Redirect Without Passing Old Page Properties
-
Is there a way to redirect one page to another, e.g. test.com/ to test.com/home, without passing link juice or any other associated properties of the latter to the former?
-
Well put, thanks Dan. I'm going to stick with the 302 "temporarily." Wink, wink.
After all, everything is temporary right?!
-
Hey Jesse
It gets tricky to say the least. First there's the protocols which are best practice "rules" for any web development - http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html
But then there's Google's sort of own interpretations and treatment of those redirects on top of that. And there's always what Google says vs what they actually might be doing.
Technically a 302 is "found" although everyone uses it for "temporary" and yet a 307 is a temporary. I recall Google saying in their eyes there is no difference.
Yeah I guess you could leave 302s or 307s in forever, and how long is acceptable? I could leave a 302 redirect in place for 20 years and then decide to move it back? Is that what they mean?
As far as what Google does with them there's lots of Google and 3rd party resources about them and like I said we can probably find a few Matt Cutts videos talking about how they treat them - but then there's reality - which brings a lot of variables and moving parts.
So I think the main idea is as cliche as it sounds, all real situations are different. I follow this train of thought;
- If possible, FIRST choose what to do based upon best web standards and in most cases this should hopefully satisfy SEO.
- But if you have to do something purely for SEO - basically manipulate a known hole in how these things work vs. how Google supposedly treats them, because that's the only thing that will fix something - then do that. This might be why for example you'd choose a 302 redirect despite knowing it's not really temporary
-
Hey Dan can we talk about that whole concept of "temporary" redirecting signals for a moment?
My company has a site that was hit hard by Penguin and luckily the site was unnecessary to begin with as this company had 2 brands targeting the same business (don't get me started!). Anyway, the domain had to redirect for the sake of existing clients, so I recommended a 302. Now it's been sitting as a 302 for quite some time and everything has worked out fine thus far but I wonder what the ramifications are.
I know it's supposed to be temporary, but who's to stop us from leaving them permanently? Do you know of any sort of indexing issues this can lead to? Sounds like from what you're saying it doesn't really make a ton of difference but I've been wondering about this.
Could all just be semantics I guess.. Makes me wonder what the point of a 302 was when it was conceived by the web-gods.
Thoughts?
-
Hi There
Jesse is right, a 302 doesn't pass PageRank, but it make pass other signals (such as understanding of content, associated penalties - these are just my guesses by the way). Is this something where you are concerned of passing bad link signals? Or other undesired signals?
Also, technically a 302 is for "temporary" redirects, but people do misuse this temporary bit all the time and leave them more or less permanently
-Dan
-
302 passes no link juice
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
-
Redirecting a single page on a separate domain to a new site?
My client started a subdivision of their company, along with a new website. There was already an individual page about the new product/topic on the main site, but recognizing a growth area they wanted to devote an entire site to the product/topic. Can we/should we redirect that page on the old corporate/main site to the new domain, or just place a link or two? Thoughts?
Technical SEO | | VTDesignWorks0 -
Google showing https:// page in search results but directing to http:// page
We're a bit confused as to why Google shows a secure page https:// URL in the results for some of our pages. This includes our homepage. But when you click through it isn't taking you to the https:// page, just the normal unsecured page. This isn't happening for all of our results, most of our deeper content results are not showing as https://. I thought this might have something to do with Google conducting searches behind secure pages now, but this problem doesn't seem to affect other sites and our competitors. Any ideas as to why this is happening and how we get around it?
Technical SEO | | amiraicaew0 -
Unreachable Pages
Hi All Is there a tool to check a website if it has stand alone unreachable pages? Thanks for helping
Technical SEO | | Joseph-Green-SEO0 -
Differing numbers of pages indexed with and without the trailing slash
I noticed today that a site: query in Google (UK) for a certain domain I'm looking at returns different numbers depending on whether or not the trailing slash is added at the end. With the trailing slash the numbers are significantly different. This is a domain with a few duplicate content issues. It seems very rare but I've managed to replicate it for a couple of other well known domains, so this is the phenomenon I'm referring to: site:travelsupermarket.com - 16'300 results
Technical SEO | | ianmcintosh
site:travelsupermarket.com/ - 45'500 results site:guardian.co.uk - 120'000'000 results
site:guardian.co.uk/ - 121'000'000 results For the particular domain I'm looking at the numbers are 19'000 without the trailing slash and 800'000 with it! As mentioned, there are a few duplicate content issues at the moment that I'm trying to tidy up, but how should I interpret this? Has anyone seen this before and can advise what it could indicate? Thanks in advance for any answers.0 -
Correct Redirect method for switching pages from .html to /pretty urls/
I have a customer that has all his site files as .html extensions and i'm going to rebuild this site into a wordpress site for easier management, regarding the new permalink structure, should i just do a 301 redirect on this?
Technical SEO | | tgr0ss0 -
What should be use 301 or 302 redirection for 404 pages
Please suggest which redirection we should use for 404 pages- 301 or 302. If you can elaborate it with reason then it will be highly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | koamit0 -
Handling 301s: Multiple pages to a single page (consolidation)
Been scouring the interwebs and haven't found much information on redirecting two serparate pages to a single new page. Here is what it boils down to: Let's say a website has two pages, both with good page authority of products that are becoming fazed out. The products, Widget A and Widget B, are still popular search terms, but they are being combined into ONE product, Widget C. While Widget A and Widget B STILL have plenty to do with Widget C, Widget C is now the new page, the main focus page, and the page you want everyone to see and Google to recognize. Now, do I 301 Widget A and Widget B pages to Widget C, ALTHOUGH Widgets A and B previously had nothing to do with one another? (Remember, we want to try and keep some of that authority the two page have had.) OR do we keep Widget A and Widget B pages "alive", take them off the main navigation, and then put a "disclaimer" on the pages announcing they are now part of Widget C and link to Widget C? OR Should Widgets A and B page be canonicalized to Widget C? Again, keep in mind, widgets A and B previously were not similar, but NOW they are and result in Widget C. (If you are confused, we can provide a REAL work example of what we are talkinga about, but decided to not be specific to our industry for this.) Appreciate any and all thoughts on this.
Technical SEO | | JU19850 -
Do search engines treat 307 redirects differently from 302 redirects?
We will need to send our users to an alternate version of our homepage for a few hours for a certain event. The SEO task at hand is to minimize the chance of the special homepage getting crawled and cached in the search engines in place of our normal homepage. (This has happened in the past so the concern is not imaginary.) Among other options, 302 and 307 redirects are being discussed. IE, redirecting www.domain.com to www.domain.com/specialpage. Having used 302s and 301s in the past, I am well aware of how search engines treat them. A 302 effectively says "Hey, Google! Please get rid of the old content on www.domain.com and replace it with the content on /specialpage!" Which is exactly what we don't want. My question is: do the search engines handle 307s any differently? I am hearing that the 307 does NOT result in the content of the second page being cached with the first URL. But I don't see that in the definition below (from w3.org). Then again, why differentiate it from the 302? 307 Temporary Redirect The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection MAY be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header field. The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s) , since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 307 status. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the information necessary for a user to repeat the original request on the new URI. If the 307 status code is received in response to a request other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the request was issued.
Technical SEO | | CarsProduction0