10

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?

MPelletier
  • 16,256
  • 15
  • 86
  • 137
Sam
  • 2,152
  • 6
  • 31
  • 44

2 Answers2

6

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

lurkit
  • 388
  • 4
  • 17
  • Well, that article is almost 4 years old, but it's a start. Good find. Thanks! Can anyone verify that this is still the behavior? – Sam Mar 23 '11 at 01:29
  • I updated with a link to a more recent article. I've never found any "official" statement on this, but SEOmoz is pretty well recognized. Hope it helps. – lurkit Mar 23 '11 at 02:35
4

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).

Franz Enzenhofer
  • 3,666
  • 5
  • 19
  • 30
  • Very interesting! I've never heard of or seen the canonical link in use anywhere. I'm a bit confused though: would I use the canonical link in addition to a meta refresh? Or instead of a meta refresh? Thanks! – Sam Mar 23 '11 at 17:01
  • Cross-domain canonicals are more of a "hint" rather than a directive for googlebot - there's a big difference. One diverts, one sign-posts. – Mike Hudson Mar 24 '11 at 00:46
  • 1
    hi mike, i tested the canonical in various scenarios and google treats it like an HTTP 301. it's simple to test: make a typo in the canonical tag, see what happens. (hint: don't do that...) they say it's a hint because they want to reserve the right to ignore it, but in practice it's treated like an HTTP 301 (it communicates the endpoint as the right destination for a ressource) – Franz Enzenhofer Mar 24 '11 at 07:58
  • @sam its created exactly for cases like yours. where you do want to communicate a right/new version of a page to google, but you do not have the tools to create an HTTP 301 redirect. a case which is more common then you think. – Franz Enzenhofer Mar 24 '11 at 08:00