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! 




From the folks who brought you High Rankings!

- - - - -

Convincing Client To Change Redirects To 301 For Link Juice

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 ttw


    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Location:San Mateo, California

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:46 PM

I have a client who for years has been making redirects in their .htaccess file like this:

Redirect /friendly-name/index.php http://www.abc.com/id/em-xyz/index.php

They set up "friendly" URLs that actually never have a real page located at them and redirect them to a more complex URL, but they do it in such a way that the engines see the destination URL as a 302 redirect, but since there are links pointing to the "friendly" URL that juice never is passed to the actual (the "complex") URL.

They say they've always done it that way and why change? I believe that they should set up the redirects as Redirect 301 and they'll get the link juice!

Like this:

Redirect 301 /friendly-name/index.php http://www.abc.com/id/em-xyz/index.php




#2 Jill


    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 09 June 2010 - 03:05 PM

Yes. You are correct. With 302s the old URLs will also get indexed which you typically don't want, although there are exceptions.

#3 qwerty


    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,695 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 10 June 2010 - 10:56 AM

Maybe this is a separate issue, but why wouldn't they rewrite the old URLs to the friendly ones? That way, they'd get all of the benefits of the friendly URLs.

#4 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,325 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 10 June 2010 - 06:21 PM

Are you trying to address some basic problem in their search visibility or is this just a case of dotting i's and crossing t's because it sticks out like a sore thumb? I mean, if this has been going on for years, it seems like they have never felt compelled to do anything about it. Do they dominate in their niche? If so, then I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

#5 KarenC


    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Location:Lafayette, LA

Posted 15 June 2010 - 08:11 AM

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jun 10 2010, 10:56 AM) View Post
Maybe this is a separate issue, but why wouldn't they rewrite the old URLs to the friendly ones? That way, they'd get all of the benefits of the friendly URLs.

I agree with qwerty. And also I would drop the index.php as that shouldn't be needed. It can cause canonization issues.

#6 OldWelshGuy


    Work is Fun

  • Moderator
  • 4,713 posts
  • Location:Neath, South Wales, UK

Posted 15 June 2010 - 09:06 AM

Personally I would tell them that while it might have been fine for years, there is always the possibility that in the future this might not be seen as fine, and it would be a shame to find out the hard way due to a slapping from Google.

#7 bwelford


    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Location:Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Posted 15 June 2010 - 12:29 PM

In any case, Matt Cutts has stated that there is a slight reduction in PageRank with even a 301 redirect, so it's better to avoid the need for such a redirect.

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.