Meta Refresh tag on cache pages- GRRR!

[Bio-RadAbs]

Hi guys,

All of our product pages originate in a URL with a unique number but it redirects to an SEO url for the user. These product pages have blocks on the page and these blocks are automatically populated with our database of content.

Here's an example of the redirect in place:

• www.example.com/45643/xxxx.html

redirects to

• www.example.com/seo-friendly-url.html

The development team did this for  2 reasons.  1) our internal search needs the unique numbered urls for search and 2) it allows quick redirects as pages are cached.

The problem I face is this, the redirects from the cached are being tagged with 'meta refresh', yup, they are 302.

The development team said they could stop caching and respond dynamically with a 301 but this would bring in a delay. Speed wise, the cached pages load within 22ms and dynamically 530ms, so yeah half a second more.

Currently cached pages just do a meta refresh tagged redirect and I want to move away from this.

What would you guys recommend in such a situation? I feel like unless I place a 301, I'll be losing out on rank juice.

[Andy.Drinkwater]

I would sooner take the extra half a second to get this done correctly and as long as pages don't take like 4-5 seconds to load, then this really won't be an issue for Google. Don't forget, page speed is only one of hundreds of primary signals - content and quality are much higher up on the Google radar.

Remember, a 302 is supposed to be a temporary move. Do this the right way and don't look back

Andy

[Bio-RadAbs]

Developer's argument is that  a chain of redirects could add significant time to the real page. So the 1/2 second load time could go up if 20 people try and access the page at the same time. No good having a great page if it takes too long but then I'm going "c'mon we're not amazon or apple"

I'm with you though, I rather have the correct 301 redirect than a meta refresh, but i'm no expert when it comes to caching knowledge. My understanding is just that, it's a page that is cached so the system can load it quick for the search engine, that's it.

Do you think any additional value is there from an SEO standpoint in the caching? I know Google records a cached page but yeah, I see your point, better to get rid of the temporary redirect.

Thanks Andy, appreciate the feedback

[Andy.Drinkwater]

No problem at all.

As for a chain of redirects, this isn't how Google will see it. They even say that a redirect from one page to another is fine... it's when you get into the realms of 'page a --> page b --> page c' that it will become a problem.

A temporary redirect when used for a permanent move is a little dodgy to say the least and should be corrected. Also, what is the chance of 20 people hitting the same page at exactly the same second? And even if they do, it just means they each wait half a second rather than 22ms - I can see no problem with that whatsoever. Even at half a second, this is still very fast.

You can still cache pages through htaccess if you want - doesn't mean you have to ignore caching just because you do things the right way

Andy