Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Redirects Lose Dampness


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5457 posts

Posted 01 August 2016 - 02:07 PM

I haven't done a redirect in over 4-years so the only experience I have is past plus keeping up with specs (we really need to have a discussion of why http/1.1 split http/1.0's 302 response code into 303 and 307 and whether anyone cares in practice...or not :))

So I found Cyrus Shepard's 301 [Google's] Rules Change..., Moz, 01-August-2016, extremely timely and interesting.

By all means read it and the linked resources. Also, as always, test for yourself!

The gist is that Google no longer applies a PageRank dampening factor to 300 level redirects.

It may well, however, treat unrelated redirects as soft 404s, to counter SEO abuse.

So all those prior posts where I talked of minimising 301s especially chained 301s due to dampening concatenation - now antiquated and somewhat wrong. I say somewhat as:
* there are other SEs (yes, there are!) and they may or may not treat redirects as G.
* most SE bots and that still applies to G as far as I know do not follow more than 3-5 chained redirects.
So simple redirects (even the zillions of misapplied 302s) no longer hurt in Google rankings. Long chains prob still due but due to crawl budget/depth not PR dampening.

Note: gotta love the horrendous architectures that require so much bailing wire and glue... I look at a permanent redirect as a failure of structure and method not business as usual. But iamlost.

#2 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 137 posts

Posted 01 August 2016 - 02:52 PM

Just read a Case Study from Glenn Gabe on the same topic: Proof That 301 Redirects To Less-Relevant Pages Are Seen As Soft 404s To Google [Case Study]

 

With all the "bailing wire and glue" required now-a-days I find myself yelling "UNCLE!" at least once a week.  Then I pick myself up off the floor and get back to making my sites the best the can be for site visitors -- that's about all I have the control to control.



#3 Grumpus

Grumpus

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6603 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 06:57 AM

 

It may well, however, treat unrelated redirects as soft 404s, to counter SEO abuse.

 

I'm not so sure that this was ever to counter SEO abuse as much as it simply results in countering it. If you have an article with a PR5 about fishing lures and you keep the URL but change the content of that page to be an article about Liberace's rings, it's basically a new page in a known location. You can't rank the page the same because it's not the same page anymore. It doesn't really matter if it's redirected or you change the copy - it's not the same page and it needs to go through all the math again from scratch.



#4 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3262 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 08:38 AM

I need to rant, but 301s aren't going to satisfy me.



#5 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 14764 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 09:52 AM

I need to rant, but 301s aren't going to satisfy me.

 

 

I wish JohnMu was still here at Cre8....how fun it would be  :morningcoffee:



#6 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2485 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 01:31 PM

I need to rant, but 301s aren't going to satisfy me.

Oh go ahead.  I can speak for some ranters.  If you don't have a good one...read or listen to someone else's rant.  It almost as satisfying.





RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users