302 Redirect of www. version of a site - Pros/Cons
-
Hi,
I am considering making the 301 redirect from the domain to a 302 temporary redirect.
Currently if a user lands on "www" version of the site, they are redirected to the non "www" version. But after the redirect, they will land on an external webpage (so if a user lands on the "www" version, they are redirected to a different website, not related to my domain).
Reason I'm considering this is because I have received a large number of spammy backlinks on the "www" version of the site (negative seo). So I'm hoping that the temporary redirect will help me recover.
Your thoughts on this:
1. Is this the best way to do a 302 redirect (redirecting the www version to an external domain)?
2. Will the redirect help the main domain recover, considering all spammy backlinks are pointing to the www version?
3. What are the pros/cons, if any?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
Howard
-
Just to clarify, let me be more specific about what I initially planned to do:
Let's say my current website is at: example.com. Rel canonical is set so that if a user lands on www.example.com, they're redirect to the non www version.
For some reason, the negative seo targeted the www.example.com instead of the main url. So I'm thinking since all the bad links are pointing to the www version, redirecting that to somewhere else may help.
What you say makes sense, that google can detect that both versions are from the same domain.
I didn't see any major drops from the penguin last night. The main drop started middle of March and continued through April. This seems to have been an algo penalty vs. manual penalty as I didn't receive a warning.
The entire homepage wouldn't redirect, just the www domain. I doubt anyone would be affected by this since the rel canonical is set to the non www.
I think I agree with Chris on this and just wait it out and see if the disavow request goes anywhere.
-
I agree with Chris that changing the redirect to a 302 redirect is unlikely to have the desired impact. These days Google is pretty good about awarding credit for homepage links, even if the configuration isn't ideal (i.e. there is both a non-www and a www that resolves.) If they award credit for such non-ideal configurations, they probably also transfer the negative stuff.
Let me ask, though: are you sure that you're suffering from a link-based penalty caused by negative SEO? Did you receive a warning in Webmaster Tools, or did you see traffic drop on the date of a Penguin refresh?
I'm also a little confused about your configuration. You said, "after the redirect, they will land on an external webpage". If I understand you, you're saying your homepage redirects people to a different domain? If so, that really sounds like a sneaky redirect at worst, or a doorway page at best. Google doesn't want to send people to your domain if you suddenly redirect users to a new domain with something "not related to your domain."
-
Basically, though, I wouldn't count on using any redirects to get you around a penguin penalty or shorten its duration. Typically, for those who get out of penguin, it takes a lot of work on dealing with the links combined with a lot of work on content--so much so, that it seems to take a total commitment to the domain to make it happen.
It sounds like you may be preparing for the worst but that you haven't been impacted yet. If that's the case, I'd just wait it out, at this point, and if you get hit, make a commitment to a domain and stick with it.
-
Thanks Chris. Thankfully I wouldn't lose all the traffic since most links are pointing to the non www url. This would only be a temporary redirect until I clean up the bad links but I thought doing the 302 redirect before the penguin may give me a chance to clean up those links while not being completely affected by them.
-
Sounds like that will likely get what traffic you have currently going to www over to the new domain but I don't think it's going to help you recover in any way. You're either going to have to work hard at eliminating the links to the www site and/or work hard to build up authority for the new domain. If you feel reviving the www site is out of the question, this could be the way to go as I haven't heard of anyone speaking of repercussions from 302ing visitors from one domain to another due to Penguin.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Multistore 302 Redirects
I noticed that every link on my site is being flagged up as a 302 temp redirect in Moz. The reason is because we have a multi store and use GeoIP to redirect anyone coming from their respective country. I'm guessing a 302 is the wrong way to do this - can anyone shed advice on the best practice for redirecting customers to geo-specific stores?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | moon-boots0 -
What's the best way to use redirects on a massive site consolidation
We are migrating 13 websites into a single new domain and with that we have certain pages that will be terminated or moved to a new folder path so we need custom 301 redirects built for these. However, we have a huge database of pages that will NOT be changing folder paths and it's way too many to write custom 301's for. One idea was to use domain forwarding or a wild card redirect so that all the pages would be redirected to their same folder path on the new URL. The problem this creates though is that we would then need to build the custom 301s for content that is moving to a new folder path, hence creating 2 redirects on these pages (one for the domain forwarding, and then a second for the custom 301 pointing to a new folder). Any ideas on a better solution to this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MJTrevens0 -
How does Googlebot evaluate performance/page speed on Isomorphic/Single Page Applications?
I'm curious how Google evaluates pagespeed for SPAs. Initial payloads are inherently large (resulting in 5+ second load times), but subsequent requests are lightning fast, as these requests are handled by JS fetching data from the backend. Does Google evaluate pages on a URL-by-URL basis, looking at the initial payload (and "slow"-ish load time) for each? Or do they load the initial JS+HTML and then continue to crawl from there? Another way of putting it: is Googlebot essentially "refreshing" for each page and therefore associating each URL with a higher load time? Or will pages that are crawled after the initial payload benefit from the speedier load time? Any insight (or speculation) would be much appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mothner1 -
How to redirect an url in .htaccess when "redirect 301" doesnt work
I have an odd page url, generated by a link from an external website, it has: %5Cu0026size=27.4KB%5Cu0026p=dell%20printers%20uk%5Cu0026oid=333302b6be58eaa914fbc7de45b23926%5Cu0026ni=21%5Cu0026no=24%5Cu0026tab=organic%5Cu0026sigi=11p3eqh65%5Cu0026tt=Dell%205210n%20A4%20Mono%20Laser%20Printer%20from%20Printer%20Experts%5Cu0026u=fb ,after a .jpg image url, and I can't get it redirect using the redirect 301 in .htaccess to the properly image url as I use to do with the rest of not found urls eg: /15985.jpg%5Cu0026size=27.4KB%5Cu0026p=dell%20printers%20uk%5Cu0026oid=333302b6be58eaa914fbc7de45b23926%5Cu0026ni=21%5Cu0026no=24%5Cu0026tab=organic%5Cu0026sigi=11p3eqh65%5Cu0026tt=Dell%205210n%20A4%20Mono%20Laser%20Printer%20from%20Printer%20Experts%5Cu0026u=fb to just: /15985.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Status0 -
Any solutions for implementing 301s instead of 302 redirects in SharePoint 2010?
We have an issue with Google indexing multiples of each page in our sitemap (www.upmc.com). We've tried using rel_canonical, but it appears that GoogleBot is not honoring our canonicals. Specifically, any of the pages Google indexes that end without a file extension, such as .aspx are 302 redirected to a .aspx page. Example - The following pages all respond as 302 redirects to http://www.upmc.com/services/pages/default.aspx http://www.upmc.com/services/ http://www.upmc.com/services http://www.upmc.com/Services/ http://www.upmc.com/Services Has anyone been able to correct this inherent issue with Sharepoint so that the redirects are at least 301s?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jessdyl0 -
Large Site - Complete Site URL Change and How to Preserver Organic Rankings/Traffic
Hello Community, What is your experience with site redesign when it comes to preserving the traffic? If a large enterprise website has to go through a site-wide enhancement (resulting in change of all URLs and partial content), what do you expect from Organic rankings and traffic? I assume we will experience a period that Google needs to "re-orientate" itself with the new site, if so, do you have similar experience and tips on how to minimize the traffic loss? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | b.digi0 -
301 redirect a old site that has been "dead" for a while?
Hi guys, A quick question. I have a client who has an old business website that had some great links (Forbes.com, CocaCola.com, etc). The problem is that he knew nothing about SEO and let the hosting expire. He still owns the domain, but the site is no longer listed in Google. He did no SEO, so I am not worried about being hit by any artificial anchor text penalties, since the links are as natural as it gets. So my questions is, would there be any benefit from 301 redirecting that site to his new business? The new business is in almost exactly the same niche as the old site. I am thinking of 301'ing to a sub-page which will refer to his past venture with the old business, not to the homepage of the new site. Thanks in advance for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rayvensoft0 -
Are sites that leave out www from domain at a disadvantage to domains with www in url
I know this has been discussed but was wondering what would be the best approach from an SEO perspective. I quite like the idea of setting up websites with domains without www but always worry that setting up domains without www has a disadvantage because user are use to referring to sites with the www included. Thus one of my fears are that users would link back using www version which will mean even if you do a 301 redirect that some of the link juice would be lost. I know some famous sites have used this convention such as http://searchenginewatch.com/ so think it would be possible but still concerned that for new sites it would be better to rather stick to conventions. What are your opinions about this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SABest0