Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I still see internal links to default.asp from every other .asp page even though I have updated most of the relative /default.asp links to www.site.com since I 301 redirected it. I am seeing this in Open Site Explorer for one.

(I'm sure my lack of understanding has to do with not quite getting the purpose of default.asp.) Anyways, I am wondering if all the relative links throughout the site pointing to other .asp pages need to be updated to absolute links (so www.site.com/page.asp instead of /page.asp) for me to avoid this problem. Does one even have anything to do with the other?

Could the code I used explain why Open Site Explorer won't let me view link data for www.site.com, but shows me www.site.com/default.asp instead? And within that data it shows an incoming link from www.site.com as a 301 redirect. But when I check it in a browser or redirect checker, it shows www.site.com as the final destination. My head hurts.

Edit: (This is what OSE says "The URL you've entered redirects to another URL. We're showing results for www.site.com/default.asp since it is likely to have more accurate link metrics. See data for www.site.com instead?")

Nishada, you mentioned adding nofollow to the page.

Is another possibility to just no-index, follow the contact page and the consultation page? But they will still show as the top linked pages in Google Webmaster Tools. Does that matter?

There has to be a best solution here - I myself don't know what it is.

The Internal Links section of Google Webmaster Tools shows consultation.asp as the top-linked page (1309 links). Contact.asp is not far behind at #4 (713 links). Neither needs to rank. There are hundreds of other pages that do.  Am I confused to think that by decreasing the number of links to these pages, I will allow other pages to rank higher?

So if nofollow is not the best idea, should I just decrease the number of links?

That's your page's title tag. If you view the page's source code (click Ctrl U) you will see <title>Page Title</span><span class="webkit-html-tag"></title>. You just need to change that in the html of the page.

If your site is Wordpress (which often uses the dash automatically as separator) go to your Settings, then General, then Site Title and see if you see Unrelated Keyword there.

I don't have access to the control panel and the person who does never did the redirect when I asked so i just did it myself with .htaccess. So did you say I should change it to your code and that will handle everything, including the double redirect?

(Edited out a question that I figured out the answer to.)

So you are saying I should use the following exact code instead of the code I have:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [R=301,L]

And that will take care of the default.asp and index.html as well? And it won't redirect to the www in between, thus creating 2 redirects, correct?

If you don't mind explaining, what's the working difference between the first code I tried (below) and the above code that makes the above code work?

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www..* [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L]

I didn't build the site, nor do I have anything to do with the hosting, but I do have FTP access. I can't remember how or why but I came to the conclusion that it's ASP Classic. Is there a quick way for me to double check? All the files end in .asp if that helps.

I would like to politely add (and first say that I do appreciate anyone's attempt at a helpful response) that it's a very delicate matter to be giving answers without 100% certainty or valid first-hand experience. At least we as a community should be careful to include somewhat of a disclaimer should our answers be anything less than certain. I, for one, do not want to steer anyone down a dangerous path. I do understand it's my responsibility to gauge the accuracy of an answer before I implement it. Think of the potential consequences to someone else if they implement bad/incorrect advice on a site - ouch!

Thank you Paul! Knowing the WHY behind something always solidifies my understanding of a concept. It does make me wonder why the cheat sheet linked by Sangeetac and Moz's Beginner's Guide to SEO both use that scenario as an example for a 301 redirect - it certainly adds to the confusion.

Alan - while we are on the subject...here is the code I used for the 301 redirect, which was my first ever using .htaccess. The problem is it redirects twice from certain starting points: first from site.com/default.asp to www.site.com/default.asp then to www.site.com/.

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} /index.html? [NC]
RewriteRule ^(./)?index.html?$ /$1 [R=301,L]
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} /default.asp? [NC]
RewriteRule ^(./)?default.asp?$ /$1 [R=301,L]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www..* [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L]

Initially I tried this (which I think is what you are suggesting?), but if I remember correctly, it wasn't taking care of default.asp or index.html (don't quote me on that):

RewriteEngine On

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www..* [NC]

RewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L]

Thanks for helping me do things the right way!

And I just did a site operator search fror default.asp and index.htm and they are no longer in the index, though I never removed them after the 301 redirect. So I'm assuming Google did the math as expected.

Please excuse the typos - my iPad does not like complying

Thanks for the link to that cheat sheet, I had forgotten about that! I have to say, the contradictory information I find and receive regarding SEO can make learning feel counterproductive half the time. Last time I asked this question, I was told 301 redirects were the correct plan of action. Are they equally good so long as I remove the others from the index? I am still seeing default.asp in some report

I used 301 redirects to point several versions of the homepage to www.site.com. i was just rereading moz's beginners guide to seo, and it uses that scenario as an example for rel canonical, not 301 redirects. Which is better? My understanding is that 301s remove all doubt of getting links to the wrong version and diluting link equity.

Let's assume my motivation isn't to increase link juice, but to avoid pointing at my contact page shouting 'this is the most important page on my site!' I'm currently facing a situation where the most linked to page (internally) is a consultation page (essentially a contact form).

So, instead of nofollowing site-wide links to a contact page and a consultation page, should I no-index, follow the pages?

I have seen conflicting information regarding the use of rel=nofollow on internal links, but the gist of it seems to be that it's not a good idea. The top linked page on a particular site is a consultation page. Contact is not far behind. Both are linked from the header and footer or sidebar. At first, I thought no-following them would be the perfect solution. After what I've read, it seems I need to remove some of the instances of linking instead of nofollowing. Any e firsthand experience or feedback?

First, I'd suggest thinking of all the possible intentions of that search...

The real question is why would you want to attract traffic that likely won't convert? do you think the people typing 'cut throat razor' in searches are actually your target market? If not, imagine the bounce rate, which will have a negative impact on your site's ranking if it's extreme.

my suggestion would be to start looking at attracting long-tail traffic or using a a tooll like ntopic, or seochat's related keywords tool to get more relevant traffic around your target phrase.

good luck!

Here I am (partially) answering my own question...

i just this minute checked a fresh crawl report from Moz which shows that the no-index/follow I implemented in Wordpress SEO for pagination is very much to blame. (Though perhaps not entirely) I just checked Google Analytics for a parallel pattern in traffic, but I don't see one. I did seem stagnant compared to last month a few days ago, but it's up a little now. Being proactive was my motivation.

I would definitely still love some insight to my questions, as I am sure I am nowhere out of the woods on this site. I hope my acronym isn't keeping anyone at bay

I have verified quite a few listings and I am allowed to verify most by phone number, but not all.  I'm pretty sure it's based on some sort of 'trust' factor. I did have a phone option appear after I waited over a month fcard post card to no avail. I would say take your only option and verify by post card

#5 Unequivocally Wordpress + Genesis!