Meta refresh = 0 seconds
-
For a number of reasons I'm confined to having to do a client side redirect for html pages. Am I right in thinking that Google treats zero seconds roughly the same as proper 301 redirects? Anyone have experience with zero second meta refresh redirects, good or bad?
-
Interesting approach, thank you.
-
We just went through a situation like this with a pretty decent size client - 400+ ,htm pages that couldn't be redirected to .aspx due to us not being able to modify IIS settings on the server; and the url directory paths were all different too - basically a nightmare.
Like you probably already know, it could go either way with a meta refresh. You'd probably be ok, but I'd avoid if possible. Our solution worked really well, but it's specific to windows servers.
Our solution was to create a spreadsheet with 2 columns - left was all the .htm pages to be redirected - the right- the new .aspx page that it should 301 redirect to. We then wrote a script to dynamically create new copies of the .htm pages and insert a runatserver redirection code snippet at the top of each that pointed to the proper redirect page.
1 month out, everything looks good. No issues and the site is kickin.
-
Thanks.
-
Unfortunately, I've seen mixed reviews on this one, test-wise. The inconsistency is why we don't recommend it (as GNC said). Generally, though, I'd say it's better than nothing.
-
Thanks for the reply Cowboy.
301 is the ultimate destination but could be months or year away for reasons beyond my control and there is enough juice being lost to warrant a temporary solution. I've seen the references to Google and meta refreshses, which is why I posed the question, but I've also seen people say 0 second refreshes have worked.
I just want to make sure nobody had a story like: "we did that once and dropped off the index", etc. I'm thinking that the temporary gain is worth the risk if any, unless I hear differently from somebody.
-
Hi Derek:From the Moz manual, "Meta refreshes do pass some link juice but are not recommended as an SEO tactic due to usability and the loss of link juice passed"
Also, some SEO's feel that Google looks askance at their use.
There's no way to talk them into a 301 redirect, huh?
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
-
How Often Can I Change My Meta Titles? (Product Discounts)
Hello, I have an ecommerce website. Due to discounts and sales on most of my products, the discount rates change very often. Some products have %10 discounts for 3 days and then same products might have %50 discounts for another 5 days. I would like to show these product specific discounts on Meta Titles and Descriptions dynamically. My system will automatically update the Meta Titles once the discount on a product changes. My question is, how often can I change the Meta Titles? Is changing them (only discount rates = 1word) too often bad for my SEO? What is Goolge's approach on this? Thank you in advance for all your help. Best,
Technical SEO | | yigitgok
Yigit0 -
Site's meta description is not being shown in Google Search results. Instead our privacy policy is getting indexed.
We re-launched our new site and put in the re-directs. Our site is https://www.fico.com/en. When I search for "fico" in Google. I see the privacy policy getting indexed as meta descriptions instead of our actual meta description. I have edited the meta description, requested Google to re-index our site. Not sure what to do next? Thanks for your advise.
Technical SEO | | gosheen0 -
If you use canonicals do the meta descriptions need to be different?
For example, we have 3 different subsites with the same pages. We will put canonicals so they reference the main pages. Do the meta descriptions have to be different for each of the three pages? How does Google handle meta data when using canonicals?
Technical SEO | | Shirley.Fenlason0 -
LSI keywords logic - enter in meta and bold in text?
Hello, In the lack of good info about this on the Internet, let me try here. I know that it is a good idea to put LSI keywords in natural flow in the body text of the article. But shall I also put LSI keywords as a meta? In the same manner as doing with non-LSI keywords? Or shall I only reserve meta for non-LSI keywords? In body text, shall I emphasize LSI keywords in bold? As non-LSI keywords already does. This is a bit confusing as I don't wan't LSI keywords to take over show from my long tail (phrase) keyword. I will appreciate if someone could share a bit light over this. Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | SEOisSEO0 -
Meta description showing in source code but not being detected by SEO Moz or other tools?
Hello fellow SEO enthusiasts, Re www.appetise.com Our developers have added a meta description and I can see it when I right click on pages to 'view source' as follows : Example : BUT - using the on page seo assessment tool on SEO Moz (and also using other tools which assess title, description and keyword optimisation) - they are telling us that the meta description is not present. Please could someone suggest why? If we can get the meta description picked up - we will reach A Grade for our core pages! And this will make us feel good - and hopefully shine through in our results :-). Any help greatly appreciated. Kind Regs, Richard Best - Appetise.com <meta http-equiv="description" content="Online Takeaway Food with appetise.com. 100's of Local Takeaways Menus Online. Order Take Away Food Online for Delivery. Pay by Card Safely. Including Pizza, Chinese, Indian, Italian, Kebab."/>
Technical SEO | | E-resistible0 -
Rectified the onsite after 3 months. How to tell Google to refresh my site ?
Hi.. We sell Joomla addons here, http://www.joomclub.org/joomla-extensions/ This site was started in september 2011 and its converting very well from other sources, but I need it to rank high and get organic traffic as well. We have over 295 pages and almost alla re index, I guess, but doesnt come anywhere in the SERPS, so I thought of investigating it and found that, all the product pages h1 tag was messed up and gone. Just fixed it right now. So, how do I tell Google to refresh and recrawl my pages and index ?
Technical SEO | | qubesys0 -
Duplicate Meta Description in GWMT
We've just discovered that there are multiple duplicate URLs indexed for a site that we're working on. It seems that when new versions of the site was developed in the last couple of years, there were new page names and URL structures that were used. All of these seem to be showing up as Duplicate Meta Descriptions in Google's WMT, which is not surprising as they are basically the same page with the same content that are just sitting on different page names/URLs. This is an example of the situation, where URL 5 is the current version. Note: all the others are still live and resolve, although they are not linked to from the current site. URL 1: www.example.com/blue-tshirts.html (Version 1 - January 2010) URL 2: www.example.com/blue-t-shirts.html (Version 2 - July 2010) URL 3: www.example.com/blue_t_shirts.html (Version 3 - November 2010) URL 4: www.example.com/buy/blue_tshirts.html (Version 4 - January 2011) URL 5: www.example.com/buy/bluetshirts.html (Version 5 - April 2011) Presumably, this is a clear case of duplicate content. QUESTION: In order to solve it, shall we 301 all of the previous URLs to the current one - ie. Redirect URLs 1-4 to URL 5? Or, should some of them be NoIndexed? To complicate matters, there is Pagination on most of them. For example: URL 1: www.example.com/blue-tshirts.html (Version 1 - January 2010) URL 1a: www.example.com/page-1/blue-tshirts.html URL 1b: www.example.com/page-2/blue-tshirts.html URL 1c: www.example.com/page-3/blue-tshirts.html URL 4: www.example.com/buy/blue_tshirts.html URL 4a: www.example.com/buy/page-1/blue_tshirts.html URL 4b: www.example.com/buy/page-2/blue_tshirts.html URL 4c: www.example.com/buy/page-3/blue_tshirts.html URL 5: www.example.com/buy/bluetshirts.html URL 5a: www.example.com/buy/page-1/bluetshirts.html URL 5b: www.example.com/buy/page-2/bluetshirts.html URL 5c: www.example.com/buy/page-3/bluetshirts.html Since URL 5 is the current site, we are going to 'NoIndex, Follow' URLs 5a, 5b and 5c, which is what we understand to be the correct thing to do for paginated pages. QUESTION: What shall we do with URLs 1a, 1b and 1c? Should we apply the same "No Index, Follow" OR should they be 301'd to their respective counterparts in 5a, 5b and 5c? QUESTION: In the same way, since URL 4 is the version just before the current live Version 5, does it make a different on whether the paginated pages (ie 4a, 4b and 4c) should be No Indexed or 301'd? Thanks in advance for all responses and suggestions, it's greatly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | orangechew0 -
Sitemap with References to Second Domain
I have just discovered a client site that is serving content from a single database into two separate domains and has created xml sitemaps which contain references to both domains in an attempt to avoid being tagged for duplicate content. I always thought that a sitemap was intended to show the files inside a single domain and the idea of multiple domains in the sitemap had never occurred to me... The sites are both very large storefronts and one of them (the larger of the two) has recently seen a 50% drop in search traffic and loss of some 600 search terms from top 50 positions in Google. My first instinct is that the sitemaps should be altered to only show files within each domain, but am worried about causing further loss of traffic. Is it possible that the inclusion URLs for the second domain in the sitemap may in fact be signalling duplicate content to Search Engines? Does anyone have a definitive view of whether these sitemaps are good, bad or irrelevant?
Technical SEO | | ShaMenz0