Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums

Discussing Web Design & Marketing Since 1998

  • Announcements

    • cre8pc

      Thank you! Cre8asiteforums 1998 - 2018   01/18/2018

      Internet Marketing Ninjas released many of the online forums they had acquired, such as WebmasterWorld, SEOChat, several DevShed properties and these forums back to their founders. You will notice a new user interface for Cre8asiteforums, the software was upgraded, and it was moved to a new server. Thank you for your support as we turn 20 years old.  
iamlost

Redirects Lose Dampness

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×