Menu
Question: What are the SEO consequences of redirecting web traffic with a META REFRESH?
Details: I'm working with an old static site that's migrating to a new address. I'm redirecting traffic to the new site using meta refreshes on all static pages, like this:
<meta HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH" content="0; url=http://www.newsite.com/">
Of course, I'd rather write the redirects directly into an Apache file (or an .htaccess file), but due to some server weirdness that's beyond my control, I'm stuck with the meta refreshes.
So I'm wondering what the consequences are here? Will the site's search ranking be affected? Will the new site be indexed? I've read that Google (et al.) will treat the refresh as a proper 301 redirect as long as it's set to 0 seconds (anything longer will be deemed spam). How will analytics be affected?
What's the true behavior here? Any thoughts?
514
Redirects are not bad for SEO, but — as with so many things — only if you put them in place correctly. A bad implementation might cause all kinds of trouble, from loss of PageRank to loss of traffic. Redirecting pages is a must if you make any changes to your URLs.
A Meta refresh redirect is a client-side redirect. Unlike 301 and 302 redirects that happen on the web server, a meta refresh redirect instructs the web browser to go to a different web page after a specified time span.
The simplest examples of abusing URL redirection are phishing and malware delivery, but Cross Site Scripting (XSS) is also possible through redirects.
From an SEO point of view, a meta refresh redirect is not the most optimal way of redirecting because, as the name already gives away, it's actually a page refresh rather than a redirect. Redirecting using a 301 redirect is always recommended (except if you're looking to temporarily redirect).
It's not ideal, but apparently it's ok:
http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/google-and-yahoo-treat-undelayed-meta-refresh-as-301-redirect/
Also read number 2 on this page:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/answers-to-the-seo-professionals-litmus-test
161
as i can not comment on the fact, if a 0sec meta refresh is treated as a 301 redirect, i would just go with the way google recommends. see http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=139394
from http://www.oldsite.com/
<head>
...
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.newsite.com/" />
...
</head>
from http://www.newsite.com/awesomepage.html
<head>
...
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.newsite.com/awesomepage" />
...
</head>
and so on.
cross domain canonicals are basically treated like HTTP 301 for googlebot. whatever you do with the user (i.e.: meta refresh, or just leave him/her on the old page) is optional (as long as it is not missleading).
33
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
