[BNM] 301 or 302 for SEO

[Ali]

Anyone up on the pros and cons of 301 and 302 redirects in relation to search engine rules?

I have a hosting client who's SEO man seems to insist on a 302 for his old domain to his new domain, the old domain is parked on top of the new domain, my googling seems to get me to a different conclusion i.e. a 301 (permanent) is required to be safe with the search engines. When I offered the htaccess code for a 301 I was told by my client that the SEO man definitely wants a 302.

Any opinions?

Ali
--

BNM info/subscription/archives: http://www.brightonnewmedia.org/

BNM archive search: http://www.roddis.org/bnm/search.php
BNM Del.icio.us tag: http://del.icio.us/tag/bnm/
BNM Flickr group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/bnm/

BNM powered by http://www.screen-play.net/

[Paul Silver]

If it's a permanent move, you need to use 301 Permanent. One of the big
engines used to have a problem with that, which is why 302 was better,
but that's been cleared up now. In fact 302's can cause alarms because
scammers were using them for a while as a way of a attracting visitors
that was gaming Google - again, I think that's been cleared up now, but
it means 302 can cause suspicion when 301 won't.

Given the weird 'sandbox' penalisation Google has for new sites at the
moment, it's best not to change domain at all if you can avoid it.

Cheers

Paul

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:15:56 -0000, "Ali" <a...@nubz.com> said:
> Anyone up on the pros and cons of 301 and 302 redirects in relation to
> search engine rules?
>
> I have a hosting client who's SEO man seems to insist on a 302 for his
> old domain to his new domain, the old domain is parked on top of the new
> domain, my googling seems to get me to a different conclusion i.e. a 301
> (permanent) is required to be safe with the search engines. When I
> offered the htaccess code for a 301 I was told by my client that the SEO
> man definitely wants a 302.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Ali
--

Paul Silver
http://webpositioningcentre.co.uk
http://www.reluctantmechanic.com
http://www.tenpastmidnight.com

[Dave Child]

Yup. The SEO man appears to not know what he's talking about.

A 302 redirect is temporary. It tells an engine or user "the content you
were looking for is at another URL at the moment, but you should continue
to use this URL to reference it".

A 301 redirect says "This content has moved permanently to another URL.
Update this URL".

From an SEO perspective, using a 301 will mean all the links pointing to
the old domain will count for something - their benefit will be passed to
the new domain. Using a 302 will mean two copies of the site may be
indexed, and all links pointing to the old domain will count for nothing.
See if their SEO man will explain his reasoning - chances are he's been
badly informed.

Dave

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:15:56 -0000, Ali <a...@nubz.com> wrote:

> Anyone up on the pros and cons of 301 and 302 redirects in relation to
> search engine rules?
>
> I have a hosting client who's SEO man seems to insist on a 302 for his
> old domain to his new domain, the old domain is parked on top of the new
> domain, my googling seems to get me to a different conclusion i.e. a 301
> (permanent) is required to be safe with the search engines. When I
> offered the htaccess code for a 301 I was told by my client that the SEO
> man definitely wants a 302.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Ali

--
http://www.ilovejackdaniels.com - Web design and development resources.

[Rosie Freshwater]

"Anyone up on the pros and cons of 301 and 302 redirects in relation to
search engine rules?"

Hi there,

This article should tell you what you need to know. You can use either with
slightly different results.

Consensus is that with a new domain you should start with a temp 302 and
then once the new pages are indexed and ranked switch to a permanent 301.

http://www.highrankings.com/issue142.htm#guest

Hope that helps,

Best wishes,

Rosie
Director
Leapfrogg Ltd

[Ali]

Thanks everyone! I am now more convinced of the 301 route and shall recommend it. The move is indeed permanent, it's a co.uk to a .com to account for expansion into US markets. Changing domains is painful and, I agree, best avoided, a bit like trying to take your actual house with you when you move.....

Ali

Cheers

Paul

--

BNM info/subscription/archives: http://www.brightonnewmedia.org/

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/246 - Release Date: 30/01/2006

[Ali]

Hi Rosie,

Thanks for the response.

Could it be, as Paul pointed out, that this is an out-of date approach? Or do you know otherwise?

Ali
----- Original Message -----
From: Rosie Freshwater
To: 'Brighton New Media'
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [BNM] 301 or 302 for SEO

Hi there,

http://www.highrankings.com/issue142.htm#guest

Hope that helps,

Best wishes,

Rosie
Director
Leapfrogg Ltd

--

BNM info/subscription/archives: http://www.brightonnewmedia.org/

--

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/246 - Release Date: 30/01/2006

--

[Rosie Freshwater]

Hi,

This is a pretty recent article from someone who is highly respected in the
SEO world.

I can't comment from experience as we have always recommended 301 ourselves
and haven't tried using 302. But then we generally try very hard to persuade
people NOT to move their domain :)

Rosie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ali [mailto:a...@nubz.com]
Sent: 31 January 2006 11:52
To: Brighton New Media
Subject: Re: [BNM] 301 or 302 for SEO

Hi Rosie,

Thanks for the response.

Could it be, as Paul pointed out, that this is an out-of date approach? Or
do you know otherwise?

Ali

--

[Paul Silver]

You may as well follow the article, Ali, if there's any chance of
keeping being found while the new domain is under the aging delay it's
worth trying. Though taking 6-12m to move a domain seems a bit mad,
that's Google for you.

Cheers

Paul

[Ali]

mmm, the problem with this account is they have just had the old .co.uk domain wiped from Google because of their lack of foresight and knowledge about this when they changed domain some months ago. Their new SEO man has subsequently asked for a 302 on the server, I host it so they asked me - I just pointed them to htaccess code to do it themselves but couldn't resist exploring the issue further for future ref. SO in light of the fact that the Google ranking is already trashed on the old domain is a 302 superfluous?

Ali
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Silver
To: Brighton New Media

Cheers

Paul

--

BNM info/subscription/archives: http://www.brightonnewmedia.org/

--

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/246 - Release Date: 30/01/2006

--

[Paul Silver]

This is getting a bit tricky without knowing the old URL (off list?)

If they had plenty of links to the old address, especially internal
pages, then it's probably worth reactivating the old address and setting
up the redirects. If they were very unpopular before (i.e. 4-5 links)
there's not a lot of point.

Better to check the links in Yahoo or MSN rather than Google, which only
shows you some of them. Yahoo search for:

link:http://www.brightonnewmedia.org

Note: you need the http:// at the start in Yahoo.

Cheers

Paul

--
Paul Silver
http://www.paulsilver.co.uk
http://www.tenpastmidnight.com