Do 301 redirects now allow most of the bad value to pass through?
-
I heard after the 3.2 update that most of your bad history passes though the 301 redirect.. What do you guys think out there?
-
Hi Matthew,
Excellent question, and one we should explore in more depth, research and write a blog post here at SEOmoz.
But the short answer is: yes. I've seen a lot of evidence in the past year that low quality backlinks pass through 301 redirects, almost as powerful as if you linked those bad links directly to the new domain.
We've seen more evidence of this lately, as Google cracks down harder on bad links, more webmasters are grumbling that that their 301s are hurting them.
Of course, the best solution to any bad redirected backlinks is to stop the 301. I've seen sites recover after doing this and heard evidence from other webmasters of this working, at least to a degree, in some situations.
Hope this helps. Best of luck with your SEO!
-
That is correct a 301 Redirect pushes all existing link equity to the new url structure. in order to prevent bad link equity to push through, do not 301 an old url to the new url.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
301 Redirects, Sitemaps and Indexing - How to hide redirected urls from search engines?
We have several pages in our site like this one, http://www.spectralink.com/solutions, which redirect to deeper page, http://www.spectralink.com/solutions/work-smarter-not-harder. Both urls are listed in the sitemap and both pages are being indexed. Should we remove those redirecting pages from the site map? Should we prevent the redirecting url from being indexed? If so, what's the best way to do that?
Technical SEO | | HeroDesignStudio0 -
Should existing canonical tags be removed where a 301 redirect is the preferred option?
Hi, I'm working on a site that is currently using canonical tags to deal with www and non-www variations. My recommendation is to setup 301 redirects to deal with this issue instead. However, is it ok to leave the existing canonical tags in place alongside the new 301 redirects or should they be removed? My thoughts are that this is not a canonical issue and therefore they should be removed? If 301 redirects are not possible it would be better have them that nothing at all but I don't think we need both, right? Any feedback much appreciated!
Technical SEO | | MVIreland0 -
Why are my 301 redirects and duplicate pages (with canonicals) still showing up as duplicates in Webmaster Tools?
My guess is that in time Google will realize that my duplicate content is not actually duplicate content, but in the meantime I'd like to get your guys feedback. The reporting in Webmaster Tools looks something like this. Duplicates /url1.html /url2.html /url3.html /category/product/url.html /category2/product/url.html url3.html is the true canonical page in the list above._ url1.html,_ and url2.html are old URLs that 301 to url3.html. So, it seems my bases are covered there. _/category/product/url.html _and _/category2/product/url.html _ do not redirect. They are the same page as url3.html. Each of the category URLs has a canonical URL of url3.html in the header. So, it seems my bases are covered there as well. Can I expect Google to pick up on this? Why wouldn't it understand this already?
Technical SEO | | bearpaw0 -
301 Redirects Relating to Your XML Sitemap
Lets say you've got a website and it had quite a few pages that for lack of a better term were like an infomercial, 6-8 pages of slightly different topics all essentially saying the same thing. You could all but call it spam. www.site.com/page-1 www.site.com/page-2 www.site.com/page-3 www.site.com/page-4 www.site.com/page-5 www.site.com/page-6 Now you decided to consolidate all of that information into one well written page, and while the previous pages may have been a bit spammy they did indeed have SOME juice to pass through. Your new page is: www.site.com/not-spammy-page You then 301 redirect the previous 'spammy' pages to the new page. Now the question, do I immediately re-submit an updated xml sitemap to Google, which would NOT contain all of the old URL's, thus making me assume Google would miss the 301 redirect/seo juice. Or do I wait a week or two, allow Google to re-crawl the site and see the existing 301's and once they've taken notice of the changes submit an updated sitemap? Probably a stupid question I understand, but I want to ensure I'm following the best practices given the situation, thanks guys and girls!
Technical SEO | | Emory_Peterson0 -
301 Redirect
Hello, On the 26.2.13 we changed domain names having followed the guidance of both Matt Cutts Youtube videos and googles own online documentation. We have a 301 redirect in place from our old domain ukmotorhomehirerental.com to our new site leisurerentalsdirect.com on a page to page basis. The site structure has not been altered in anyway. Google has been informed of the change of address. After the change the new domain transition was pretty seamless and ranked in the same postion in the SERPsThe one thing I've not done yet is tell all the webmasters who link to the old site that the address has changed (could this be it?)
Technical SEO | | Badapplemedia0 -
Is anyone able to check this 301 redirect for errors please?
Hi, I had a developer write a 301 wildcard for redirecting old hosted site to a new domain. Old URLS looked like /b/2039566/1/akai.html
Technical SEO | | Paul_MC
With varying letters & numbers. I have 26,000 crawl errors in GWT and I can only imagine it's because this is looping?
Can anyone advise if this would be causing grief? Thanks
Paul RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^vacuumdirect.com.au$ [OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.vacuumdirect.com.au$
RewriteRule ^/?$ "http://www.vacuumbag.net.au/vacuum-cleaners.html" [R=301,L] <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteRule ^p/([0-9]+)/(.*) default/$2 [R=301,L]</ifmodule> <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteRule ^c/([0-9]+)/1/(.*) default/vacuum-bags/vacuum-cleaner-bags-$2 [R=301,L]</ifmodule> <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteRule ^p/([0-9]+)/(.*) $2 [R=301,L]</ifmodule> <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteRule ^c/([0-9]+)/(.*) default/$2 [R=301,L]</ifmodule>0 -
Switching from a .org to .io (301 domain redirect)
I'm considering switching my main site from a .org to .io address; the .org is an exact match domain which helped to kickstart it a few years ago and now has about 50% repeat visitors, but was thrown off the Apple affiliation program for trademark infringement. I've found and purchased a nice (non-infringing) .io domain, and I've read the advice here on how to properly 301 the old domain; but my question is - does it matter that it's .io? Is this going to significantly hurt my rankings, even when everything has been 301'd properly? Another thought I had is that I may actually come out better off in the long run, what with Google penalties being applied to exact match domains. Is this a ranking suicide? If so, I'm tempted to leave it as is; even without the affiliation, it's making a good amount every month in ad fees that I don't want to disrupt. Thanks all!
Technical SEO | | w0lfiesmithUK0 -
Another 301 redirect question - penalty?
Good Morning, We have 2 sites have images and minimal text on them. The images have links that point to a 3<sup>rd</sup> site that facilitates eCommerce. Question: If we 301 redirect these sites permanently to yet a 4<sup>th</sup> site… 1) Does it violate any G’s guidelines 2) Should we delete the links embedded in the images (as they point to the 3<sup>rd</sup> site) Thanks
Technical SEO | | Prime850