Post by amirmukaddas on Mar 11, 2024 6:52:28 GMT
Let's start by clearing the field of doubts: exactly as with diamonds, a redirect is forever , that is to say that once a resource has been removed and redirected, it would be advisable not to delete the redirect again, because Googlebot can preserve the old path in time indeterminate and recall it years later, even if it no longer exists or takes links from other internal or external pages. Yes, it's a mess. How many redirects can I keep in htaccess? A more than legitimate question which we have historically tried to answer by carrying out tests to evaluate when in fact there are too many redirects , i.e. what is the numerical threshold of redirects not to be exceeded to avoid website crawling problems. It emerges that unless you have tens of thousands of redirects lined up one above the other there are no problems with the site's performance, but the real problems do not seem to concern single redirects, but rather the (odious) chains of redirects .
Those are the mortal sin in migration. What are redirect chains If a simple redirect serves to point a no longer existing resource to another, a chain does the same thing in multiple steps, making one resource point to another which points to another and so on Denmark Telegram Number Data until the good one. So in chronological order we have: A –> B –> C –> D … N (where N is the existing page to which the others point). But what the hell is all this for? It serves to consolidate the relevance signals obtained over time from the different previous versions of the same page, towards the one currently online. Why are there these chains on the site I manage? They are there because evidently the website has a history of migrations.
Perhaps it has existed for a long time and previous versions were structured differently or were even created with different CMS. Each time we proceeded to move the relevant signals towards the new "current" version by doing cascade redirections. How to lighten redirect chains Unlike simple redirects, those of only one degree, chains can more easily create problems with scanning the htaccess file and consequently significant slowdowns also at the level of page opening. But if I wrote earlier that a redirect is forever, how can we free ourselves from these chains without losing signals of relevance?
Those are the mortal sin in migration. What are redirect chains If a simple redirect serves to point a no longer existing resource to another, a chain does the same thing in multiple steps, making one resource point to another which points to another and so on Denmark Telegram Number Data until the good one. So in chronological order we have: A –> B –> C –> D … N (where N is the existing page to which the others point). But what the hell is all this for? It serves to consolidate the relevance signals obtained over time from the different previous versions of the same page, towards the one currently online. Why are there these chains on the site I manage? They are there because evidently the website has a history of migrations.
Perhaps it has existed for a long time and previous versions were structured differently or were even created with different CMS. Each time we proceeded to move the relevant signals towards the new "current" version by doing cascade redirections. How to lighten redirect chains Unlike simple redirects, those of only one degree, chains can more easily create problems with scanning the htaccess file and consequently significant slowdowns also at the level of page opening. But if I wrote earlier that a redirect is forever, how can we free ourselves from these chains without losing signals of relevance?