Should you change Temporary redirects 302's to a 301 even if page is not important/intended for ranking ?
-
Hi
Whilst i appreciate its best practice to 301 redirect permanently moved pages, what if the page is say a login page or other page you not really interested in ranking or transferring juice to ? is it still important/best practice to do so simply because the page has permanently moved hence should still be a 301 even though you don't really want it to rank ?
cheers
dan
-
good info cheers
-
Exactly. If they are redirects because you need to login then a 302 is the way to go. If you use a 301 for those redirects, some browsers may cache that redirect and then when the user is actually logged in, he will still be redirected to the login page as the browser "thought" that page was no longer available (and that can potentially create an infinite loop)...
Over the years, I found 2 options to go about that:
- You want the pages indexed (those accessible after login in): Use 302, and give Google a way to crawl those pages.
- You don't want those pages to be indexed (personal info inside): Then you can (while the user is logged out) point the destination to those pages to the login page with a return path, example: http://www.domain.com/login?return=page-to-return, that way you avoid any 3XX redirect without loosing any pagerank in the process (going over any 3XX redirect looses some pagerank as if it was a regular link).
Hope that helped
-
Thanks for commenting Federico !
Could well be although i don't know for sure - Many of them are to a login page from an 'account/destination/forum' type of url so i presume thats whats happening, needing to redirect temporarily to login, in most of the instances where 302 re-directing to a login page, and hence 302 is correct usage in these instances ?
-
Hmm... are those 302 because you need to login to view that content? or you just removed the page?
If you completely removed the page, then a 301 would be the best option, even if you don't want the final destination to rank, as Simon said, they still accumulate pagerank and pass it to the other linked pages (which some could be of the ones to WANT to rank).
302 are temporary redirects, meaning that it's temporal, at that specific moment the page isn't available (because you need to login to view it, it is being updates, or whatever is the reason), but with a 302 you are basically telling search engines to index that page, but just come back later as specifically now it isn't available.
-
Choosing to leave a redirect as a 302 is not a major issue as it's not going to have any major effect other than, as you rightly say, preventing full flow of link juice to the new page. However, it is worth considering that while you may not wish to rank for this page you are unnecessarily wasting link juice, however minimal.
In theory, if you're not overly concerned about rank for this page you could noindex it. The page, although not indexed, would still accumulate page rank (if you changed to a 301) which you could pass internally to other pages in your site. A noindex page can still accumulate and pass pagerank as this old but still relevant article attests. Really though leaving the 302 in place is not going to be a problem if you decide the benefit of changing it would be minimal.
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
-
Redirect 'keyword-url' to improve ranking?
I was wondering if a good url, with a keyword in it, can help you improve the position of that certain keyword by redirecting that url to your website. To make it clear: We run the website www.terello.nl, and have the possibility to let the url www.iphonereparatie.nl (translation: iphonerepair) redirect to our website. Would this help us to rank for the keyword 'iPhone reparatie'? I hope that I made myself clear this way:) Otherwise i'm more than happy to clearify myself!
Technical SEO | | Jan-Peter0 -
'sameAs' Mark up for different spellings of a Product/Keyword, is it possible?
Hi There, I've seen that for social media profiles you can mark them up to be the 'sameAs', example below: - <code><scripttype="application ld+json"="">{ "@context":"http://schema.org", "@type":"Organization", "name":"Your Organization Name", "url":"http://www.your-site.com", "sameAs":[ "http://www.facebook.com/your-profile", "http://www.twitter.com/yourProfile", "http://plus.google.com/your_profile" ] }</scripttype="application></code> My question is can you do something similar for your product/keyword? For example when you can spell the word in different ways e.g. Whisky (English) or Whiskey (Irish/US). I've had a look at schema.org but I'm not sure if I'm headed down the wrong path? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Jon-S0 -
Why is Coyscape showing content duplication error even after implementing 301 redirect ?
We are maintaining the corporate website of one of our prestigious clients "FineTech Toolings" (http://www.finetechtoolings.in). Recently I had raised a question regarding "2 websites running paralley in 2 diferent domains, i.e. 1 organisation having 2 different websites on 2 different domains". Recently my domain changed from http://www.finetechtoolings.co.in to http://www.finetechtoolings.in via 301 redirect, but still I am facing content duplication issue as per Copyscape. Hence I am having a small doubt regarding the same. Please note the following question very carefully and provide me the exact problem and the solution for the same: Even though I have implemented 301 redirect (http://www.finetechtoolings.co.in is redirected to http://www.finetechtoolings.in), which is completely ok as per the SEO rules, why is copyscape still showing that duplicate content exists in the former website? I think I am clear enough with my question.
Technical SEO | | KDKini0 -
Container Page/Content Page Duplicate Content
My client has a container page on their website, they are using SiteFinity, so it is called a "group page", in which individual pages appear and can be scrolled through. When link are followed, they first lead to the group page URL, in which the first content page is shown. However, when navigating through the content pages, the URL changes. When navigating BACK to the first content page, the URL is that for the content page, but it appears to indexers as a duplicate of the group page, that is, the URL that appeared when first linking to the group page. The client updates this on the regular, so I need to find a solution that will allow them to add more pages, the new one always becoming the top page, without requiring extra coding. For instance, I had considered integrating REL=NEXT and REL=PREV, but they aren't going to keep that up to date.
Technical SEO | | SpokeHQ1 -
404's in WMT are old pages and referrer links no longer linking to them.
Within the last 6 days, Google Webmaster Tools has shown a jump in 404's - around 7000. The 404 pages are from our old browse from an old platform, we no longer use them or link to them. I don't know how Google is finding these pages, when I check the referrer links, they are either 404's themselves or the page exists but the link to the 404 in question is not on the page or in the source code. The sitemap is also often referenced as a referrer but these links are definitely not in our sitemap and haven't been for some time. So it looks to me like the referrer data is outdated. Is that possible? But somehow these pages are still being found, any ideas on how I can diagnose the problem and find out how google is finding them?
Technical SEO | | rock220 -
301 redirects
Hello. Our site was recently rebuilt, and we switched from using index.php in all the urls to not using it at all. We also changed the names of many of our pages. So the urls have been renamed from "example.com/index.php/old_page_name/" to "example.com/new-page-name/". While we were at it, we changed from "_" to "-" as our word separators in the urls. In the .htaccess file, we have a small block of code that strips out "index.php/" from all requests. This code redirects a request for "example.com/index.php/old_page_name/" to "example.com/old_page_name/" For your information, the code that strips out "index.php/" is: RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^GET.index.php [NC]
Technical SEO | | nyc-seo
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} !/uSZWTLna/.
RewriteRule (.?)index.php/(.*) /$1$2 [R=301,L] Then we have 301 redirects from "example.com/old_page_name/" to "example.com/new-page-name/" QUESTION 1: Is this two-step redirect approach okay, or would it be better to skip the separate index.php stripping code and simply have 301 redirects that include "index.php" in the urls? QUESTION 2: Will we lose some of the benefit of the links that have to pass through a 301 redirect? QUESTION 3: We have 50 or so redirects. Will this affect performance of the site? How many redirects does it take to start affecting performance? Thank you!0 -
Do Collections in Shopify create Duplicate Pages according to Google/Bing/Yahoo?
I'm using the e-commerce platform Shopify to host an e-store. We've put our products into different collections. Shopify automatically creates different URL paths to a product in multiple collections. I'm worried that the same product listed in different collections is soon as different pages, and therefore duplicate content by Google/Bing/Yahoo. Would love to get your opinion on this concern! Thanks! Matthew
Technical SEO | | HappinessDigital0 -
302 Redirects for Minor Pages
301 redirects are clearly preferable to 302 redirects for pages that need to be indexed by search engines. If I have 302 redirects to minor pages not getting much traffic regardless of the code, how important (if at all) is changing the redirects to 301? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | theLotter0