Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Google And 302 Redirects


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 doughayman

doughayman

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 09:25 AM

I have an old webserver that encapsulates affiliate links in a CGI program/database. When the link is clicked (i.e., the CGI program is invoked), HTML header info is captured into a local database, the appropriate affiliate link is retrieved from the DB, and then the user is redirected to the affiliate link.

Now the question. This old webserver of mine automatically generates a 302 webserver code (not a 301), when the user is redirected to the affiliate link. There is no way to override this. A couple of quick questions:

1) From an SEO and Google standpoint, will this generated 302 be an issue nowadays ?? I do a rel="nofollow" on the affected links;

2) There is a CGI kluge that I can perform on the outbound header - by stating that the HTTP protocol is V1.0, the webserver can return a "200" status code (instead of a 302) in this instance, while still redirecting the user to the fetched affiliate link. Am I looking for Google trouble by forcing a 200 status code here ?

Thanks in advance.

P.S. For a variety of reasons, upgrading to a new webserver is not currently an option.

#2 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 09:45 AM

1. Since you're apparently not wanting to pass link pop you don't really need to change anything. If you wanted to pass link value you'd want those to be 301's, but since you're nofollowing them in the first place there is no need.

2. I wouldn't force a 200 response. I wouldn't do anything given the circumstances and goals. That said, if you wanted to send something other than a default 302 header you can do it at the script level. It would be very similar to the php and asp examples Chris gave on the first page of our pinned 301 redirects thread.

#3 doughayman

doughayman

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 10:21 AM

OK, thanks for this, Randy. Off topic (or off-forum), I have been told by Microsoft, that Bing will NOT index any pages that link to 302 redirects (only 301). Unfortunately, given the technology of this webserver (O'Reilly's Website Professional V1.1h) , I cannot take advantage of any of the scripting methods provided in your link. I can force a status code in my CGI code, but unfortunately, cannot force a 301 (only a 200).

#4 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 10:39 AM

That's interesting.

Is Microsoft saying they'll not index either page in the 302 sequence? Or simply won't follow it through to the actual target page?



#5 doughayman

doughayman

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 10:52 AM

QUOTE(Randy @ Aug 19 2009, 11:39 AM) View Post
That's interesting.

Is Microsoft saying they'll not index either page in the 302 sequence? Or simply won't follow it through to the actual target page?


Randy, I just re-read a post from a Bing support representative, and he says that the index page will not be indexed (no mention of 302 target page). This is what worries me. I am going to reply to the gentleman who stipulated that, and ask for a clarification. I will post his paraphrased response here, when I get it, even though it is slightly off-forum topic. I'm hoping that he stated this wrong.

However (and again, off-topic), every page on this webserver that contains an affiliate link reference (via my CGI .EXE-based link), is indexed in Bing currently, BUT has no TITLE or META DESCRIPTION associated with it (this is garnered from the site:www.domain.com command). Needless to say, those pages do not rank in Bing at all. Hence, either what he said is true, or there is some other penalty being assessed to these pages, coincidentally.

#6 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 11:23 AM

Can you post a link to what the MS rep posted, or paste it here? I for one and not understanding at all what you're saying that he said.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We are now a read-only forum.
 
No new posts or registrations allowed.