19 replies to this topic

[ScruffMcDuff]

We have a bit of a situation at the moment whereby our client has informed me that they need to change domain for their website. Its all to do with corporate rebranding and politics.

Anyway, the existing domain ( www.currentdomain.com) that we have been working on to improve rankings, and linking to, was initially registered in May 2000.

All links go to this domain and it is rating very well for specific keywords.

The new domain name (www.newdomain.co.uk) does not appear to be ranked by google at all. If I try site:www.newdomain.co.uk I get nothing. However, this domain was registered in May 2000.

www.newdomain.co.uk is currently pointing to a specific section within the site of www.currentdomain.com.

The switch to the new domain needs to happen at the beginning of June this year.

I did read that a 302 would be the best thing to do here, but I am not 100% sure on this.

I don't want to screw it up.

Many Thanks

Scruff

[Jill]

If the aging delay is still a factor for sites in Google, it appears that the 302 is generally your best bet at this time. But that means the old domain name will show up in the engines, I believe. So if they can't have that happen for legal reasons or anything else, they would have to go with the 301 and wait it out.

I would imagine that Google might be aware of these issues, and perhaps they will allow the 301 to work for new domains at some point in the future, but I don't work with new domains enough to know what the current status is, or what it will be in the future.

You may have to try it one way or another and see what happens. Best choice, obviously is no change at all!

If there's any way you can get the new site out there into the world with some links, with different content than the old site, you could start that aging process now, and perhaps be prepared for June.

[ScruffMcDuff]

Jill

There are no legal reasons for not showing the new domain.

From what you say, then it seems 302 is the way to go.

As soon as the 302 redirect is in place we will have all new links from now on point to the new domain.

Would it be best to try and get the existing links changed to point to the new domain now, or would these be best left alone.

Currently if I try a linkdomain:www.currentdomain.com search in Yahoo I get 627 results, in Google link:www.currentdomain.com I get 77?

So there would be a fair bit of work to do (not sure why the difference is?)

Scruff

[torka]

Main reason for the difference in link counts is that the link: command in Google is broken.

I'd say it would be a good thing to get at least a few links pointing to the new domain now, start the clock ticking on the aging delay (assuming the new domain is going to be subject to the aging delay in the first place). But I wouldn't go full out on it yet, as you don't want to torpedo the existing domain until you're ready to make the switchover. (I should note this is my speculation as I haven't had to work on too many domain changes such as this lately. I'm perfectly willing to change my advice if someone with more experience disagrees. )

Of course, once you've made the change, you'll want to get as many as you can of the links pointing to the old domain changed to point to the new as quickly as you can.

--Torka

[Jill]

Would it be best to try and get the existing links changed to point to the new domain now

Yes definitely. How do you have the two domains configured now? Is the new one just parked as an alias. That could actually be a way to go and skip the 302 if you wanted. Especially if you're changing all the links.

[ScruffMcDuff]

Have just been trawling though the various posts on this board.

See this thread.

Randy says: Definitely use a 301 over a 302.

Google has some major issues with how they're handling 302 redirects currently, so they're simply not safe to use at this point.

Does this apply at the moment, and what are the issues, if any, with Google?

Any ideas?

Scruff

[ScruffMcDuff]

Yes definitely. How do you have the two domains configured now? Is the new one just parked as an alias.  That could actually be a way to go and skip the 302 if you wanted.  Especially if you're changing all the links.

The new domain is not parked. It is pointing to a page within the current site.

Scruff

[Jill]

Google has some major issues with how they're handling 302 redirects currently, so they're simply not safe to use at this point.

That was not in reference to the aging delay, however. Please read our aging delay thread for specific info on that.

The new domain is not parked. It is pointing to a page within the current site.

What does "pointing" mean?

[ScruffMcDuff]

What does "pointing" mean?


In IIS I have set the default document page as a specific page within the website.

i.e. www.newdomain.co.uk homepage is secondarypage.html as opposed to the index.html page that the www.olddomain.com has as its default document page.

Hope that makes sense.

Scruff

[Randy]

Check the actual server response code on your newdomain.co.uk site Scruff. If you get a 200 OK it's going to be what we refer to as parked or aliased. A freebie tool you can use to see the server response code is WebBug. Just make sure you tick off HTTP ver 1.1 in the upper right corner before you load in your url address to make sure you're getting the real deal.

As to the previous quote goes, Google does still have issues with canonical stuff. That's why a 302 works for the aging delay workaround for new domain names where you're transferring an existing, known domain.

Like Jill I'm sure they're working on this. In fact, the recent and current Big Daddy update was supposed to be trying to cure some of the issues they have with 302's. Hopefully as part of this process they'll also sort it out to get it right in situations such as yours. However this is still a wish at this point.

[ScruffMcDuff]

Hi Randy

Tried this and I get.

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Via: 1.1 SERVON01
Connection: close
Proxy-Connection: close
Content-Length: 10184
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:14:34 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDSQRDCBAC=PPGOPFMDEGGHMMONKKHLJJNP; path=/
Cache-control: private

So I presume this means it is aliased, is that correct?

[Randy]

Yup. That would indicate it's aliased.

[Jill]

Which means you could start building links up to it now, and you could in fact just keep it this way until it came out of the aging delay, and then 301 the old one to it.

At least I think you could do this based on the limited info you've given us.

[ScruffMcDuff]

Jill/Randy

I am a little confused at the moment.

Couple of things.

Why would the new domain name be in the "ageing delay", especially as it has been registered since 2000?

Randy, as you know, I used the Weblog software app to find out if the "new" domain was aliased. Which the app says it is, giving the "HTTP/1.1 200 OK" result. However, the "old" domain also returns the same result?

(I am only using "old" & "new" to differentiate between the two domains, as they have both been around for six years).

The domain needs to be switched in June (contractural reasons). Therefore, is it viable to wait for the ageing delay.

Jill - what other info would be required to get a fuller picture?

Sorry if these questions are repetitive, but its in an area that I don't fully understand.
I thought the 302 was the way to go, but I have more doubt in my mind now.

[Randy]

It's a bit difficult to understand because the aging delay is somewhat new and combatting it is totally backwards from what common sense would indicate.

Why would the new domain name be in the "ageing delay", especially as it has been registered since 2000?

From everything I've seen the amount of time a domain has been registered has zero effect on the aging delay. The trigger seems to be when the first link or links began pointing at the domain. Not to an alias of the domain that contains the same content, but at the actual domain name.

So, in theory, if you've had some links pointing at the new domain --either because you actively sought them out or because someone linked to it without your prior knowledge-- it may not be affected by the aging delay. However on the other hand if there have never been any links pointing to the new domain, the amount of time it has been registered will have no bearing.

This is what you should probably spend some time trying to sort out. Are there any links currently pointing at the new domain, and if so can you figure out how long they may have been pointing to the new domain. The answer to these questions is going to change the advice we give.

1. If the new domain has had links pointing at it for years and years, you may be able to get away with simply setting up a 301 Permanent Redirect from the old domain to the new domain. Thus starting the transfer of link popularity from the old domain to the new.

2. If the new domain doesn't have any links pointing at it currently, you'll want to get this process started so that the clock starts ticking. You can leave it aliased for now, however you'll most likely want to put into place a 302 Moved Temporarily redirect in place from the new domain to the old one. This would allow the old site to maintain its ranking potential while the new domain works through the aging delay process.

Did that help?