How are Server side redirects perceived compared to direct links (on a Directory site)
-
Hi,
Im creating some listings for a client on a relevant b2b directory (a good quality directory)
I asked if the links are 'followed' or no 'followed' and they said they are 'server side redirects' so no direct links.
Does anyone know how these are likely to be perceived by Google ?
All BEst
Dan
-
Hi Dirk
I sure did and thank you both for your help
All Best
Dan
-
Hi Dan,
You already got an excellent reply to this question from Andy
Dirk
-
No worries Dan
-Andy
-
Great thanks for confirming that Andy !
Many Thanks
Dan
-
For this type of link, yes, that can be a little risky as it's a full page redirect (probably seen as a 301) rather than a textual link.
If it does turn out to be nofollowed (I would need to see the link to confirm) then it's a little different as link juice doesn't flow and that then satisfies Google, but I would err on the side of caution. Unless there is a good reason to pay for a premium link (more traffic, etc), then I wouldn't really bother.
-Andy
-
Cool thanks for confirming that Andy!
They also offer a premium listing so i presume those ones may be perceived as paid links and potentially be risky if done the same way ?
All Best
Dan
-
Thanks Dirk
If so then that should be fine for an unpaid listing but they also offer a premium listing so i presume those ones may be perceived as paid links and potentially be risky ?
All BEst
Dan
-
Dirk is correct - these are seen as a 'followed' link.
I have read conflicting reports on how these are viewed from an SEO perspective, but I think that the general feeling is "don't worry" as it is a one off, it's a niche directory and is just going to form a part of your overall link profile. If every link was the same from the same type of site and followed the same format, then Google might see something unnatural.
Don't sweat it
-Andy
-
If I understand it well it will be something like directory.com/listing.htm links to directory.com/companypage which is then redirected to www.company.com (so users actually never see directory.com/companypage).
I guess this type of link will be considered as a "follow" type link as server side redirects pass link juice to the destination (unless they block directory.com/companypage for indexing with their robots.txt and/or they put a nofollow on all the links to directory.com/companypage)
Dirk
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
-
Redirects and site map isn't showing
We had a malware hack and spent 3 days trying to get Bluehost to fix things. Since they have made changes 2 things are happening: 1. Our .xml sitemap cannot be created https://www.caffeinemarketing.co.uk/sitmap.xml we have tried external tools 2. We had 301 redirects from the http (www and non www versions) nad the https;// (non www version) throughout the whole website to https://www.caffeinemarketing.co.uk/ and subsequent pages Whilst the redirects seem to be happening, when you go into the tools such as https://httpstatus.io every version of every page is a 200 code only whereas before ther were showing the 301 redirects Have Bluehost messed things up? Hope you can help thanks
Technical SEO | | Caffeine_Marketing0 -
Having issues with Redirects not working and old links on SERP
We just migrated a site and built a redirect map for Site A to B. If there were old redirects made for site A that weren't pulled when pulling internal links for site A, do those also need to be redirected to site B to eliminate a Redirect chain? Cannot figure out why old links are still showing up, does it take a few days for google to figure out these are not real pages?
Technical SEO | | Ideas-Collide0 -
How can I stop a tracking link from being indexed while still passing link equity?
I have a marketing campaign landing page and it uses a tracking URL to track clicks. The tracking links look something like this: http://this-is-the-origin-url.com/clkn/http/destination-url.com/ The problem is that Google is indexing these links as pages in the SERPs. Of course when they get indexed and then clicked, they show a 400 error because the /clkn/ link doesn't represent an actual page with content on it. The tracking link is set up to instantly 301 redirect to http://destination-url.com. Right now my dev team has blocked these links from crawlers by adding Disallow: /clkn/ in the robots.txt file, however, this blocks the flow of link equity to the destination page. How can I stop these links from being indexed without blocking the flow of link equity to the destination URL?
Technical SEO | | UnbounceVan0 -
Paid links that are passing link equity from a blog?
We have a well-known blogger in our industry with whom we've had a long-standing relationship. We've had inbound links from his blog for many, many years. Today I noticed that we are running a banner ad listed on all pages of his blog under a heading that says "Sponsors." He has dedicated an entire page of his site giving full disclosure of all advertising. However, all of the links on his site pointing to us are passing link equity. To my knowledge they've been this way ever since they were first established years ago. I am fairly certain this fellow, with whom we have an excellent relationship, neither knows nor cares what a "nofollow" attribute is. I am afraid that if I contact him with a request that he add "nofollow" attributes to all of our links that it will damage our relationship by creating friction. To someone who knows nothing and cares nothing about SEO, asking them to put a "nofollow" on a link could either seem like a technical request they don't know how to handle, or something even potentially "shady" on our part. My question is this: Considering how long these links have been there, is this even worth worrying about? Should I just forget about it and move on to bigger fish, or, is this a potentially serious enough violation of Google Webmaster guidelines that we should pursue getting those links "nofollow" attributes added? I should add that we haven't received any "unnatural" link notifications from Google, ever, and haven't ever engaged in any questionable link-building tactics.
Technical SEO | | danatanseo1 -
Site Wide Links
I have a link on pr 3 home page website placed in the side bar. It is on a WordPress website that spans a couple hundred pages and the side bar is on every page. The majority of the pages are not ranked or have any pr. Can this affect me negatively?
Technical SEO | | raph39880 -
Too many links on my site
Hi there everybody, I am a total SEO newbie and i am burning with questions. I had my site crawled and found out that it contains too many links. The reason is that it is a site where I constantly write news and articles and each one of them is a new Joomla item, thus a new link. I actually thought lots of content is good for SEO. How am I supposed to reduce the link amount?
Technical SEO | | polyniki0 -
What are the pros and cons of moving one site onto a subdomain of another site?
Two sites. One has weaker sales. What would the benefits and problems for SEO of moving the weak site from its own domain to a subdomain of the stronger site?
Technical SEO | | GriffinHansen0 -
Is a 302 redirect the correct redirect from a root URL to a detail page?
Hi guys The widely followed SEO best practice is that 301 redirects should be used instead of 302 redirects when it is a permanent redirect that is required. Matt Cutts said last year that 302 redirects should "only" be used for temporary redirects. http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-interview-googles-matt-cutts-on-redirects-trust-more For a site that I am looking at the SEO Moz Crawll Diagnostics tool lists as an issue that the URL / redirects to www.abc.com/Pages/default.aspx with a 302 redirect. On further searching I found that on a Google Support forum (http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=276539078ba67f48&hl=en) that a Google Employee had said "For what it's worth, a 302 redirect is the correct redirect from a root URL to a detail page (such as from "/" to "/sites/bursa/"). This is one of the few situations where a 302 redirect is preferred over a 301 redirect." Can anyone confirm if it is the case that "a 302 redirect is the correct redirect from a root URL to a detail page"? And if so why as I haven't found an explanation. If it is the correct best practice then should redirects of this nature be removed from displaying as issues in the SEO Moz Crawll Diagnostics tool Thanks for your help
Technical SEO | | CPU0