Redirects and site map isn't showing
-
We had a malware hack and spent 3 days trying to get Bluehost to fix things. Since they have made changes 2 things are happening:
1. Our .xml sitemap cannot be created https://www.caffeinemarketing.co.uk/sitmap.xml we have tried external tools
2. We had 301 redirects from the http (www and non www versions) nad the https;// (non www version) throughout the whole website to https://www.caffeinemarketing.co.uk/ and subsequent pages
Whilst the redirects seem to be happening, when you go into the tools such as https://httpstatus.io every version of every page is a 200 code only whereas before ther were showing the 301 redirects
Have Bluehost messed things up? Hope you can help
thanks
-
I agree with what effectdigital said. It looks like everything is in place and your non-www and you http versions of the website are redirecting to the https-www version of the site.
-
That attachment shows that non HTTPS and non WWW URLs are being 301 redirected to the HTTPS-WWW version(s). That's what you want right? From your screenshot it seems like it is working how you want
Just so you know, when you put one architecture into Screaming Frog (e.g: you put in HTTP with no WWW), it doesn't limit the crawl to that specific architecture. If the crawler is redirected from non-WWW non HTTPS to HTTPS with WWW, then the crawler will carry on crawling THAT version of the site
If you wanted to crawl all of the old HTTP-non-WWW URLs, you would need to list all of them for SF in list mode and alter the crawlers settings to 'contain' it to just the list of URLs which you entered. I'm pretty sure then, you would see that most of the HTTP-non-WWW URLs are properly redirecting as they should be
As for the XML thing it's very common especially for people using Yoast. I think Yoast is really good by the way, but for some reason, on some hosting environments the XML sitemap starts blank-rendering. Most of the time hosting companies say they can't fix it and it's Yoast's fault but I don't really believe that. If a file (e.g: sitemap.xml) cannot be created, it's more likely they went in via FTP and changed some file read/write permissions and due to it being more locked down, the XML cannot be created anymore. If you were hacked by malware, they were likely over-zealous when locking your site back down and it's causing problems for your XML feed(s)
-
see attachement
-
Hi, are you able to please interpret this for me. It looks like the non www versions are showing as https://www version on 200. the home page looks like the only 301???
-
Hi Carrie,
For your 301 redirects on the root level, it sounds like the .htaccess file has changed on the server. Can you try validating those other http and non-www versions of the website through other tools like ScreamingFrog? If you're still getting 200 response codes, I would advise raising the issue with Bluehost as this is something they can fix.
As for the XML sitemap, do you mean that you're unable to upload a file to that location? Have you tried sFTP?
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
301 Redirects Showing As 307 Redirects
Hi, Our clients are adamant that they have set up 301 permanent redirects on their websites, but when we check using Screaming Frog and various online HTTP status code checkers they are showing as 307 temporary redirects. Examples;
Technical SEO | | Webpresence
http://www.lifestylelifts.co.uk/home-lifts/
http://www.terrylifts.co.uk/ Again, the client says they are seeing 301 redirects. Why are we seeing 307's? Who is right? Very puzzling, any theories would be very much appreciated 🙂 Thanks in advance. Lee.0 -
Any SEO-wizards out there who can tell me why Google isn't following the canonicals on some pages?
Hi, I am banging my head against the wall regarding the website of a costumer: In "duplicate title tags" in GSC I can see that Google is indexing a whole bunch parametres of many of the url's on the page. When I check the rel=canonical tag, everything seems correct. My costumer is the biggest sports retailer in Norway. Their webshop has approximately 20 000 products. Yet they have more than 400 000 pages indexed by Google. So why is Google indexing pages like this? What is missing in this canonical?https://www.gsport.no/herre/klaer/bukse-shorts?type-bukser-334=regnbukser&order=price&dir=descWhy isn't Google just cutting off the ?type-bukser-334=regnbukser&order=price&dir=desc part of the url?Can it be the canonical-tag itself, or could the problem be somewhere in the CMS? Looking forward to your answers Sigurd
Technical SEO | | Inevo0 -
Changes to 'links to your site' in WebMaster Tools?
We're writing more out of curiosity... Clicking on "Download latest links" within 'Links to your site' in Google's WebMaster Tools would usually bring back links discovered recently. However, the last few times (for numerous accounts) it has brought back a lot of legacy links - some from 2011 - and includes nothing recent. We would usually expect to see a dozen at least each month. ...Has anyone else noticed this? Or, do you have any advice? Thanks in advance, Ant!
Technical SEO | | AbsoluteDesign0 -
An article we wrote was published on the Daily Business Review, we'd like to post it on our site. What is the proper way?
Part 1
Technical SEO | | peteboyd
We wrote an article and submitted it to the Daily Business Review. They published the article on their website. We want to also post the article on our website for our users but we want to make sure we are doing this properly. We don't want to be penalized for duplicating content. Is this the correct way to handle this scenario written below? We added a rel="canonical" to the blog post (on our website). The rel="canonical" is set to the Daily Business Review URL where the article was originally published. At the end of the blog post we wrote. "This article was originally posted on The Daily Business Review." and we link to the original post on the Daily Business Review. Should we be setting the blog post (on our website) to be a "noindex" or rel="canonical" ? Part 2 Our company was mentioned in a number of articles. We DID NOT write those articles, we were only mentioned. We have also posted those same articles on our website (verbatim from the original article). We want to show our users that we have been mentioned in highly credited articles. All of these articles were posted on our website and are set to be a "noindex". Is that the correct thing to do? Should we be using a rel="canonical" instead and pointing to the original article URL? Thanks in advance MOZ community for your assistance! We tried to do the leg work of our own research for the answers but couldn't find the exact same scenario that we are encountering**.**0 -
Google using descriptions from other websites instead of site's own meta description
In the last month or so, Google has started displaying a description under links to my home page in its search results that doesn't actually come from my site. I have a meta description tag in place and for a very limited set of keywords, that description is displayed, but for the majority of results, it's displaying a description that appears on Alexa.com and a handful of other sites that seem to have copied Alexa's listing, e.g. similarsites.com. The problem is, the description from these other sites isn't particularly descriptive and mentions a service that we no longer provide. So my questions are: Why is Google doing this? Surely that's broken behaviour. How do I fix it?
Technical SEO | | antdesign0 -
Can't find mistake in robots.txt
Hi all, we recently filled our robots.txt file to prevent some directories from crawling. Looks like: User-agent: * Disallow: /Views/ Disallow: /login/ Disallow: /routing/ Disallow: /Profiler/ Disallow: /LILLYPROFILER/ Disallow: /EventRweKompaktProfiler/ Disallow: /AccessIntProfiler/ Disallow: /KellyIntProfiler/ Disallow: /lilly/ now, as Google Webmaster Tools hasn't updated our robots.txt yet, I checked our robots.txt in some ckeckers. They tell me that the User agent: * contains an error. **Example:** **Line 1: Syntax error! Expected <field>:</field> <value></value> 1: User-agent: *** **`I checked other robots.txt written the same way --> they work,`** accordign to the checkers... **`Where the .... is the mistake???`** ```
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0 -
Why is an error page showing when searching our website using Google "site:" search function?
When I search our company website using the Google site search function "site:jwsuretybonds.com", a 400 Bad Request page is at the top of the listed pages. I had someone else at our company do the same site search and the 400 Bad Request did not appear. Is there a reason this is happening, and are there any ramifications to it?
Technical SEO | | TheDude0 -
One good reason why i should have a mobile site map
Good evening from I can just about keep my eyes open 7th cup of Coffeee David, Ok I'm adding a mobile sitemap to a mobile site. Whilst I know this is important the client wants one good reason why he should have one integrated into http://www.innoviafilms.com/m/Home.aspx I'm so knackered I cant articulate one, could some one put me out my misery and give me one good reason I should toil away with mobile xml; sitemap? Resource: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=34648 Any insights welcome 🙂
Technical SEO | | Nightwing0