Redirect Chains - Accept the 301 chain or link from the original page??

[jamesjackson]

Hi everyone,

I have a client that re-launched his site and it's gone from 100 pages to 1000 (new languages/increased product pages etc)

We've used 301's to map the old site to the new database driven site. BUT the new site is creating extremely long URL's:

e.g. www.example.com/example_example_example/example_example_example_example

Obviously I want to change these URL's:

THE PROBLEM.....

I am worried about the Chain Redirects. I know two 301 redirects is okay (although it's not great), but I wonder if there is an alternative:

When I've implemented the new URL structure the chain will look like this:

www.oldsite.com 301 redirects to www.newsitewithdodgyurls.com which then 301 redirects to www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com

Seeing as the new site has only been live for a month, and hasn't really gained many external links, should I:

301 from the original site (www.oldsite.com) straight to the new site (www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com)? If so, what would I do with the pages that I have not redirected? Let them 404?

OR

Leave the 301 chain in place?

Your advice, and any other suggestions would be much appreciated

Thanks

[RyanKent]

I think the correct thing to do is pretty clear.

301 the pages from the original site to their new URLs directly just as you suggested.

what would I do with the pages that I have not redirected? Let them 404?

The right thing to do is redirect them properly. Why would you leave any pages as a dead end 404?

How much time and resources do you have available for this project. That answer should be balanced with other factors:

Are the existing links worth the effort? Is this an older site with high quality links?

What is your SEO rank worth? Is the site's sales dependent on SERP? Since you are posting here, I would assume the answer is yes.

With only 100 pages involved, I would do whatever it takes to ensure each page is properly redirected to the appropriate page on the new site.

[RyanPurkey]

With the addition of a sitemap specifying only the great URLs and rel=canonical on those pages you should have the situation cleaned up in a tidy way.  It's not uncommon to have to redirect from a few older sources as a website ages.

[jamesjackson]

Hi guys, thank you both for your responses.

I don't think I framed my question correctly though. The 301 redirect issues I am worried about are:

A. server speed- too many 301 redirects is going to put an unnecessary load on the server and reduce speed =BAD

B. being penalised- too many 301 redirects can be viewed as aggressive PR sculpting and your 301's can be devalued )(see here) =BAD

C. Avoiding 301 redirect chains- Matt Cutt's interview with Rand in 2010 said 301 chains are not a good thing as a general rule (no need to watch video, it's in the text below) = BAD

SO....

Ryan K, I agree with you in your decision to direct from old site direct to new site. However, 404's are not necessarily a bad thing (see google's stance)

Ryan P, I agree with your suggestion of a sitemap

** So my plan as far as I see it is this:**

1. 301 redirect all the original site (www.oldsite.com) pages to the new URL's at (www.mynewsitewithgreaturls.com)

2. Any pages on the intermediary site (www.newsitewithdodgyurls.com) that have gained backlinks 301 them to the new site aswell

3. Let pages on the intermediary site with no SEO value 404

4. Create a prioritised sitemap (as per Ryan P's suggestion)

This solves the problem on chaining 301 redirects, it reduces the load on the server, and it avoids penalisation due to too many 301's

That's how I see it going down anyway. Would love to hear if you think that's the right plan of action.

Anyone else feel free to chip in aswell!!

[RyanKent]

Hi James. Please allow me to offer some clarifications:

A. server speed- too many 301 redirects is going to put an unnecessary load on the server and reduce speed =BAD

The concern is HOW the redirects are made. If your client has a URL www.oldsite.com, and he moves his entire 10k page site to a new URL, www.newsite.com, and he keeps his URL structure the same at the new site, then the entire re-direct can be done in a single line. In this case there is absolutely no additional load on the server.

Alternatively, if the new site structure is such that hundreds of rules need to be written to properly complete the re-directs, then yes, your speed can be impacted as each request requires the server to iterate through hundreds of lines of code to seek a match.

You shared there would be a change to the URL structure. Your 301 logic would depend on if the change follows a logical pattern to where a regex mapping can be created in a few rules.

B. being penalised- too many 301 redirects can be viewed as aggressive PR sculpting and your 301's can be devalued

C. Avoiding 301 redirect chains- Matt Cutt's interview with Rand in 2010 said 301 chains are not a good thing as a general rule

This refers to chain 301s, a practice that I do not use and would never advise. Go to the original site and ensure each page is properly directed to it's final location.

You can redirect all 100k pages of site A to site B and that would not be considered "too many redirects" nor page sculpting. When you re-direct from site A to site X to site Y to site Z then to site B (the final destination), that would be considered too many re-directs. This could happen even if the re-directs were within the same couple of sites. Even if the re-directs all worked, each hop is a leak in the link juice pipeline.

404's are not necessarily a bad thing

I agree, but a 301 is far superior IF you are keeping the content.

Let's say someone is looking for an article on the 1982 Corvette Stingray. He locates a search result, clicks on it and is taken to the article on your site. He is a happy search engine user, and now a happy visitor on your site. Everyone wins.

Using the same example, the person gets a 404 page on your site. There is an extremely high chance the user will simply return to Google and move on to the next result. Everyone looses.

404s should be used for content when it is highly unlikely a user will ever look for it in a search result OR if you no longer have the content. You would never want to 404 a link when you still have the content and know where it is located.

With all of the above noted, I agree with your plan. The pages with no value, meaning the pages are not searched for or you no longer have the content, can 404.

[jamesjackson]

Hi Ryan,

Thanks very much for responding in such detail, that's awesome.

Yeah, I think I'm abusing the 404 page a little. The vast majority of the thousand pages on the site will still exist but will be on different URL's (duplicate content ALERT!)

That as you rightly say could cause a problem for people landing on the site, and for duplicate content.

SO...

I don't want to do the thousands of individual redirects due to server load and potential penalties

Solution could therefore be to implement the rel=canonical tag on the intermediary site URL's pointing to the new site URL's, so although the pages aren't de-indexed, the new site URL's will soon be in a dominant position over the intermediary URL's in the serp's.

What do you reckon?

[RyanKent]

Solution could therefore be to implement the rel=canonical tag on the intermediary site URL's pointing to the new site URL's

No.

The canonical tag can only be used within a domain.

Since you have determined the URL structure will change, I would recommend finding a logic that would apply to all URLs so you can map from the old site to the new one. Even if each logic piece only applied to 10% of the site, then you can map everything over in a total of 10 redirects.

If your current sites URL is www.oldsite.com/product1 and the new site URL is www.newsite.com/retail/us/stores/items/products/1 you can still use logic to make the conversion IF this same logic can be applied to all, or a worthwhile percentage, of the site.

[jamesjackson]

Hi Ryan,

Thanks. I've confused the issue slightly. All these changes have been made on the same domain. It's only the URL structure that is changing. (sorry the examples I've used say something very different to that).

Your logic of finding mapping methods of redirecting is a solid plan though. I will work with the developer to implement it. And for anything I cant find logic for I will either 301 redirect or rel=canonical it.

Thanks again. That's hugely helpful.

[Houses]

Thought in general you could use canonical tag cross domain too http://moz.com/blog/cross-domain-canonical-the-new-301-whiteboard-friday