SEO & Duplicate Content Question

[Wendy]

Oh, one more question! I can do either in my .htaccess, will Front Page extensions interfer with it, or should I have David set it up for me?

[Vic - WolfPaw Computers]

Use an FTP program to download it, not FrontPage and edit it in notepad, save, and re-upload.

Careful, notepad will rename it with a .txt extension. Be sure to change that before you upload it.

Oh, one more question! I can do either in my .htaccess, will Front Page extensions interfer with it, or should I have David set it up for me?

Just be sure to leave all the FP stuff in tact.

[Wendy]

Thanks Vic! I learned the hard way to use FTP instead of Front Page for most things LOL!

As a matter of fact, I'm going to remove the Front Page Extensions soon too! Wow! I'm really moving up in the world! :D

[larryh]

301 means that the resource (page) has permanently moved
302 means that the resource (page) has temporarily moved

In essence, the 301 tells google that the old page no longer exists at all in the old location, but has been moved to a new location. This should NOT cause google to treat it as a new site, but to update its index to reflect the new location.

There are also suspicions that some search engines (google included) penalize sites that use 302 redirects. Check out the following article for more information on 301 & 302 redirects:

http://www.seotoday.com/browse.php/c.../477/index.php

[Wendy]

Well, now I'm totally confused because the other article says the exact opposite:

It says:
Permanent Redirect Not Always the Best Choice

Conventional wisdom will tell you to redirect the old domain to the
new domain using a 301 "permanently moved" response. This tells the
engines that the old URL is no longer going to be used and the new one
is the correct one, so that they can update their index with the
appropriate URL.

However, if you follow this usually accurate advice, you'll find the
new pages do not automatically assume the positions of the old ones in
Google...they will remain off the chart. Even though you are telling
Google that this site is exactly the same as the old one, the aging
filter will still apply. This doesn't seem like the best strategy, as
your site will remain in oblivion until it ages properly.

Temporary Redirect is the Way to Go

By using a 302 "temporarily moved" response instead of a 301, the
original URL will remain in Google's index, and maintain its position
as if the page were still there. However, visitors who click on the
link will be brought to your new URL, exactly where you want them to
be. It's the best of both worlds -- you retain your rankings during
that interim aging period, but visitors are redirected to the updated
and correct domain.

Once the 302-redirect is in place, it's imperative to start a linking
campaign for the new site. You'll need links pointing to it in order
for it to be ready to rank highly when it's released from the aging
filter. When you notice the new domain starting to show up in the
rankings (anywhere from 6-12 months, typically) then it's time to
contact your previous linking partners to update their links from the
old domain to the new one.

The Final Move

Once the new domain has properly aged, go back and change the
302-temporary redirect to a 301-permanent redirect. This will
transfer the link popularity from the original site and finalize the
move to the new domain. It's a good idea to retain those original
pages at the old domain until you are reasonably sure all the links
around the 'Net have been updated with your new URL.

Moving a site can be a real pain, but by following this strategy you
won't have to sacrifice your hard-earned Google rankings while waiting
for the clock to tick.

Okay, so now my head is spinning

[larryh]

Well ... you know what they say about opinions ... ;)

[Wendy]

YIKES! Read this article:

http://xona.com/2005/07/21.html

It seems to hit or miss?

[Wendy]

Hi All -- I wanted to re-visit this thread with an update.

I did follow the 301 re-direct advice, however, it didn't work out quite like explained or how I expected.

I did the re-direct on May 4. When you click on the old google links (the one's that are left) you do indeed get re-directed to the new site and the page has the old sites page rank (if you go directly to the same page on the new site without clicking a link from the old site, there is no page rank, but I expected that).

However the old site's indexing is dropping like a brick, today it's at less than 1,000 pages (it was close to 50,000 - which I'm sure was not exactly accurate). The new site is being picked up in the google index, and quickly, it's already up to 17,000+ pages -- but with a ZERO page rank.

It was my understanding that the old site's indexing would remain and be REPLACED with the correct domain name/URL so that the page rank would be retained.

So what gives? Why is the old site dropping from google's indexing? Shouldn't it have been replaced with the new sites when using the 301 re-direct?

I worked really hard for 4 years to get my site's page rank and now I see it going down the toilet -- is it going to take me another 4 years to get my page rank back? :(

Wendy

I didn't read the article, so I don't know if this was discussed in it, but: why don't you use 301 Redirects (301 = resource has been permanently moved) to direct pointerdomain.com to pointerdomain2.com, and a robots.txt file on mainsite.com to keep it from being indexed at all.

The advantages of doing this are:

1) users will never see broken links when they click from google (or any of the other search engines). 404 errors are bad, because the user thinks you're out of business and just goes away looking for someone else.

2) when the googlebot crawls your pointerdomain.com site, and sees the 301 redirects to pointerdomain2.com, they will REPLACE pointerdomain.com with pointerdomain2.com in their index, and you should retain the same PR on the new domain.

If you haven't already, you should also create a google sitemap for pointerdomain2.com.