#1
  1. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5
    Rep Power
    0

    changing urls and how that effects google


    Hi,

    I have a site that has been listed for 4 years in Google and has top listings for most of what I want. The site gets around 5000 unique visitors per month from Google.

    I am now changing the server and reprogramming the entire site from .asp to .php. I am going to rewrite the urls on the fly so that all urls in Google will still link to the original page.

    I also now want to make it so that site uses static urls so from now on all links on the site will be .html instead of .asp.

    Just wondered if anyone has done this before and how it effecting things?
  2. #2
  3. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    0

    HT Access


    Make sure you notify google of your changes in the .HT Access.
  4. #3
  5. from the horses mouth
    SEO Chat Hero (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,105
    Rep Power
    556
    Originally Posted by steveclondon
    Hi,

    I have a site that has been listed for 4 years in Google and has top listings for most of what I want. The site gets around 5000 unique visitors per month from Google.

    I am now changing the server and reprogramming the entire site from .asp to .php. I am going to rewrite the urls on the fly so that all urls in Google will still link to the original page.

    I also now want to make it so that site uses static urls so from now on all links on the site will be .html instead of .asp.

    Just wondered if anyone has done this before and how it effecting things?

    If you change the extension from .asp to .html then Google will see them as new pages which would be bad for your established rankings.

    You could 301 redirect from the old .asp filenames to the new .html filenames, but this would not be instantaneous and would give you a ranking hit while it took effect.

    Personally I would just keep the .asp extension, it doesn't cause any harm.
  6. #4
  7. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by channel5
    If you change the extension from .asp to .html then Google will see them as new pages which would be bad for your established rankings.

    You could 301 redirect from the old .asp filenames to the new .html filenames, but this would not be instantaneous and would give you a ranking hit while it took effect.

    Personally I would just keep the .asp extension, it doesn't cause any harm.
    I would not be completely getting rid of the old file names, as an example.

    my-page-name.asp - listed in Google would still bring the page up using url rewrite, this would be instant as if it were the page name

    my-page-name.html - would also bring up the same page and all new links on the site would link to this.

    What do you think?
  8. #5
  9. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    300
    Rep Power
    13
    Though 301 redirection will be helpful, major changes like changing URLs (in your case for example) it will definitely affect your current SE's ranking.

    301 is capable to transfer the strength of the previous url to the new one. It takes time.

    But as long as main domain will remain and you have a strong backlinks on it. Think dont have to worry on that.

    Its just it needs to work hard on the new URLs and continue to get quality IBLs. IMO
  10. #6
  11. from the horses mouth
    SEO Chat Hero (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,105
    Rep Power
    556
    Originally Posted by steveclondon
    I would not be completely getting rid of the old file names, as an example.

    my-page-name.asp - listed in Google would still bring the page up using url rewrite, this would be instant as if it were the page name

    my-page-name.html - would also bring up the same page and all new links on the site would link to this.

    What do you think?
    my-page-name.asp and my-page-name.html would be seen as 2 separate pages.

    If the same content is available on 2 separate page names then you will have one of them filtered out as duplicate content.

    Google does not give any extra weight to any kind of extension (the exception is .exe which it looks at differently due to the potential for propogation of iffy material) so you will cause yourself far fewer problems if you just keep the .asp extension and drop the .html idea.
  12. #7
  13. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by channel5
    my-page-name.asp and my-page-name.html would be seen as 2 separate pages.

    If the same content is available on 2 separate page names then you will have one of them filtered out as duplicate content.

    Google does not give any extra weight to any kind of extension (the exception is .exe which it looks at differently due to the potential for propogation of iffy material) so you will cause yourself far fewer problems if you just keep the .asp extension and drop the .html idea.
    OK, will do, thanks for the help.....
  14. #8
  15. No Profile Picture
    Banned
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    108
    Rep Power
    0
    If you are using .ht access than I recommend the post of consult.sky. But if not is that case then my friendly suggestion to you is don't try that experiment.

    I have not experimented that ever but according to information and common protocols I can say it will through you very back.

    To describe my words I'll like to post some argues.

    You know Google gives good position for couple of things in which back links are very important factors?

    Imagine what will happen when pages will not found to Googlebot.

    I agree it will not effect to index page only if index page's backlinks are with http://site.com

    but certainly your many pages would have good count of backlinks.

    Also those backlinks will be lost which are connected in http://site.com/index.asp way.


    Also redirected pages are not considered good with many search engines.

    For MSN and Google I am sure they will not support redirections.
    Last edited by muaazab; Feb 20th, 2008 at 04:06 AM.
  16. #9
  17. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by channel5
    my-page-name.asp and my-page-name.html would be seen as 2 separate pages.

    If the same content is available on 2 separate page names then you will have one of them filtered out as duplicate content.

    Google does not give any extra weight to any kind of extension (the exception is .exe which it looks at differently due to the potential for propogation of iffy material) so you will cause yourself far fewer problems if you just keep the .asp extension and drop the .html idea.
    by the way the idea behind the .html idea was to change page names from the likes of

    my-page-name.asp?item=2&&other=5&&somethingelse=5

    to

    my-page-name/cars/2/mini-cooper/5/blue/5/cars-uk.html

    Something like the above that will appear better in the search engines in the end as it uses more relivent terms in the URL.

    Those saying about redirecting do not understand the process here to rename the urls, which is needed anyway, it is not redirecting.

    I have a very good understanding of getting good search engine results to have my pages listed at the top in the first place, now I am just wondering by removing all my back links from the site will this destroy my listings (I think it might thats why I am asking for peoples thoughts) or would the new better page names get better listings in the end while the other old page names are still in googles index.
    Last edited by steveclondon; Feb 20th, 2008 at 04:23 AM.
  18. #10
  19. from the horses mouth
    SEO Chat Hero (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,105
    Rep Power
    556
    Originally Posted by steveclondon
    by the way the idea behind the .html idea was to change page names from the likes of

    my-page-name.asp?item=2&&other=5&&somethingelse=5

    to

    my-page-name/cars/2/mini-cooper/5/blue/5/cars-uk.html

    Something like the above that will appear better in the search engines in the end as it uses more relivent terms in the URL.
    You can do that, but you need to 301 the old to the new, and make sure that you also pick it up in a way that if someone goes directly to the old style URL (which the spiders will) that it returns the new URL structure.. it's harder than it sounds and if you get it wrong you will end up with a duplicate content issue on your site.

    Originally Posted by steveclondon

    Those saying about redirecting do not understand the process here to rename the urls, which is needed anyway, it is not redirecting.
    A rename without a redirect will give you a duplicate content issue.

    Originally Posted by steveclondon
    I have a very good understanding of getting good search engine results to have my pages listed at the top in the first place, now I am just wondering by removing all my back links from the site will this destroy my listings
    If you change the urls without using 301 redirects then you create new pages with no backlinks, your rankings will drop.


    Originally Posted by steveclondon
    (I think it might thats why I am asking for peoples thoughts) or would the new better page names get better listings in the end while the other old page names are still in googles index.
    You do not want to have both page names available at the same time or it will cause this duplicate content issue i've mentioned maybe 3 times now

    You should choose one of the following options:

    1): Keep the url's exactly as they are.

    Pros - You will maintain your current rankings (assuming you change nothing else, rankings obviously are determined by multiple factors and you could do something else to destroy them!)

    Cons - you may be losing a little value in the url's not being optimised.


    2): 301 redirect the old url's to new URL's (and do it in a way that only the new URL is ever the "active" url).

    Pros - will give better URL value eventually

    Cons - as 301 redirects do not instantly pass juice you will see a drop in your rankings for a period, and it could be a considerable period (think months).



    If you are making lots of other changes to your site as well at the same time I would say keep the URL's as they are... if you want to test the impact then test the redirection on one or two pages and see how it affects them.
  20. #11
  21. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by channel5
    You can do that, but you need to 301 the old to the new, and make sure that you also pick it up in a way that if someone goes directly to the old style URL (which the spiders will) that it returns the new URL structure.. it's harder than it sounds and if you get it wrong you will end up with a duplicate content issue on your site.



    A rename without a redirect will give you a duplicate content issue.



    If you change the urls without using 301 redirects then you create new pages with no backlinks, your rankings will drop.




    You do not want to have both page names available at the same time or it will cause this duplicate content issue i've mentioned maybe 3 times now

    You should choose one of the following options:

    1): Keep the url's exactly as they are.

    Pros - You will maintain your current rankings (assuming you change nothing else, rankings obviously are determined by multiple factors and you could do something else to destroy them!)

    Cons - you may be losing a little value in the url's not being optimised.


    2): 301 redirect the old url's to new URL's (and do it in a way that only the new URL is ever the "active" url).

    Pros - will give better URL value eventually

    Cons - as 301 redirects do not instantly pass juice you will see a drop in your rankings for a period, and it could be a considerable period (think months).



    If you are making lots of other changes to your site as well at the same time I would say keep the URL's as they are... if you want to test the impact then test the redirection on one or two pages and see how it affects them.
    Right this is what I think i'm going to do. I am going to keep all .asp urls the same, and links will still go to the .asp file names on the site.

    New sections or sections that are not performing well in SEO I will use .html links and rename the pages to .html giving no access to these pages for .asp

    Do you think it will cause me any problems having some of the site in .asp and some of the site in .html?
  22. #12
  23. from the horses mouth
    SEO Chat Hero (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,105
    Rep Power
    556
    Originally Posted by steveclondon
    Do you think it will cause me any problems having some of the site in .asp and some of the site in .html?
    It won't cause any problems.

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo