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--