32 replies to this topic

[compar]

Every time someone on this forum mentions changing or moving their URL the standard advice is to use a 301 page to set up a Permanent redirect.

I have some questions about this.

1. In the case where the URL is moved to a new server with a new IP the 301 page still has to be housed on the original server and using the original IP. Is this correct?

The problem I see with this is if the move was not amicable and the old hosting company does not cooperate then no redirection is possible. Have I got this right?

2. In the case where the name of the URL has changed but it resides on the same server then the 301 redirect can point to the new URL name.

However in this case we put an entry in the Apache 'http.conf' file that reads like this:

RewriteCond %{SERVER_NAME} www.oldurl.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/(.*)$
RewriteRule ^/(.*)$ http://www.newurl.com [R]

We also use this method for the people who still insist on having multiple domain names all pointing at the same site.

My question is in case 2. can anyone make an argument about which is the better method, a 301 page or the http.conf entry?

[robwatts]

With regard to Q1

Always make sure that the new files are in place on the new server prior to any move. This ensures for continuity of service during the transitional period.

When you change the nameservers for the domain from ns1.oldnameserver.com to ns1.newnameserver.com then in the case of google for example, it will simply find the new files on the new server, as the updated zone file is propagated throughout the net. You do not really need a 301 on the old server, as once requests are sent to the new IP, the 301 on the old server will become an irrelevance.

Having control of the domain name itself is key. If your host also controls your domain, then he could of course drag his feet and cause you problems...

[compar]

When you change the nameservers for the domain from ns1.oldnameserver.com to ns1.newnameserver.com then in the case of google for example, it will simply find the new files on the new server, as the updated zone file is propagated throughout the net. You do not really need a 301 on the old server, as once requests are sent to the new IP, the 301 on the old server will become an irrelevance.

This is almost completely the opposite of what has been said in another thread. Read http://www.highranki...p?showtopic=803 to see what I'm talking about.

In fact it was this other long thread about the dangers of moving a site without using a 301 page that prompted my questions.

[robwatts]

I wouldnt say that its *completely opposite at all*, sure, as you read in that other thread, it is a good idea to try and keep files in place at the old location and use a 301 where possible. Ron makes some valid points that make a lot of sense.

My experience of moving domains around multiple boxes over a period of time is that I haven't experienced any issues, by simply moving the domain, in fact, there have been occassions whereby I haven't left a 301 in place ( for the very reason you highlighted) and serps have been maintained.

I guess the real answer for you Bob, is that you should ensure that things remain amicable with your old host.

[Matt B]

I'll second Rob on this. We've transferred our entire hosting network to completely different IP blocks and service providers in the past. DNS usually propagated within hours, and never lost position in SEO'd sites.

It really doesn't seem to be as much of a issue as some think, IMO - I think most of the issue is with individual hosting companies that have done things incorrectly, creating massive horror stories. If they are a low-tier provider, then DNS could take hours to propagate. However, it doesn't hurt to be careful and consider every possibility.

[Jill]

I've never thought about putting a 301 redirect on the old server when keeping the same domain name. Never had a problem either, and have changed hosts numerous times throughout the year.

I do recommend leaving the old site up for a bit just in case, but even that isn't all that necessary in most cases.

Jill

[compar]

I wouldnt say that its *completely opposite at all*, sure, as you read in that other thread, it is a good idea to try and keep files in place at the old location and use a 301 where possible. Ron makes some valid points that make a lot of sense.

I didn't say it was"completely opposite" I said "almost completely opposite". I believe there is a subtle difference.

My experience of moving domains around multiple boxes over a period of  time is that I haven't experienced any issues, by simply moving the domain, in fact, there have been occassions whereby I haven't left a 301 in place ( for the very reason you highlighted) and serps have been maintained.

That is also my experience and I thought the alarm raised in the other thread was possibly a little overdone.

I guess the real answer for you Bob, is that you should ensure that things remain amicable with your old host.

No problem. I own the the hosting company. And I never argue with myself

Footnote: I've wanted to use that kiss smiley for a long time. But I would have preferred to offer it to one of the ladies on the forum. But as Mick Jagger says -- "You can't always get what you want."

Edited by compar, 11 September 2003 - 11:10 PM.

[compar]

The technical question I raised in this thread and which to date no one has responded is any preference from anybody between the two methods of redirections?

I personally think where appropriate the entry in the http.conf file is more elegant.

[robwatts]

lol, ok bob *almost* does change the meaning a wee bit.

I think its good thing for people to raise their observations relative to their experience, and to share their interpretations. How we choose to use this information is entirely up to us these are after all, just our opinions.

Good to see you found a use for that kissy smiley too.

Who knows, with a concerted charm offensive you might even have a lady or two falling at your feet!

Jill, Scottie, Chris...

[compar]

Good to see you found a use for that kissy smiley too.

Who knows, with a concerted charm offensive you might even have a lady or two  falling at your feet!

Jill, Scottie, Chris...

I don't think I will hold my breath.

[Ron Carnell]

In the good ol' days (which ain't that long ago), a site could be dropped from an SE index for a month or two just because your server was down for ten minutes -- if that ten minutes happened to coincide with the spider's visit. If the spider couldn't find your site, for any reason at all, you were often dropped until it could. Prematurely turning off an old IP after moving to a new IP was almost a guaranteed way to trigger such a drop.

As I indicated in the other thread, it's been two years since I moved a site, and a lot has changed in that two years. Google has specifically been documented as saying they do NOT drop a site the first time their spider can't find it. People have realized that 100 percent up-time isn't realistic, so they give us more fudge room than they did in the past. How much fudge room is still in question, however. The fact that Jill mentions, in that other thread, that she's heard of people being dropped indicates said fudge room isn't infinite. However, the fact that I haven't directly heard of such people being dropped indicates the fudge room isn't small, either.

Place your bets, gentlemen, and take your chances?

Bob, your technical question is easily answered, but first it has to be reworded.

A simple 301 redirect is of the form redirect permanent / http://www.newdomain.com/, while the example you cite in your first post is an example of mod_rewrite. The former is available on any Apache server, while the latter needs to be specifically compiled into Apache and may not be available on all servers. The mod_rewrite module is FAR more powerful than a simple redirect, meaning you can do much more, but there is also a much higher cost in terms of CPU resources. That power also represent a potential danger, in that it's possible for someone to inadvertently create a rewrite loop that can render the server quite thoroughly useless. In my opinion, those who "cut and paste" rewrite rules without really understanding how the rules work are playing with a lit fuse. Place your bets, gentlemen, and take your chances?

Which is better? Depends on what you need it to do. And, of course, on your intestinal fortitude.

The confusion in your question, Bob, is really one of location. I'm guessing you usually put a standard redirect in an .htaccess file and put your mod_rewrite rules in httpd.conf? That's fine, but there's nothing to say it has to be done that way. Both a simple redirect and the mod_rewrite rules can run in .htaccess. And both can run in httpd.conf.

Your gut instincts are, however, correct for most situations. Put them in the htppd.conf and they are read ONCE, when Apache starts, and never need to be read again. Put them (or anything else) in an .htaccess file and that file will be read every single time someone accesses a page on your server. Frankly, that's no longer the problem it once was, because most servers today have plenty of memory cache. The .htaccess file is so "popular" that is rarely gets flushed from cache, so a disk read is fairly infrequent. Obviously, that depends on the hardware, but it also depends on server utilization. If you're running 500 domains on the server, with 500 or more copies of .htaccess, the RAM cache can only be stretched just so far. Place your bets, gentlemen, and take your chances?

[Ron Carnell]

p.s. My advice when moving a domain to a new IP has always been to maintain both sites for at least a month. Adding a 301 Redirect to the old IP is a new twist, one I never used in the past when changing servers. As long as a spider could find "a" site, that was enough to keep me in the index, and eventually I knew the spider would clear its DNS cache and find the right site. The Redirect is NOT necessary, in my experience, and I only mentioned it in the other thread because Jill's previous post made me think of it.

Having thought further, not only is a Redirect not necessary, it's not even a good idea. Think about it. The spider visits the old IP, specifically requesting domain.com (per HTTP 1.1 protocols). And you want to redirect it where? Right back to domain.com? Not only won't that work, but it creates a nice little loop that can make that amicable split with your old host into a less than amicable one.

If you absolutely feel you must use a Redirect on the old server, make sure you are redirecting to the new IP address and not to the domain name. I think that's a bad idea, but at least it will work.

[compar]

The confusion in your question, Bob, is really one of location. I'm guessing you usually put a standard redirect in an .htaccess file and put your mod_rewrite rules in httpd.conf? That's fine, but there's nothing to say it has to be done that way. Both a simple redirect and the mod_rewrite rules can run in .htaccess. And both can run in httpd.conf.

Well Ron, you are guessing wrong. When I read all the reference to 301 pages -- and the last thread was not the only place I had seen this advice given -- I asked my techies "what the hell is a 301 page?". They said we never use them but always use the http.conf file for redirects.

Upon further investigation, apparently with the few clients who have actually moved their pages off our servers we have left everything in place for them for a few weeks or a month even though they did not pay us for this additional time.

I have had the opposite experience with a local ISP when people have moved from his server to ours. He is totally uncooperative and deletes all records of their web site immediately. Once before it even got moved and the client was forced to go to a back up copy. This is where the comment about amicable relationships comes from.

Now to your guess about .htaccess files. I have also seen several suggestion that these be used for redirection, but again my people tell me we never use them. The only redirection we do are from one domain name to another when we are hosting the site(s) and that via the http.conf file.

If someone does move their site we do no redirections of any kind. This has never resulted in anybody being dropped to my knowledge although I must admit if they are moving elsewhere they are no longer my prime concern and I don't monitor their search engine placement any longer. So they might have gotten dropped and I just didn't know about it.

[Ron Carnell]

I have had the opposite experience with a local ISP when people have moved from his server to ours. He is totally uncooperative and deletes all records of their web site immediately. Once before it even got moved and the client was forced to go to a back up copy. This is where the comment about amicable relationships comes from.

Unfortunately, that kind of story isn't unusual. That's why I always suggest, as I did in the other thread, not telling your old hosting company you're leaving until you have already left. Some companies, it seems, almost take it as a personal insult anyone would leave them and treat departing customers poorly. Very short-sighted, but all too common.

The only redirection we do are from one domain name to another when we are hosting the site(s) and that via the http.conf file.

I understand what you're saying, Bob, but the terminology is still confusing. It's a bit like saying you cut your meat loaf with your kitchen drawer, when what you really mean is the drawer is where you like to keep your butcher knife. Your redirects are via mod_rewrite, and you just like keeping them in your httpd.conf.

So do I.

[compar]

I understand what you're saying, Bob, but the terminology is still confusing. It's a bit like saying you cut your meat loaf with your kitchen drawer, when what you really mean is the drawer is where you like to keep your butcher knife. Your redirects are via mod_rewrite, and you just like keeping them in your httpd.conf.

So do I.

You can cut my meat loaf with a fork, but I've never tried the kitchen drawer.

I in turn understand what you are saying and agree your terminology is more precise.

I believe this calls for some sort of celebration. I think it may be the first time we have been in total agreement.