37 replies to this topic

[designbug]

Hi there,

I'm going to be changing an existing site over to a new domain when it's done. It's a redo of a site that's been doing pretty darn good in the rankings.

Well, all I've read not only here but other places says to do the 301 ... but then just recently this article was brought to my attention and thrown my thinking out of whack! It makes sense but it's not a 301 (which also makes sense) and has always been my understanding of "the way to go" when doing something like this.

So, I'm looking for some of you to have a read on the article (which is from a highly regarded source not some fly by night operation) and give me your input:

http://www.searcheng...5/0816_sc1.html

I want to do this right ... and after reading the article, I'm nothing but confused.

Thanks so much!

[Randy]

Scottie's article is spot on Deb.

If the new domain is really new, you'll want to do a 302 in the beginning so that you can maintain some rankings. The rankings will be of the old domain, but you'll get the traffic through the new domain because of the automatic redirection.

Continue to build out the new domain, get links, etc just as you would for any new site. Then once it has emerged from Google's aging delay switch your 302 over to a 301, realizing it's going to take 4-6 months from that point for the links pointing towards the old domain to be transferred to the new domain.

[Jill]

(which is from a highly regarded source not some fly by night operation)

Well of course, it's our own Scottie's article. Glad to see that people are finally giving it the respect it (and she) deserves.

If you check out our aging delay thread (where I'm moving this) designbug, you will find more info on Scottie's article and this topic in general.

[designbug]

Thanks to you both and I will check out the thread. I definitely need to have a better understanding of this before proceeding.

Deb

[Jill]

You'll want to check out the other threads within the aging delay forum as well.

[Pianist718]

Even though the 302 and then 301 strategy seems like a valid point I have to bring up what was mentioned in the recent Vegas PubCon.

"There is no good reason to use 302 redirect for anything"

Your thoughts?

[Randy]

They just forgot to mention the one and only time there's a good reason. Probably because they don't yet know that the reason exists.

[Jill]

"There is no good reason to use 302 redirect for anything"

Obviously, in this case there is.

[designbug]

Scottie's article is spot on Deb.

If the new domain is really new, you'll want to do a 302 in the beginning so that you can maintain some rankings. The rankings will be of the old domain, but you'll get the traffic through the new domain because of the automatic redirection.

Hi all,

I need to revisit this because things have changed a bit since I first inquired on this. Originally, the old domain was going to be switched over sto the new hortly after I posted. That didn't happen. It currently looks like this week will be the changover, so we're talking several months after I originally posted my question.

In the mean time ... the new domain has some good rankings of it's own through Yahoo & MSN - and as I recall (I'm not at my desk to be sure) Google as well. It's actually got a Google Page Rank of 4/10 for the home page and other pages have Page Rank too, but last I knew Page Rank was broken I'm thinking that really doesn't matter.

It's probably been a year, maybe more that the domain name itself was established and that pages were uploaded to it so it's been gathering time under it's belt for at least a year. Minimal rankings began showing up 4-6 months ago and at this point they're pretty darn good in my opinion.

So, my question at this point is - at this point under the current conditions - do I 301 or 302? I'd really like to cut it loose on a 301 but if you feel 302 is better yet for awhile ... I'll go with the expert opinions here. If you recommend 302 - for how long do you think I should keep the 302 in place?

Thanks much!

[projectphp]

What do you think you should do?

[Randy]

If the new domain has emerged from the aging delay I would 301 it personally. There's no reason for using a 302 if that's the case. However you'll want to do everything you can to verify that it's actually emerged.

[designbug]

What do you think you should do?

Actually, I'm leaning towards a 301 but because the 302 is new to me I felt better verifying (or not!) my feelings by running it throug here.

If the new domain has emerged from the aging delay I would 301 it personally. There's no reason for using a 302 if that's the case. However you'll want to do everything you can to verify that it's actually emerged.

Sounds good but how do I best verify it's actually emerged?

[Jill]

I would also suggest a 301 for your situation. That should suit you just fine.

[Scottie]

I'd agree with a 301- it sounds like the new domain has already gained enough trust to rank on it's own.

[designbug]

I'd agree with a 301- it sounds like the new domain has already gained enough trust to rank on it's own.

Wow, straight from the author's mouth, LOL! Hi Scottie, nice to meet you. Thanks to you and Jill and all the others who responded. I just wanted to say to Scottie, thanks for writing the article that introduced me to the 302. What an eye opener!

Ok, 301 it is!