Search Results

Search found 1094 results on 44 pages for '301'.

Page 3/44 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Will search engines discover that our old pages have been 301 redirected if there are no more links to them in the old site?

  - by Obay

  We've moved our website to a new domain. Thousands of our pages come from one PHP file in the old site (e.g. oldsite.com/news.php?id=<id>). So we added some code in news.php file to do a 301 redirect to the specific corresponding news article in the new website (newsite.com/news/<id>). We have not yet done a 301 redirect for the root of the old site (so we could display a notice to our users that we've moved), but all links inside it are already 301 redirected. My concern is that, when Google crawls our old website, it will no longer be able to find the old news articles and discover that they have been 301 Redirected -- is this correct? If so, does that mean our PageRank won't be carried over to the new site? I've also read that we would need to create a sitemap for the new site. Is it possible to indicate in the sitemap the old and new locations of specific pages? Because if not, how will Google know? (I'm not sure change of address in Webmaster Tools would be specific enough).

  Read the article

• 301 redirect: Is this good or bad for 2 domains?

  - by Tim

  Since i couldn't find any appropriate answer to my specific question, I wanted to ask you. I've read alot of things about the 301-redirect for moving pages and so on. A customer of mine has booked a new domain last year for better search results (he included his main keyword into the domain. Before he had only a domain with his business name, which had nothing to say about what he does). I told him, that he should do a 301-redirect so he doesn't loose his position in Google and to redirect all new customers coming from the old domain to the new domain. After about one year where his site hat a good amount of traffic the search results of Google for his keywords are getting more worse. Since he didn't maintain his website (no new content, bad content on all pages and so on) I assumed this would be the problem. He gave his website to another company which also makes websites. They told him, that this 301-redirection is very bad for his website. They removed it, and also updated his content and the template so now he has the same meta keywords on every page (instead of the specific ones I put there before). He also removed the canonical-tag which I placed there to ensure no duplicate content. What I am now afraid of is, that without this redirect Google now will find duplicate content and therefore kick him out of the index, which would be a nightmare, since most of his customers come over his website. I need verification of the fact, that the 301 isn't bad but in fact the correct way of working with 2 domains. If possible with good sources I can point out to him since he don't wants to hear anything about this. If someone also has a few words about the keywords and the canonical-tag I would really appreciate it! Thank you very much!

  Read the article

• Detecting REFERRER 301 redirects in AwStats

  - by Riccardo

  About six months ago, I have moved a website to a new domain, and helped migration using 301 redirects into .htaccess of the old domain. This morning I was looking at AwStats log of the new domain, and was surpised to notice that in the "HTTP Status codes"section, 301 redirects score 77% of the whole codes (seems 200 are not tracked here). So, what is the proper meaning of the 301 code in those stats? Does it mean that 77% of traffic is incoming (referrer) from 301 redirects or?

  Read the article

• .htaccess: Allow only one Folder Structure - 301 Redirect

  - by elmaso

  Hello, how can I allow only one Folder-Structure with .htaccess like that: http://www.example.com/**dynamicword**+FIXEDWORD1+FIXEDWORD2/ the dynamicword is not fix, anything else is 301: http://www.example.com/**dynamicword**+FIXEDWORD1+mistype/mistype/ --> 301 http://www.example.com/**dynamicword**+FIXEDWORD1+mistype/mistype --> 301 http://www.example.com/**dynamicword**+FIXEDWORD1+FIXEDWORD2/mistype --> 301 Is that possible?

  Read the article

• How long should I keep 301 redirecting pages from a deprecated domain?

  - by ElHaix

  I had an old domain that I have deprecated, but 301 redirected all results from it to my new site. The new site is now receiving a decent amount of traffic, but I don't know if it's 301 redirected from the old site, and doing a site:[old site] still shows several thousand pages indexed. Since all pages from the old site are 301 redirected, will they ever be removed from the index, as long as the old domain name is active? As a rule of thumb, somewhere I got 90 days for any significant site changes. When is it safe to burn the old domain?

  Read the article

• Apache 301 redirect

  - by mcondiff

  I have inherited a server with a couple of domains on it. The website was reworked within the last two years and I am trying to oblige a request by staff to get a redirect to work properly (if it can given the default structure). So right now on the server I have a redirect that takes every 301 and dumps it onto the front page of the website. RedirectMatch /(.) http://www.example.com This has worked well for most of the old URL's coming in from various websites containing the old liking structure. However, now a staff member wants a single URL which is somewhat widely used to be redirected to it's proper place. Redirect /new/research/Exp_Rese_Disc/Asia/example.shtml http://example.com/asia/ Is this possible without killing the all encompassing 301 redirect? To have a general RedirectMatch /(.) redirect as well as a singular redirect? As of right now it is not seeming to let me. Any ideas, thoughts or examples are much appreciated.

  Read the article

• mod_rewrite, 301 problem

  - by blid

  Hi, Currently I can access specific site in two ways: 1. http://a.com/foo/bar 2. http://a.com/index.php?url=foo/bar What I'm trying to achive is to allow to do it only using first way, and make redirect 301 on the second to the first one. Here's the code which I made so far and put into .htaccess: <IfModule mod_rewrite.c> RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteRule ^(.*)$ index.php?url=$1 [QSA,L] #tricky part RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /index\.php\?url=?(.*)\ HTTP/ RewriteRule ^index\.php$ http://a.com/$1 [R=301,L] </IfModule> Currently it do almost all the job, it's redirecting index.php to /, but index.php?url=foo/bar to /?url=foo/bar and I can't manage to make it right. TIA.

  Read the article

• 301 Redirect adding incorrect extra segments to a url

  - by Pentland_web

  I need to 301 redirect one segment of a url to a new version of it. My aim is redirect www.domain.co.uk/farm/whatever/ to www.domain.co.uk/farm_cottages/whatever/ The rule I am using to do this is: RedirectMatch 301 ^/farm/ /farm_cottages/ However for some reason it partially works but appends ?/farm/ after farm_cottages/ in the final url ie. www.domain.co.uk/farm_cottages/?/farm/whatever/ Here is my entire rewrite rule set as I believe one of the rewrite rules could be interfering with the redirect rule. #redirect /farm/ to /farm_cottages/ RedirectMatch 301 ^/farm/ /farm_cottages/ <IfModule mod_rewrite.c> RewriteEngine on # no WWW to WWW RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.co.uk$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.co.uk/$1 [R=301,L] # Force trailing slash on URLs RewriteBase / RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !(.*)/$ RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.co.uk/$1/ [L,R=301] #Remove index.php RewriteCond $1 !\.(gif|jpe?g|png)$ [NC] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /index.php?/$1 [L] RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[^/]*/index\.php [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php(.+) $1 [R=301,L] </IfModule> The site is built in Expressionengine and so the segments of url do not represent actual folders - I don't think this should matter though. Any ideas would be much appreciated! Thanks

  Read the article

• How to test an HTTP 301 redirect?

  - by NoozNooz42

  How can one easily test HTTP return codes, like, say, a 301 redirect? For example, if I want to "see what's going on", I can use telnet to do something like this: ... $ telnet nytimes.com 80 Trying 199.239.136.200... Connected to nytimes.com. Escape character is '^]'. GET / HTTP/1.0 (enter) (enter) HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: Sun-ONE-Web-Server/6.1 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:18:04 GMT Content-type: text/html Set-cookie: RMID=007af83f42dd4c161dfcce7d; expires=Tuesday, 14-Jun-2011 12:18:04 GMT; path=/; domain=.nytimes.com Set-cookie: adxcs=-; path=/; domain=.nytimes.com Set-cookie: adxcs=-; path=/; domain=.nytimes.com Set-cookie: adxcs=-; path=/; domain=.nytimes.com Expires: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 16:00:00 GMT Cache-control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache Connection: close <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> ... Which is an easy way to access quite some infos. But now I want to test that a 301 redirect is indeed a 301 redirect. How can I do so? Basically, instead of getting a HTTP/1.1 200 OK I'd like to know how I can get the 301? I know that I can enter the name of the URL in a browser and "see" that I'm redirected, but I'd like to know what tool(s) can be used to actually really "see" the 301 redirect. Btw, I did test with a telnet, but when I enter www.example.org, which I redirected to example.org (without the www), all I can see is an "200 OK", I don't get to see the 301.

  Read the article

• Process data BEFORE a 301 Redirect?

  - by Jesse

  So, I've been working on a PHP link shortener (I know, just what the world needs). Basically when the page loads, php determines where it needs to go and sends a 301 Header to redirect the browser, like so... Header( "HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently" ); header("Location: http://newsite.com"; Now, I'm trying to add some tracking to my redirects and insert some custom analytics data into a MySQL table before the redirect happen. It works perfectly if I don't specify the a redirect type and just use: header("Location: http://newsite.com"; But, of course as soon as you add in the 301 header, nothing else gets processed. Actually, on the first request, it sends the data to MySQL, but on any subsequent requests there's no communication with the database. I assume it's a browser caching issue, once it's seen the 301 it decides they're no reason to parse anything on future requests. But, does anyone know if there's any way to get around this? I'd really like to keep it as a 301 for SEO purposes (I believe if you don't specify it sends a 404 by default?). I thought about using .htaccess to prepend a file to the page that will do the MySQL work, but with the 301, wouldn't that just get ignored as well? Anyway, I'm not sure if there's any solution other than using a different type of redirect, but I'm ready to give up just yet. So, any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Cannot 301 redirect with IIS URL Rewrite Module

  - by Justin

  I am trying to troubleshoot my issue with the URL Rewrite Module on IIS 7. I migrated a Wordpress blog over to BlogEngine.net. There were only about 5 entries that I wanted to use 301 redirects to the new blog, so I wanted to simply create 5 exact match redirect rules using the rewrite module. For some reason the exact match rule never seems to take effect, I always get a 404 error when the original url is navigated to. I verified that my exact match pattern matched the existing backlinks and it does. I then tried a simple test and got the same behavior, no redirection. I created a page, test.html, on my site, I then created a second page, test2.html. So my exact match pattern is: "http://www.mydomain.com/test.html" And the rule is supposed to do a 301 redirect to "http://www.mydomain.com/test2.html " The redirect never happens. I created the steps for the rule based on the instructions in this page: http://learn.iis.net/page.aspx/461/creating-rewrite-rules-for-the-url-rewrite-module/ I don't see that I left out a step. After I apply the rule I've even gone as far as doing an IISReset to make sure it would be in effect but still no luck. Any thoughts on what I might have left out? (Note: my rewrite rules dont include the " " around them but I had to add since serverfault thinks I am trying to spam the system with multiple urls.)

  Read the article

• Apache2 name based virtual host always redirect 301

  - by Francesco

  I've got a server (runnging Debian Squeeze) with Apache 2.2, there are 4 site running there. I'm using namebased virtulhosts because I've got a single IP. Initial configuration has been made with Webmin and probably something has been messed up.. firstdomain.com is my default domain and is working correctly, seconddomain.com is another site that is working. Now I want to add lastdomain.tk as a new site, so I've made this config file: root@webamp:/etc/apache2# cat sites-available/lastdomain.tk.conf <VirtualHost *:80> DocumentRoot /home/server/Condivisione/RAID/lastdomain.tk ServerName www.alazanes.tk ServerAlias alazanes.tk </VirtualHost> I've added it to enabled-sites and restarted apache. The problem is that if I go to lastdomain.tk (or www.lastdomain.tk) I'm redirected to firstdomain.com with a 301 redirect. Both lastdomain.tk and www.lastdomain.tk are A DNS records pointing to my IP address. Strange thing is that if a change DocumentRoot of lastdomain.tk to DocumentRoot /home/server/Condivisione/RAID/Sito_SecondDomain I correctly see seconddomain.com content without being redirected (lastdomain.tk is showed on address bar) These are the other configurations I'm using. root@webamp:/root# source /etc/apache2/envvars ; /usr/sbin/apache2 -S VirtualHost configuration: wildcard NameVirtualHosts and _default_ servers: *:443 webamp.firstdomain.com (/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/ssl.bbteam:1) *:80 is a NameVirtualHost default server firstdomain.com (/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/000-default:7) port 80 namevhost firstdomain.com (/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/000-default:7) port 80 namevhost www.lastdomain.tk (/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/lastdomain.tk.conf:1) ## other domains ## port 80 namevhost seconddomain.com (/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/seconddomain.com.conf:1) Syntax OK Content of default config file is root@webamp:/etc/apache2# cat sites-available/default <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAdmin [email protected] ServerName firstdomain.com ServerAlias www.firstdomain.com direct.firstdomain.com DocumentRoot /home/server/Condivisione/RAID/Sito_Web_Apache_su_80 ErrorLog /var/log/apache2/error.log LogLevel warn CustomLog /var/log/apache2/access.log combined </VirtualHost> content of second domain config file is root@webamp:/etc/apache2# cat sites-available/seconddomain.com.conf <VirtualHost *:80> DocumentRoot /home/server/Condivisione/RAID/Sito_SecondDomain ServerName seconddomain.com ServerAlias www.seconddomain.com direct.seconddomain.com #redirect 301 / http://www.seconddomain.com/ <Directory "/home/server/Condivisione/RAID/Sito_SecondDomain"> allow from all Options +Indexes </Directory> </VirtualHost> Probably a file permission problem? root@webamp:/root# ls -lh /home/server/Condivisione/RAID/ total 7.1M drwxrwxr-x 15 www-data server 4.0K Jun 5 13:29 Sito_SecondDomain drwxrwxrwx 23 server server 4.0K Jun 7 16:22 Sito_Web_Apache_su_80 drwxrwxr-x 17 www-data server 4.0K Jun 8 09:56 alazanes.tk Do someone have an idea of what is happening? Thanks, Francesco

  Read the article

• 301 redirect from mydomain.co.uk to www.mydomain.co.uk using IIS

  - by Truegilly

  hello, I soon will be purchasing a virtual windows server and will be using IIS7 I’m keen for SEO purposes to 301 redirect any users from mydomain.co.uk to www.mydomain.co.uk, but as I have root access to my server I would like to use IIS7 rather than modifying my application can anyone explain how this is done ? thanks Trueglly :)

  Read the article

• 301 Htaccess Redirect

  - by Mike Ei

  Need help with an 301 htaccess redirect cond and rule doing the following for all the files in these paths: www.name.com/wordA/wordB/* to www.name.com/new_word/wordA/wordB/* we are basically adding "new_word" to the new url string.

  Read the article

• 301 redirect from HTTP to HTTPS - how to be sure Google is fetching the correct information?

  - by user33692

  I'm hoping somebody might be able to provide a bit of advice on an issue I am having. I have one site where we implemented a 301 redirect on the homepage from HTTP to HTTPS. We have links on the homepage to other parts of the site that are not under SSL (in fact there is only one other page under SSL). When I go to our Webmaster Tools account I notice that we are not being provided with any webmaster information (e.g., search queries, backlinks, etc...) related to our homepage under SSL. I performed a Fetch as Google on the homepage and the information it returned is: HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:26:24 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.16 (Debian) Location: https://mysite.com/ Vary: Accept-Encoding Content-Encoding: gzip Content-Length: 242 Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100 Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <title>301 Moved Permanently</title> </head><body> <h1>Moved Permanently</h1> <p>The document has moved <a href="https://mysite.com/">here</a>.</p> <hr> <address>Apache/2.2.16 (Debian) Server at mysite.com</address> </body></html> I am worried by the fact that Google fetch is not getting the correct Title tags and Meta information from our homepage and that this is hurting our search results. Additionally, I am worried that we need to do something specific with the sitemap to ensure that Google is correctly indexing all our pages and being able to flow from the HTTPS to the HTTP without issues. Does anybody have any advice on how we can correctly set this up or be sure that Google is fetching the correct information?

  Read the article

• SEO - Problems possibly related to 301 Moved Permanently

  - by ILMV

  Right, here's the story: We have had a website for one of our brands now for many years, the site design was very bad and recently did a complete overhaul, mostly design, but also some of the backend code. The original site was using links such as this example.com/products/item/127 and thus I wanted to change them to be move user friendly, especially to include the product name, the same link now reads example.com/product/127/my-jucy-product/. Since our switch over we have seen our Google results take a beating (we were on the first page for our normal search terms, now we're nearer the 4th!). The other problem we're having is that the links to the old products haven't updated to the new links despite me coding a 301 redirect from old to new. The 301 is not being fired from .htaccess, but in our PHP framework. I had a look at how the site is being loaded from a old link that is still in Google and here's what firebug is reporting: GET <google link> 302 Found GET example.com/products/item/127 302 Found GET example.com/products/item/127 301 Moved Permanently GET example.com/product/127/my-jucy-product/ 302 Found So the Google link has a 302, good. But when the old link comes in our framework is returning a 302! It's only afterwards when it finally hits the right part of the framework does it 301, so here's my question: Is the reason our old links have not changed and our Google Ranking has significantly nose dived because Google is seeing a 302 before the 301? At the time I was reluctant to mess with our .htaccess because it had become pretty complicated and I was under some pretty intense time constraints, now I'm wondering whether this was an incorrect disicion and perhaps I should revisit it. Many thanks! Edit Bugger, just signed up to the Webmaster Tools and I'm getting redirect errors all over the place, hundreds of them! I think this is my problem.

  Read the article

• Client Web Browser Behavior When Handling 301 Redirect

  - by Jon Swanson

  The RFC seems to suggest that the client should permanently cache the response: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html 10.3.2 301 Moved Permanently The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the Request-URI to one or more of the new references returned by the server, where possible. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise. The new permanent URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). If the 301 status code is received in response to a request other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the request was issued. Note: When automatically redirecting a POST request after receiving a 301 status code, some existing HTTP/1.0 user agents will erroneously change it into a GET request. I'm having a hard time finding concrete browser documentation for any major browser that states how they handle these. I've started digging through the source code of firefox, but quickly got lost. Is the following scenario true for which (if any) browsers, and is there definitive documentation for either Firefox or IE that states as much?: First Time Around: 1.1: User enters link to site A, or clicks on a link directed at Site A 1.2: Browser interprets link at Site A, first time, no cache. Sends GET to Site A. 1.2: Site A responds with 301 Redirect to Site B 1.3: Browser sends GET to Site B. Any Subsequent Times Around: 2.2: User clicks on a link directed at Site A 2.2: Browser sees that, due to a past 301 redirect, Site A should now be Site B. 2.3: Without initiating any request whatsoever at Site A, browser initiates GET at Site B.

  Read the article

• 301 redirect, canonical question

  - by Dave

  I've designed my own 'latest news' page for my site - and I'm trying to keep the URL's clean. (eg) It should look like this : http://www.domain.com/21/this-is-a-clean-url/ When someone links to the article, they sometimes mess it up and do : http://www.domain.com/21/this-is-a-clean-url/#random-hash-tag So what I have been doing is looking for "http://www.domain.com/21" and 301 (moved permantly) redirecting to the proper url + adding a canonical meta tag for it. Is this going overboard? Should I instead be using a (302 Found) header - and just let the canonical tag tell search engines what the proper URL for the article is? What is the best way of handling this?

  Read the article

• google webmaster soft 404 on 301

  - by Daniel

  I'm looking through google webmaster that my page is generating soft 404 errors (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/181708?hl=en) google says: We recommend that you always return a 404 (Not found) or a 410 (Gone) response code in response to a request for a non-existing page But I've got redirects set up that handle old pages to redirect to the proper new pages using a 301. The website links changed because of a use of a framework, which allows it to be more consistent, but the old pages till have links out there to these. Should I be worried about this? IS google penalizing the site for this? (Using IIS 8, Tomcat, CF10, Win)

  Read the article

• How does bing-bot( is that the right spider-name? ) and googlebot interpret 301 redirect?

  - by jbcurtin

  I've been looking for documentation on how the Microsoft and Google bots interpret 301 redirects. It seems that google-bot stores documents on a url based index system. But I haven't been able to figure out how bing works. Should I assume that they are still working towards coping everyone else and assume they use an algorithm close to google? Is it best to just forward a page to a new location via Javascript? I think this might be a blackhat trick, but how would I tell the bots that it's not? Is 301 redirect my best option and I just have to bit the bullet because said pages are no longer in existence? What other options do I have that I might not be aware of?

  Read the article

• SEO: 301 for a page which has no mirrow path?

  - by Alex

  Hello, I just did a 301 and the domain and some pages which have a mirror file path are fine. But I have one directory which is not going to be part of the new site and I don't know how to redirect the old files that were there. I need something like this: oldDomain/oldDir/file.php and I need to make it redirect to newDomain/differentDir/file.php Is that possible? What is the 301 redirect rule for that? update I just added this rule as suggested by @Itai and it didn't work redirectMatch permanent ^/outdoors/trees/tanoak.php$ http://www.comehike.com/outdoors/trees/129/Tanoak any idea why?

  Read the article

• When removing a bunch of files from a website, is 301 to the start page appropriate? [closed]

  - by Uwe Keim

  Possible Duplicate: What to do with random pages after a 301 redirect? Currently, we are working on modifying the contents of a website of one of our products. Since we are re-positioning the product, we would like to delete roughly 50% (around 200) of the pages of the website. My questions, in terms of SEO are: Would it have a negative effect if Google suddenly sees the large page drop? Is it OK to provide a 301 to the start page of the website for all removed pages?

  Read the article

• When Google gives up recrawling 301 that led to 404?

  - by Easy Life

  I've transferred a domain and made a mistake in the redirects (the URL structure is identical). Even though they went to the new domain, the error caused a 404 when crawled by Google bot. 10 days after I saw and corrected my redirect mistake, and now the site should (hopefully) redirect to proper pages. Q1: The URLs of the 404 pages in the Webmaster Tools all bear the mistake and will never be available at the new site. I marked them as fixed in the tools. Do I need to do something about that, like 301 rewrite them with a condition to fix the error? Q2: Does Google bot attempt to recrawl 301 pages that pointed to a 404?

  Read the article

• Can too many 301 redirects cause a DNS error?

  - by Graham

  For a site http://imageocd.com that I just set up I initially spelled the category "automobiles" as "autimobiles"... I know it's rediculous. I then set up over 10,000 pages behind that category e.g. http://imageocd.com/automobiles/hillman-minx-cabrio-pictures-and-wallpapers. So, I set up over 10,000 301 url redirects to change the spelling on automobiles. I just checked my Google Webmasters report and got an error saying: http://www.imageocd.com/: Googlebot can't access your siteSep 7, 2012 Over the last 24 hours, Googlebot encountered 2 errors while attempting to retrieve DNS information for your site. The overall error rate for DNS queries for your site is 66.7%. Could the overabundance of 301 redirects be causing this? I host 13 sites on this dedicated server and all sites are running fine. I also contacted GoDaddy and they said the server is running fine. Any ideas on what might be going on? Also, I have "canonical" set up for every URL. Could this be part of the error? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Somehow Google considers a properly 301'd URL as 200 and is still indexing the new content in old page?

  - by user2178914

  We redirected all the old URL's to new ones properly using htaccess. The problem is Google, somehow is still finding content in the old page(which it shouldn't) and stores it in the cache rather than the new URL. For eg: Old Page- http://www.natures-energies.com/iching.htm New Page- http://www.natures-energies.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=760 If you type the old URL into the browser it redirects If you fetch the old URL as Googlebot in the webmaster tools the header says 301/permanently redirected. If I try to crawl as any other bot it still says 301 redirected. Even if you click the old link in Google it redirects to the new URL. Only in its cache it shows the old URL and moreover it shows the new content in it! I am stumped on how Google manages to grab the new content and puts in the old URL instead of the new one! One more interesting thing is that if I try a cache for the new page it shows the cache of the new content with old URL! Any help would be appreciated. I am at end of my wits. I think i have tried almost everything. Is there anything that I'm missing to see? You can use this search to find the old url's. Maybe you'll some patterns that i missed. site:www.natures-energies.com inurl:htm -inurl:https|index

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >