Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Permanent 301 Redirect


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
320 replies to this topic

#76 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 13 October 2004 - 07:23 AM

Which could then affect how any link popularity is passed.

There are a couple of approaches you can use to overcome this potential problem with a bit of scripting, however it really depends upon how concerned you are with link popularity getting passed. If you're not worried about it at all, or very little, simply append the affliate_id to your redirect string on the first domain and let it go at that. That's the simplest and safest solution all the way around.

If you are concerned about passing link pop you can set up a little script on your site to detect if the affiliate_id is present, then do a second redirect to the real page after setting a cookie or recording it to a db somewhere.

Another approach, given your description, would be to have the affiliate redirect without any affiliate_id. Then detect the referring domain and set the id based upon that information. Most affiliates don't like that approach one because it takes them out of the loop and they may not understand how it all works. Plus the rare visitor who doesn't allow referrer checking would not get any affiliate_id set.

#77 ElPresidente

ElPresidente

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 14 October 2004 - 01:14 AM

Thanks for the help there guys.

No, PR isn't a concern as this doman name is only going to be used as a pointer for the affiliate in question.

I had flirted with the idea of referrer checking but to be honest it is too much work for what is minimal gain.

Regardless, that advice is great help. Thanks a bunch.

#78 Shane

Shane

    HR 6

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 14 October 2004 - 08:54 AM

QUOTE(chrishirst @ Oct 12 2004, 04:57 AM)
The issue is that the 301 (Moved Permanently) is not transfered to the user-agent and the the location header is sent as a 302 (Found) only.

This problem does not occur using Apache on Windows (on the same test server) so is purely a IIS problem. I'll post a workaround when I've written it up.

We've seen a problem similar to this one using ColdFusion. Setting a "302 Found" header always got rewritten as "302 Object Moved." In fact "302 Anything at all" always got rewritten to "302 Object Moved."

It's like the headers are written at a lower level in IIS than ColdFusion had access to. Sounds like it may be the same problem here.

Not surprisingly, this isn't a problem in ASP. IIS will pass along whatever header you set via ASP without rewriting.

#79 tempy

tempy

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 09:12 AM

Ok. I'm basically there on all of this, however please bear with me on these questions.

In the redirect in the .htaccess, do I need to specify each page for the site that I want to redirect via a 301? Or do I just use the 'root' domain name?


Also, is there an issue with just changing the nameservers and park the old domain under the new doamian name?

Thanks for indulging me.

#80 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 10:37 AM

Hey Tempy !

If you're forwarding the entire domain you can have a one line .htaccess from the old site to the new.

Can you park the old domain and point it to the new domain via an alias? Yes. The "problem" with that approach is that all of the links pointing at the old domain will still point at the old domain. Not at the new one.

So you're basically dividing your efforts on the linking side of things and quite likely either one or the other will show up. The "less important" domain in the eyes of search engine will not show up in searches. Typically that's the newer domain since the old one had a head start and has more links already pointing at it.

#81 tempy

tempy

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 02:22 PM

QUOTE(Randy @ Nov 5 2004, 11:37 AM)
The "problem" with that approach is that all of the links pointing at the old domain will still point at the old domain. Not at the new one.

Ah yes, obvious really. :doh:

Thanks

The dilema I have is that I am essentialtially 'splitting' the content of a site. I want t develop the new one (using some of the content of the old as a starting point), but I'm not sure whether to leave the old one as an 'archive', or just call it a day and do a 301...

But, thanks again for the help.

#82 tempy

tempy

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 02:30 PM

OK. On a similar, but different, vein.

I have a site that I want to target locally at the Australian market, but also retain a 'global' presence.

The .com of this site does very well in Google, when searched for using 'Australia' in the keywords (it's a fairly specific subject area). However, it doesn't appear at all when users search for 'Australian web sites only'. I have bought the .com.au version of the site and have duplicated the contents (other than a different localised front page), but obviously, this is not going anywhere. At some point I may target the Oz site more at the local market, but it will always be largely a duplicate of the 'main' site.

What advice would anyone give me as regards this. Or would it be best to simply park the .com.au under the .com - or the other way around? Is this another case for 301 redirect?

I hope that all makes sense. Thanks.

Edited by tempy, 05 November 2004 - 02:36 PM.


#83 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 04:43 PM

Ian has covered the regional/geo-targeting issues better than I could every hope to in this thread.

Though he's talking mainly about Candian (.ca) domains in that thread the same information applies pretty much across the board to other regions of the world.

#84 tempy

tempy

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts

Posted 10 November 2004 - 09:49 AM

Hmmm.

I've added a 301 from the forum section of an old site to point at the forum section of a new site, with the new forum (transferred from the old site).

The old site has dropeed down to 3rd page from 1st page listings in Google. Should I have perhaps done a 301 with the whole site instead? The content is not duplicated and I have left the old site for archive purposes (with links to the new site).

huh.gif

#85 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 10 November 2004 - 12:31 PM

Give it at least few weeks before worrying too much about it tempy.

The forwarding is an immediate thing. The search engines doing all of the recalculations isn't.

#86 Connie

Connie

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 428 posts
  • Location:The Hills of Missouri

Posted 11 November 2004 - 02:05 PM

I just discovered that web bug will show a 200 for a 301 redirect if checking with the http version left at the default setting of 1, but will return a 301 if http version is set to 1.1. Thought I would ask here. What's the difference in the 2 settings?

#87 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,601 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 11 November 2004 - 05:50 PM

I noticed something similar with 404s on IIS servers recently. In http 1.0 you get a 404. In 1.1, you get a 302 redirect to the 404 page.

The thread about that situation is at http://www.highranki...topic=10597&hl=

#88 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 6,770 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 11 November 2004 - 06:47 PM

On a techie note, the differences you are seeing is the bug in the handling of host headers in HTTP/1.0 was fixed in HTTP/1.1 so virtual hosts were correctly recognised.
Also more status codes were added, but more importantly 302 became Found instead of Moved Temporarily and 307 was added as the Temporary Redirect.

#89 Connie

Connie

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 428 posts
  • Location:The Hills of Missouri

Posted 11 November 2004 - 07:17 PM

Thanks chrishirst.

You have set my mind at ease in regard to the discrepancies I was getting.

#90 sweepthelegnate

sweepthelegnate

    HR 6

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 903 posts
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 16 January 2005 - 01:58 PM

ok so I've read the whole thread and obviously I still don't know what I am doing.

If I understand it correctly if I have access to dns settings cname is the easiest thing to do.

here is my situation briefly two domain names on website...when a person accesses the site via the unprefered domain name I would like it to transfer them to the the correct name.

my options on setting up a cname is just one item entering the destination. This is what I did. on the unprefered name I set up a cname with the perfered domain as the destination. it still doesn't do what I would like it to do. Did I do it wrong? or miss a step?

thanks,

nathan




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!