Thousands of 301 redirections - .htaccess alternatives?
-
Hi guys,
I just want to ask if there are other possible issues/problems (other than server load) once we implement 301 redirections for 10,000+ URLs using .htaccess. Are there other alternatives?
-
Thank you for your answer ! I will share it with our IT team.
-
Why don't you just have a VPS server with NGINX the stream handler/reverse proxy for your IIS web server?
- https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-set-up-nginx-load-balancing
- http://www.iborgelt.com/windows-home-server-behind-nginx-reverse-proxy/
You're just using the VPS as an interface to handle your redirects and for $5 a month. You can't beat it. Im sure if your IT department googles: nginx reverse proxy iis they will get the idea.
-
Hi guys, I have a similar problem, but on IIS7. Our IT department says our 301 redirections file is at it's max size in the webconfig. They could increase the limit, but says it will impact page load speed negatively. What's the impact on page speed of having 5000 to 10000 urls in the rewrite map ?
Also, they're also looking at a solution to look at the redirections only when the site gives a 404, so it would hit 404, then 301, then 200. I am a little scared of this SEO wize. Would it be a problem?
Thanks !
-
Putting aside server load / config issues, and from the pure SEO point of view.
No, you shouldn't have any major issues with that many 301s. However, what you might find is that depending on the size of your site and the frequency of Googlebots visits that some of these pages take a long time (months) to drop out of the index and be replaced by their newer alternatives. This normally isn't cause for alarm.
In some instances you might end up with pages that now have now links to them (as their parent categories were all redirected also) and so seem to get stuck and never get recrawled by Google to update. In a couple of instances I have had success using XML sitemap files that just include these 'blocked' pages (the old URLs still in the index) to prompt Google to recrawl them.
Also there is Google Webmaster Tools feature to 'crawl as Googlebot' which then prompts you to 'submit to index' which you can use to prompt recrawls on a per-page basis (but you have credits here, so should only be for the more important pages).
Best of luck!
-
The main benefit of this would be in reducing server load / response time, and potentially in maintainability of the server config.
The most important aspect of this side of thing would be based on how many separate rules you have in your .htaccess file for those 10,000 redirects.
-
Hi Kevin,
What's the difference of this method to the standard 301 redirection using .htaccess?
-
Do you guys have a step-by-step guide in implementing 301 redirection using this httpd main server config file?
-
Well, if you're on a VPS/Dedicated Machine. - I would take a look at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/rewrite/rewritemap.html
RewriteMap has 0 effect on the load time like if you were to have the same in .htaccess it will eat those redirect rules. Remember 301s cache in the browser so when you're testing have them all 302s until you're happy and then watch your rewrite log when you launch. If you need help let us know.
This does take some knowhow and learning but you should be able to get this done in a few days. ( testing, reading documentation )
-
Do you have access to the httpd main server config file? If so, please read Apache HTTP Server Tutorial: .htaccess files.
".htaccess files should be used in a case where the content providers need to make configuration changes to the server on a per-directory basis, but do not have root access on the server system. In the event that the server administrator is not willing to make frequent configuration changes, it might be desirable to permit individual users to make these changes in .htaccess files for themselves. This is particularly true, for example, in cases where ISPs are hosting multiple user sites on a single machine, and want their users to be able to alter their configuration.
However, in general, use of .htaccess files should be avoided when possible. Any configuration that you would consider putting in a .htaccess file, can just as effectively be made in a <directory>section in your main server configuration file."</directory>
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
-
Google says Geolocation Redirects Are Okay - is this really ok ?
Our aim is to send a user from https://abc.com/en/us to** https://abc..com/en/uk/ **if they came to our US English site from the UK So we came across this document - https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2014/05/creating-right-homepage-for-your.html We are planning to follow this in our international website based on the article by google : automatically serve the appropriate HTML content to your users depending on their location and language settings. You will either do that by using server-side 302 redirects or by dynamically serving the right HTML content. Will there be any ranking issues/ penalty issue because of following this or because of 302 redirects ? **Another article - **https://www.seroundtable.com/google-geolocation-redirects-are-okay-26933.html
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | NortonSupportSEO0 -
Question about "sneaky" vs. non-sneaky redirects?
One of my client's biggest keyword competitors is using, what I believe to be, sneaky redirects. The company is a large, international corporation that has a local office. They use a totally unrelated domain name for local press and advertising, but there is no website. The anchor text in the backlinks automatically redirects to the corporate website. Is this sneaky or not?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JCon7110 -
Should I 301 redirect my old site are just add a link to my new site
I used to offer design and web services on a site that is current blank (no content, no links). My questions is should I add a little bit of content, maybe a brief explanation with a link to my new site. Or should I just add 301 redirect. This is purely a question of what is better for SEO and ranking for my new site (not a branding question).
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Tyrell0 -
I'm seeing thousands of no-follow links on spam sites. Can you help figure it out?
I noticed that we are receiving thousands of links from many different sites that are obviously disguised as something else. The strange part is that some of them are legitimate sites when you go to the root. I would say 99% of the page titles read something like : 1 Hour Loan Approval No Credit Check Vermont, go cash advance - africanamericanadaa.com. Can someone please help me? Here are some of the URL's we are looking at: http://africanamericanadaa.com/genialt/100-dollar-loans-for-people-with-no-credit-colorado.html http://muratmakara.com/sickn/index.php?recipe-for-cone-06-crackle-glaze http://semtechblog.com/tacoa/index.php?chilis-blue-raspberry-margarita http://wesleygcook.com/rearc/guaranteed-personal-loans-oregon.html
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TicketCity0 -
Remedies, Cure, and Precautions for 302 redirect Hijacking.
Hi Moz Guys, I hope all of you are good out there. I am here to discuss remedies, cure, and precautions for 302 redirect hijacking. Although it is quite old and whenever I searched in Google, it looks like a long gone glitch of Google serps but it just happened to one of my customers' site. The site in question is www(dot)solidswiss(dot)cd. If you check the cache(cache:site) then you can see a hijacked site in the urls of the cached page. As a result all my customer's listing in the serps are replaced with this site. This hacked site then is redirecting to a competitor's site. I did many things to cop with the problem, site came back in the serps but hackers are doing this on lots of domains so when it recovered from one site then another site catches it. I am doing lots of reporting on submit spam site. I am doing lots of feedback on the serps page. I have switched to https . But seems like nothing is working. This community is full of experts and technical people. I am wondering that what are your views and suggestions to handle the problem permanently?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | adqas0 -
How to remove trailing slashes in URLs using .htaccess (Apache)?
I want my URLs to look like these: http://www.domain.com/buy http://www.domain.com/buy/shoes http://www.domain.com/buy/shoes/red Thanks in advance!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | esiow20130 -
All pages going through 302 redirect - bad?
So, our web development company did something I don't agree with and I need a second opinion. Most of our pages are statically cached (the CMS creates .html files), which is required because of our traffic volume. To get geotargeting to work, they've set up every page to 302 redirect to a geodetection script, and back to the geotargeted version of the page. Eg: www.example.com/category 302 redirects to www.example.com/geodetect.hp?ip=ip_address. Then that page 302 redirects back to either www.example.com/category, or www.example.com/geo/category for the geo-targeted version. **So all of our pages - thousands - go through a double 302 redirect. It's fairly invisible to the user, and 302 is more appropriate than 301 in this case, but it really worries me. I've done lots of research and can't find anything specifically saying this is bad, but I can't imagine Google being happy with this. ** Thoughts? Is this bad for SEO? Is there a better way (keeping in mind all of our files are statically generated)? Is this perfectly fine?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dholowiski0 -
New sub-domain launches thousands of local pages - is it hurting the main domain?
Would greatly appreciate some opinions on this scenario. Domain cruising along for years, top 1-3 rankings for nearly all top non-branded terms and a stronghold for branded searches. Sitelinks prominently shown with branded searches and always ranked #1 for most variations of brand name. Then, sub-domain launches that was over 80,000 local pages - these pages are 90-95% similar with only city and/or state changing to make them appear like unique local pages. Not an uncommon technique but worrisome in a post Panda/Penguin world. These pages are surprisingly NOT captured as duplicate content by the SEOMoz crawler in my campaigns. Additionally about that same time a very aggressive, almost entirely branded paid search campaign was launched that took 20% of the clicks previously going to the main domain in organic to ppc. My concern is this, shortly after this launch of over 80k "local" pages on the sub-domain and the cannibalization of organic clicks through ppc we saw the consistency of sitelinks 6 packs drop to 3 sitelinks if showing at all, including some sub-domains in sitelinks (including the newly launched one) that had never been there before. There's not a clear answer here I'm sure but what are the experts thoughts on this - did a massive launch of highly duplicate pages coupled with a significant decrease in organic CTR for branded terms harm the authority of the main domain (which is only a few dozen pages) causing less sitelinks and less strength as a domain or is all this a coincidence? Or caused by something else we aren't seeing? Thanks for thoughts!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | VMLYRDiscoverability0