Big Change To Urls, Worried about hit on Google Options

[daniel]

When our site was originally created, the developer who worked on it then had problems with the URL re-writing, and we ended up with case sensitive URLs.

We're looking to address this now, as the growth of the site and the case-sensitive URLs are causing all sorts of problems (duplicate pages, etc.).

We rank very well on Google, and I'm concerned that if we wholesale change the URLs to lowercase (and force the old URLs to the new ones using 301 re-directs) that it will have a negative impact on our Google listings/rankings.

If we change the URLs from site.co.uk/Word/Another-Word.aspx to site.co.uk/word/another-word.aspx and change all the links on the site to match this, and re-direct all the old URLs to the new ones using 301 re-directs, will we suffer a drop in our rankings? If we will, how long will it take to 'recover'. The external links we've got pointing to our site are site.co.uk/Word/Another-Word.aspx, and we want maintain the rankings they currently enjoy with the site.co.uk/word/another-word.aspx URLs.

Going forward it makes sense (it should have been like this from the start), but how big is the step back going to be?

[Randy]

but how big is the step back going to be

It shouldn't be a huge setback, but there likely will be one. How much depends upon how the engines currently list your site for your chosen keywords. If every SERP listing you have now displays a mixed case url, they will need to be updated. If some SERP listings are mixed case and some are all lowercase, some of them will need to be updated.

FWIW I think it's a very good idea to make the correction, even if it means some short term issues. With these things the sooner the better is normally the way I approach them. Because even if sooner means some pain, later typically means even more pain.

As far as time frames go... Expect to start seeing some movement within a few weeks. And expect it to take 4-6 months for the entire process to complete. If you get a little bit lucky the old mixed case URLs won't start dropping out of the index until the new ones can directly replace them in the SERPs. This is what I see most often with these sorts of situations these days. That said, there is no guarantee and it's sitll a bit of a crapshoot in the short term.

[daniel]

Thanks Randy.

It shouldn't be a huge setback, but there likely will be one. How much depends upon how the engines currently list your site for your chosen keywords. If every SERP listing you have now displays a mixed case url, they will need to be updated. If some SERP listings are mixed case and some are all lowercase, some of them will need to be updated.

Yes, Google has indexed and is ranking the pages with the 'Title Case' URLs, as these are the ones in use on the site at the moment, and the ones with inbound links from other sites.

FWIW I think it's a very good idea to make the correction, even if it means some short term issues. With these things the sooner the better is normally the way I approach them. Because even if sooner means some pain, later typically means even more pain.

Just don't want the short-term pain to be excruciating. We've worked hard to build a fantastic presence on Google- it would be a huge shame to see that wiped out in one fell swoop.

As far as time frames go... Expect to start seeing some movement within a few weeks. And expect it to take 4-6 months for the entire process to complete. If you get a little bit lucky the old mixed case URLs won't start dropping out of the index until the new ones can directly replace them in the SERPs. This is what I see most often with these sorts of situations these days. That said, there is no guarantee and it's sitll a bit of a crapshoot in the short term.

I'm hoping it's going to be weeks and not months. On our side is that Google frequently spiders the site, we rank well for a host of aggressive phrases (so we must be doing something that Google likes), and when we've added new sections to the site we've been listed and started ranking well in a fairly short time (and then those pages have stayed put in the SERPs).

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/crossfingers.gif)

[daniel]

I have another question (actually two).


Our developer has managed to successfully implement the 301 redirects for HTTP 1.1, but it they aren't correct for HTTP 1.0.

Are some of the search engine spiders still using HTTP 1.0, and therefore do we need to get the redirects right for 1.0 as well as 1.1? Or are all the major search engine bots using 1.1? (A quick search through our log files shows googlebot declaring itself as 1.1 and slurp as 1.0).

If the answer to that question is yes, we do need to worry about 1.0, then does anyone have experience of creating 301 redirects in ASP.NET to work for HTTP 1.0 as well as 1.1?

This post has been edited by daniel: Dec 6 2007, 12:52 PM

[Randy]

Well, let's start with that you cannot do anything about the wonky HTTP Version 1.0 error messages. That module was buggy from the beginning and was never fixed. So don't worry over it since you won't be able to do anything about it anyway.

Without getting all technical, most servers these days will accept HTTP 1.0 requests, but will deliver an HTTP 1.1 answer if the user agent will accept it. And since more UA's don't insist upon a 1.0 answer, you're pretty safe as long as the 1.1 response is what it needs to be. Last time I checked, this rather strange thing is what happens with all of the major search engne spiders.

[daniel]

Well, let's start with that you cannot do anything about the wonky HTTP Version 1.0 error messages. That module was buggy from the beginning and was never fixed. So don't worry over it since you won't be able to do anything about it anyway.

Without getting all technical, most servers these days will accept HTTP 1.0 requests, but will deliver an HTTP 1.1 answer if the user agent will accept it. And since more UA's don't insist upon a 1.0 answer, you're pretty safe as long as the 1.1 response is what it needs to be. Last time I checked, this rather strange thing is what happens with all of the major search engne spiders.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/phew.gif)

Thanks Randy - I think you've settled my anxiety a little there then.

Just to clarify - if the 301 is working perfectly for 1.1, but is throwing a strange response for 1.0, I shouldn't worry about that (with regards to the major search engines)? They will take the 1.1 response and follow that rather than the rubbish being shown in the 1.0 response?

(remember, small words with few syllables work best for me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) )

[Randy]

if the 301 is working perfectly for 1.1, but is throwing a strange response for 1.0, I shouldn't worry about that (with regards to the major search engines)?

Right.

How's that for small words. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)

If you need to confirm it for yourself, watch your raw log files for a bit, paying particular attention to the response header given for any of your moved pages.

Typically a forced HTTP 1.0 response for a missing-but-redirected page would ignore the redirect and deliver a 404 Not Found. Since the spider UA's only report themselves as HTTP 1.0 clients, but don't force HTTP 1.0 you should see that the server sends a (correct) 301 status response. As long as you see the 301 code in the raw server logs you're good to go.

[daniel]

Right.

How's that for small words. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)

If you need to confirm it for yourself, watch your raw log files for a bit, paying particular attention to the response header given for any of your moved pages.

Typically a forced HTTP 1.0 response for a missing-but-redirected page would ignore the redirect and deliver a 404 Not Found. Since the spider UA's only report themselves as HTTP 1.0 clients, but don't force HTTP 1.0 you should see that the server sends a (correct) 301 status response. As long as you see the 301 code in the raw server logs you're good to go.

Thanks Randy.

Here's a virtual beer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ale.gif)

[daniel]

OK - thought I'd report back now we've made the changes.

The good news is that Google has been back, has recognised the new URLs, and has started to list these in the same place as the old URLs. So it looks like the redirects are working as hoped and it looks like there's been no immediate problem for us. Only time will tell if Google decides to maintain these strong rankings for the new URLs - I'd like to think there's no reason it shouldn't.