Forum Moderators: open
- one week ago i moved a page to a different location and replaced it with a meta-refresh to the new URL (i know this isn't wise but anyway)
- yet the page is still in SERPs with yesterday's date (fresh tag) but the displayed extract comes still from the old page (the new page is almost blank)
- the cache showes a cached version of the NEW page (content i've put online on the new URL meanwhile) but still printing "this is google's cache of [old url]"
strange, isn't it?
[webmasterworld.com...]
Or am I completely wrong?
[webmasterworld.com...]
did you read until my last point?
the cache showes a cached version of the NEW page (content i've put online on the new URL meanwhile) but still printing "this is google's cache of [old url]"
in other words: cache for abc.html shows details that only appear on xyz.html.
Might just be a small glitch.
"the displayed extract comes still from the old page" and "the cache showes a cached version of the NEW page" sounds like Everflux. Maybe you're getting old and new Google versions (or old and Everflux versions).
> the cache showes a cached version of the NEW page (content i've put online on the new URL meanwhile) but still printing "this is google's cache of [old url]"
I haven't studied Google's approach to http-equiv redirects, but this sounds almost like normal dupe/redirect behavior. If Google sees that A.html redirects to B.html, then it makes sense to merge their records in the index (including backlinks) but keep the new content. If A.html and B.html are considered merged duplicates, then whichever one has more/better links to it may be listed instead of the other.
This is quite speculative, but it's my best guess based on your description.
I haven't studied Google's approach to http-equiv redirects, but this sounds almost like normal dupe/redirect behavior. If Google sees that A.html redirects to B.html, then it makes sense to merge their records in the index (including backlinks) but keep the new content. If A.html and B.html are considered merged duplicates, then whichever one has more/better links to it may be listed instead of the other.
yes, a.html uses a http-equiv redirect to b.html. google merging these two pages makes perfectly sense.
first, this is hot news to me, i always thought google would ignore http-equiv.
second, i thought i had proof google did ignore that, because before A redirected to B it was the other way round, B had redirected to A. and google did definitely not merge the pages. (google not merging backlinks was the very reason for my move.)
the only difference: in the second redirect i added a normal link with the anchor text "page permanently moved" to the redirecting page. could that have done the trick?
