Instead of a 301, my client uses a 302 to custom 404

[Jen_Floyd]

I've found about 900 instances of decommissioned pages being redirected via 302 to a 404 custom page, even when there's a comparable page elsewhere on the site or on a new subdomain.

My recommendation would be to always do a 301 from the legacy page to the new page, but since they're are so many instances of this 302->404 it seems to be standard operating procedure by the dev team.

Given that at least one of these pages has links coming from 48 root domains, wouldn't it obviously be much better to 301 redirect it to pass along that equity?  I don't get why the developers are doing this, and I have to build a strong case about what they're losing with this 302->404 protocol.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on WHY the dev team has settled on this solution, in addition to what suffers as a result.  I think I know, but would love some more expert input.

[Travis_Bailey]

Of course they aren't seeing a drop in traffic to comparable pages. Those pages are fighting under their own steam. If you send a customer/prospect to the right page, the first time, they'll likely see an increase in traffic.

It sounds like they're talking about 'what is' rather than 'what could be', which in our opinion is likely better. So I guess you could make the business case that incoming referrals are bouncing when they could be buying. Hopefully there's tracking code of some sort on the faux 404 page.

[Jen_Floyd]

Travis, thanks - in addition to my comment to Wiqas, I think that the usability is a big point to make.  See, the analysts will come back to me and say, "we're not seeing a drop in any traffic to comparable pages."  I'm going to do an in-depth look into Page Authority for a related report, but I agree 100% on the usability point.  We do have comparable pages...why the heck wouldn't we 301?  Esp. when external sites are still occasionally use the legacy URL....

Thx.

[Jen_Floyd]

Thanks - yea, and it's funny because most of the analysts and devs I talk to say, "oh, 302 is just as good as 301, these days."  Everything else I read runs contrary to that.  Thanks Wiqas.

[Asjad]

Hey,

302 redirect is mostly used for temporary situations and it fits to very few situations.  302 redirect doesn't pass link juice to pointing URL.

Dev Team seems to be conservative in approach. This approach was widely used but it's not recommended now. I recommend 301 Redirect even I don't know exact situation.

You can get more guidance about redirects here: http://moz.com/learn/seo/redirection

I hope, this will help!

Regards

[Travis_Bailey]

I would imagine they took that route because it's fast/easy. I would find using a site that cares that little about usability more than a little annoying. Imagine hitting page after page of 'whoops' pages. It's not something anyone wants to do.

There should be 301s put in place for relevant pages with good/clean links. Then they should 410 unwanted pages. Both the search engines and site visitors win.