From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-167747-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254B813838B for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03B36E0869; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:37:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C515BE0853 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:36:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so48099435wic.0 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:36:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=qDWNHVBX9zmG/YnCEMVEP4iDRfytuPjyyCESDpFqoag=; b=SMGuiOgyZYvi9tVDRBIiMTvcQIATx61c/8iFUW+LlW/DL9o4Kkjpol3VBpPQP6Re9Y eDbxOFqkqb/B9j2zMDymYx82zz5V+QMHlFJ05kxY6Zl/6Kd3PCUz1AFNKhIglx84QsPb +IQtq+BkMguVZ55k065q6JPjIQdjAwbfOVlQVgr0JFnjJBJCiXx4+w0mHCmeAc+FR0eV dS7suHPOsoonH+UQsY68uXdZVZLhM7i5QCFi5BvkpBh5E7PPOXeJunUqg0LoOkOPM2dD jnsKOqsqWkwlk2/2W6CZZqBCwtzouVlNqdJzYLFUR77CsrMOD1fKDNXlZ4qXnjD5y4ni G8Og== X-Received: by 10.194.76.7 with SMTP id g7mr2337151wjw.44.1443598618297; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa. [217.169.3.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id he3sm27975375wjc.48.2015.09.30.00.36.56 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Major site redesign, SEO, and 301 redirects Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:36:47 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.0.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <560AEDFA.9000706@libertytrek.org> <560B2CC3.6030901@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <560B2CC3.6030901@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3292043.p5v0I25WAR"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201509300836.56159.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: eb0b1abc-b012-4c54-bd9c-ac4dee3917e5 X-Archives-Hash: 46827912fcdebef72f5b65159c1088dd --nextPart3292043.p5v0I25WAR Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wednesday 30 Sep 2015 01:28:51 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 29/09/2015 22:00, Tanstaafl wrote: > > Hi all, > >=20 > > I am not a web (or SEO) guy, but I manage our DNS and have for a long > > time. > >=20 > > The boss has contracted with a web development company to do a full > > redesign of our website. > >=20 > > Our website has hundreds of thousands of pages, and years of SEO behind > > it. The guys who was her until recently was adamant that we must be very > > carefl with the redesign so as not to totally break SEO, and possibly > > getting blacklisted by Google. > >=20 > > The web developers are insisting that they need full access to our DNS > > (hosted by DNSMadeEasy), and the only reason I can think of for this is > > they plan on setting up HTTP redirects (DNSMadeEasy equivalent of a 301 > > redirect) for these pages - but hundreds of thousands of them? >=20 > I've been thinking about this some more. >=20 > We all assumed "full access" means "so we can change stuff". Maybe it > really means they want to see what's in "dig axfr" (a zone transfer) > which they normally can't see. There are TXT records in DNS that they > might be interested in. >=20 > It would be wise to clarify with the devs exactly what it is they are > looking for. >=20 > And overall, in your shoes I would be firm, adamant and above all polite > and say that infrastructure changes go through you and you alone, and > must be vetted by you with full transparency. >=20 > > Wouldn't this be better done at the web server level? Or am I just > > ignorant? > >=20 > > Would love to hear experiences (good and bad), and a recommendation for > > what I should do. > >=20 > > thanks I couldn't agree more with all the warnings that have been posted. However= ,=20 it may simply be that they want to build a new website and they want to=20 redirect your DNS from your currently hosted server to theirs. Are they=20 offering SaaS, or will you be hosting the new website on prem? In any case= ,=20 they could just ask you to do this, if you agree. Given that "possession i= s=20 nine-tenths of the law" I would not let them anywhere near your DNS records= -=20 period. With regards to being blacklisted by Google, you have to be careful indeed.= =20 Google will blacklist bad code and malicious code. If your code is clean, = you=20 don't fill your metadata with repetitive cr*ap and your topic is not faced= =20 with a competition of millions selling exactly the same undifferentiated=20 product, then you should be OK in organic listing rankings. Having mirrore= d=20 websites on different DNS' will also blacklist you, although DNS or http=20 redirects are of course legit. A lot of so called SEO companies are not actually streamlining the content = and=20 metadata, but exploiting paid-for Google Ads and in a non-transparent way t= o=20 milk the customer, on top of the Google charges. Most of these companies s= et=20 up Google Ads once and rarely if ever come back to to tune it. I couldn't= =20 care to list the number of websites we switched off Google Ads and saw no=20 discernible different in the rankings. BTW, although SEO is not rocket science its not something you would leave t= o=20 your marketing people alone, or for that matter to your coding people alone= =2E =20 You need both. =20 =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart3292043.p5v0I25WAR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAABCAAGBQJWC5EYAAoJELAdA+zwE4YeQVMIAIQf0QInu7zjvi0CzAW4SyOS tciIN4BkSxjkbdtjmADnXAcIEnLrWLPHUCG3xREFwZylHMoHuH9EsqnV0e3+ajoh JkWEkpN1MJ8pIxoGdYQtL3q233hCilmEYiwQeDU0NP196negJ7/Zib5eL4lUf8qs ZD0PP0S75PdPY5fQEQsJRHs75WJD7u6S5Mi3TcJTBmS5jHBEleyj2ARmG5Twy5Xl lnSRsKflysLSgKNmRe/2Fp31v0D000QGilRR5SGiMszV0dgBpT76TzYSy9d3WaEB uoF5B+GJPFwGdRiwz/ZDlvQjUkd532thC6ja00RxLjVPRT1LS7Fd/t4GzPDoRE8= =caca -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3292043.p5v0I25WAR--