31 replies to this topic

[Quadrille]

As the site has permanently moved to a new home, would I not be gaming the engines by using a 302 instead of a 301?

Yes. If it's a permanent move, then you need a 301 "permanent redirect"

It would be unwise and potentially dangerous to your site to use an inappropriate forwarding method.

Yes, there are downsides to using a 301, and on occasion (especially if the site is rebuilt, as well as moved), it can be very difficult. For most people, there will be a dip, then a gradual rise - not *quite* reaching the 'old' status until the quality of incoming links matches the old, as well as surviving the 'aging delay'.

But using the 'wrong' forwarding method - especially a 302 - can drop you in deeper water. Almost certainly, if you ever lost control of the 'old' domain, and quite likely even if you maintain it.

[qwerty]

Scottie's article on the use of the 302 in these cases makes a lot of sense, although I haven't tested it myself. Certainly it wouldn't work if, as you point out, you lost control of the original domain, but the article doesn't speak to that, presumably because you couldn't do anything without control of the original domain.

I don't really see what's dangerous about this technique, though. I would prefer it if the search engine picked up that a 301 was telling them that the new domain is the old site at a new location and that as such it didn't need to be delayed. But if they're not going to do that, it seems the only alternative would be to let your site get sandboxed.

[Jill]

But using the 'wrong' forwarding method - especially a 302 - can drop you in deeper water.

That's pretty hilarious!

Do you have any examples of this?

One can use whatever sort of forward they wish to use on their site. Guess what? It's their site!

The search engines don't penalize for using a temporary redirect as opposed to a permanent one. If they did, all those godaddy 302's would be penalized...which would be really, really silly.

[Connie]

So Jill you think it is OK to tell the SEs that a page has permanently moved when in fact it has not?

You do not think that is an attempt to game the SEs?

As the site has permanently moved to a new home, would I not be gaming the engines by using a 302 instead of a 301?


No.

To me that is gaming the SEs.

Whether they catch it or not is another issue.

But, as Google continues the fight against Spam, I would not want to bet the future of my site, on a lie.

Would you?

[qwerty]

When you think about it, the site hasn't been permanently moved until you remove the pages from the old domain. It will be permanently moved, but it hasn't been yet.

[Scottie]

Exactly. Until you permanently move the pages, you are more than welcome to tag it as temporary if you like.

One page is the same as the other... so exactly what is the "game"? What deception is there?

Using a 302 redirect from one page to a totally different page would be gaming the engines because the engine would be confusing the content (and importance) of one page with another. And yes, that's been done along with other nasty things using a 302 redirect. That doesn't make 302 redirects deceptive or "wrong".

But using a temporary redirect to move the same site to a different domain for business reasons is hardly deceptive.

But, for people who live in fear of the search engines without understanding them, by all means use a 301 permanent redirect. You will lose your rankings for a period of time while the site "ages".

Those are pretty much your choices!

[Connie]

When you put the redirect in place the old pages or site no longer exist.

It doesn't make any difference if you leave them on the server or delete them.

I can set up a redirect (301 or 302) from a non existent page and you will be redirected to the new page.

Don't tell me the old site still exist because the files are still on the server. The Old site ceased to exist the moment you redirected to the new site.

The point is. Are you telling the SEs this is a temporary move. The old site will be back (302) , or are you telling them this is a permanent move (301)?

[qwerty]

When you put the redirect in place the old pages or site no longer exist.

It doesn't make any difference if you leave them on the server or delete them.

They still exist until they're removed. They're simply no longer accessible because the server is redirecting requests from those URLs.

I can set up a redirect (301 or 302) from a non existent page and you will be redirected to the new page.

Of course. You could also redirect from a nonexistent page to an old page.

Don't tell me the old site still exist because the files are still on the server.  The Old site ceased to exist the moment you redirected to the new site.

If the site had ceased to exist (in any form), it would not be able to redirect any user agents to the new location.

The point is.  Are you telling the SEs this is a temporary move.  The old site will be back (302) , or are you telling them this is a permanent move (301)?

If you want to get technical, a 302 response doesn't exactly say the document has been temporarily moved. The W3C says

Found 302

The data requested actually resides under a different URL, however, the redirection may be altered on occasion (when making links to these kinds of document, the browser should default to using the Udi of the redirection document, but have the option of linking to the final document) as for "Forward".

[Jill]

Connie, if you think it's okay for Google to penalize a company and de-rank a website because they have a business need to change their domain name, then feel free to use a 301 redirect and live with what's doled out to you.

Our clients and the people I provide advice to can't afford to lose their rankings for 3 months or 6 months or 9 months because they have to change their domain name.

In situations such as this, you do what you have to do, and work around the limitations of the search engines. At least I do. Since you don't have paying clients, it is obviously a moot point for you. But there's no way in hell I could ever in good conscience advise anyone to use a 301-redirect to a brand new domain, knowing full well that all the hard earned rankings that the site has acqauired through the years would be suddenly lost for no reason at all.

That would be criminal, in my opinion.

[JohnC]

new domain = aging delay

I think this might be the problem here. While in most case I totaly agree with the above statement. I am not sure it applies to changing domains using a 301 anymore. Scottie's article is over a year old and I dont think the problems she was avoiding are an issue any longer. The engines are handling 301s much better than they were a year ago and I know for fact that sites with 10's of thousands of indexed pages can and have changed domains using 301 with no ill side effects or loss of rankings what so ever, all within the last 4-5 months.

[rolf]

I am not sure it applies to changing domains using a 301 anymore. Scottie's article is over a year old and I dont think the problems she was avoiding are an issue any longer.

I can't be sure, but Scottie's explanation certainly makes sense for what happening on my domains - not enough figures to say if the workaround is having an effect yet but the traffic is way down since moving and using a 301 :-(

The only other explanation that makes sense (so far) is that I've shot myself in the foot somehow. I can't think of anything I've done differently than before apart from the design - which is much more css based and 'should' be better for the engines - so for now I totally buy Scottie's theory.

[Scottie]

As far as I can tell, Google still treats 301's to a new domain exactly the same. But everything changes eventually!

JohnC, have you moved a domain recently and had the rankings transfer immediately to the new site using a 301 redirect? I'd love to see an example. Maybe it has changed, but I haven't seen it.

(It still cracks me up that people think this is a controversial thing. All you can do is try it for yourself and see if it works. Theories from people who've never moved a domain are worth about what they've put into it, IMO.)

[Jill]

I am not sure it applies to changing domains using a 301 anymore. Scottie's article is over a year old and I dont think the problems she was avoiding are an issue any longer.

According to the emails I get from people who've had to switch to a new domain name, as well as people who've posted in this forum over the past few months with that issue, you still do lose your rankings with a brand new domain if you put a 301 redirect on it not a 302.

Would be excellent if they fix this obvious bug, however.

[Randy]

I honestly don't expect them to fix it Jill. In fact, I doubt Google even considers it a bug.

Opening it up so that things work the way most who aren't trying to fool Google think it should with a 301 would have a severe, negative impact. While it would be a good thing for the relatively few Good Guys trying to change their domain for branding purposes, doing so would also open a huge loophole for those the Aging Delay was set up to combat.

I would be surprised to see Google change how 301's work with regards to the aging delay. Not unless they can figure out some enhancement to keep the Let's put up 200 sites per day from being able to defeat the original intent of the aging delay.

[Jill]

But Randy, what's to stop all those people who would do 301s from just doing 302s?

If the 302 is some magical way of spamming, why wouldn't Google simply close it off as an option?