3 ms·
The new site would be marked as duplicate content and the original would rank higher.
by nostromo 11y ago
The new site would be marked as duplicate content and the original would rank higher.
- schwap 11y agoWhat if you returned a 301 to the new URL? You'd think Google would have logic to get that kind of hint.
- jbeales 11y agoThat's probably what he did - it's the best practise, I believe.
- mikeg8 11y agoI think they do. If you setup 301 wildcard redirects, google should replace the old site's urls with the new one in their index over time, after they've been crawled. (at least from what I remember when I was digging into it myself)
- dimfeld 11y agoThe old domain (saveyourself.ca) mentioned in the article does do this.
- monk_e_boy 11y agoThat was the whole point of the article ;) how that didn't work and how it fucked his site.
- mikeg8 11y agoYea but can't you use canonical tags on the original site so Google's index is updated with the new URL, thus avoiding duplicate content problems?
- artursapek 11y agoThis was my thought, as well. It seems like a safer, softer way to test out the transition.
- eli 11y agoSo no redirects for anyone going to an old URL?
- mikeg8 11y agoI would definitely set up 301 redirects to get the user to the new domain but from for concerns purely about duplicate content, the canonical tags should be sufficient enough to prevent page rank damage.
- mpeg 11y agoYou can actually mark one of the URLs as canonical if you want to keep both sites up.