frameborder="0" framespacing="0">
<FRAME SRC="http://www.mysite.com" scrolling="auto" noresize>
</FRAMESET>
<BODY>
<NOFRAMES>
From what I am reading, this is not good. Since this opens the new home page index.php does google see this as dup info.
Should I simply have a 301 redirect added, or as I read early just have a page saying:
Are you looking for Mysite.com with a link to the new homepage (index.php)
I should also mention that in most other major SE's we are still #1 or #2 and in google using allinanchor:, allintext: and allintitle: we are #1 for our 2 word keyword phrase.
Is the abone frameset causing the trouble?
Help...
Now I understand the drawbacks to frames and I understand the problems the noframes tag and the abuse it CAN take, but I have never had any problems with it. How do I avoid any problems? I will actually create a user friendly static page that can be viewed from all browsers, more like a page of the site as it would appear if not using frames and I use this page in the noframes tag. Approaching it from this angle has never been a problem for me. I include all my text and links as if creating a normal page for use on the web.
I think where people get in trouble with frames is in realizing how easy it is to stuff the noframes tag with keywords and hundreds of links. That is when you get in trouble. You abuse it, your gonna loose it.
As for PR of framed sites, I have asked this question before on the forum and really have not had a satisfatory answer. I have a jscript on each page which checks to see if the frames are loaded. If not, then it defaults to the framed version. When I remove this script and look at the pages individually, I see that the main page might have a PR of 3, the left menu a 2 and the header a 2. BUT when I view the framed version of the site, I get a PR of 6 even though I do not have one individual page on the whole site that has a PR of 6. Go figure.
So, do you think I am going to redo my site and take it out of frames? No way. I am perfectly happy with the way it has worked out for me.
Just my 2 cents.
