Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Best SEO practice to redirect affiliate link
-
Hello,
I got an affiliate program on my website, that redirects the affiliate link to the main site like:
site.com/ads/aff_code/ -> site.com/ (The redirect is done using a 301 status code.)
On the redirect process the site stores a cookie to track the affiliate sale.
- Will Google and others SE follow this permanent redirect, transferring the relevance of this affiliate link to my main site? In other words, if an affiliate does something wrong (like spams), does the bad reputation will be transferred to my main site?
- Is there a better way to do that from a SEO standpoint?
Thanks,
-
Wonderful, thank you Everett.
-
I'll mark this as answered and will head over to the newer thread.
-
Thank you Everett, good points!
I have opened another thread on this topic (I didn't expect you to reply on this old one!) where I am discussing about possible solutions for inbound affiliate links:
https://moz.com/community/q/affiliate-links-dilemma
It looks like my best solution would be to leave the way it is, maybe changing 301 redirects with 302? How would you suggest tackling this issue... or would you suggest just "ignoring" and leave the way we all have done, with a simple 301 redirect to the "clean" URL?
Thank you again.
-
Fabrizo,
It was a good point for you to bring up. The truth is, I don't know what Google's stance is on stuff like this these days because they constantly change it and you can read opposing things straight from Google in two or more different places. Also, I don't think Google cares about the user as much as they say when it comes to our sites because they make it difficult for us to rank well while also providing rich JS-based, interactive experiences. So thinking of the users on a big affiliate site, the best UX would be to show them the domain they're about to visit (e.g. Amazon.com) but Google doesn't like sites monetized this way (it seems) so we have to obfuscate what we're doing, which is B.S. since obviously the users like the site or they wouldn't be using it. This is all about Googlebot not keeping up with web dev technology. Maybe they should spend less time on self-driving cars and VR goggles and more time on that.
Personally, I would not have a bunch of href links on my site pointing to an internal folder that is blocked in the robots.txt file. I "may" use javascript links and then obfuscate the javascript somehow, but Googlebot doesn't like when you keep it from rendering JS and you'll start to see errors come up in GSC and elsewhere that you're blocking content from being rendered. Does that impact rankings? Hard to tell.
-
Yes, thank you Everett, I read about that, and I agree with you that that would be a bullet-proof solution.
I wanted just to check if what Google states now days would actually work, I couldn't see that mentioned on this thread before. But looks like you'd agree with Google on that, right?
Thank you again!
-
Fabrizo,
I was suggesting going through an intermediate domain, as opposed to just an intermediate page. There is more protection there.
-
I know this is a rather old thread, butI am wondering if anything is changed since this topic was discussed.
I see Google suggesting redirecting links to an intermediate page blocked by robots.txt to avoid schemes penalties:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en
Ideas on that?
-
It is clear to me now.
At the moment, I changed the redirect to 302 and blocked the /ads/ folder on the robots.txt. But I will surely proceed setting up a new domain for the affiliate traffic.
Thanks,
-
Hello Henrique,
2. I mean putting /ads/ on a totally separate domain (e.g. youraffiliateprogram.com/ads/) which then redirects to yoursite.com. This way you can totally block that entire domain if you wanted to. When an affiliate links to youraffiliateprogram.com/ads/pageID the user who clicks on the link will get redirected to yoursite.com/pageID.
This set up has the advantage that you can block the entire affiliate program domain from being indexed in the robots.txt file if you wanted to, or you could try to use a 301 redirect and benefit from the links - until it stops working or you get penalized, at which point it you could block the affiliate program domain in the robots.txt, and/or change the redirects from 301 to a 302 rather quickly.
To answer your last question, yes you could simply change the redirect from a 301 to a 302 and that should solve the issue at the final landing page level, but since a lot of affiliates are still linking directly to your domain prior to getting redirected it could still cause issues. For example...
Affiliate A links to YourSite.com/ads/123 without using a rel nofollow tag in the link. This is still a link to your site from them, regardless of what happens next.
YourSite.com/ads/123 proceeds to 302 redirect the visitor to YourSite.com/123. The won't bass the pagerank on to your landing page, but it did nothing to stop the fact that you have a direct, followable affiliate link going to your site.
If you put in your Terms for affiliates that they have to use a nofollow tag in links to you, and you supply the nofollow tag in the code when they are "building" links from within your affiliate system, you should be ok. You may also want to block /ads/ in the robots.txt file just to be sure if you're going to take this route.
-
Hello,
1. I will add the nofollow rel to our affiliate links, but this will only solve part of the problem. Many just grab the URL and build their own links.
2. You mean when someone hits site.com/ads/, gets redirected to subdomain.site.com and than to my main site.com? 301 redirects won't transfer the page rank to the page they are redirecting to?
What about changing the status code from 301 to 302 when redirecting from site.com/ads/ to site.com? Will this transfer the page rank? Any other status code that seems more suitable in this situation, like see other (303)?
-
Blocking the /ads/ directory via the robots.txt file is not going to stop your site from being associated with affiliates who link to you. The best thing you can do in this case would be one of two things:
1. Ensure all affiliates are linking with a rel = "nofollow" attibute in the href tag (i.e. nofollow their links). You can provide the nofollow tag in the link code that they copy to make it easy for them.
Or
2. If you are trying to get some pagerank out of your affiliate links, but want to be able to react quickly in the event of a link-based penalty as a result of this practice, you could have affiliates link through another domain, which then 301 redirects to your landing page. This way you can kill off all the links simply be cutting the redirect (or changing it to a 302, or blocking Google from following the redirect with a tactic similar to the robots.txt block described above...) on the other domain instead of having to disavow a bunch of affiliate links, or instead of asking affiliates to updating their links.
Personally I'd go with option #1. You can combine that with the robots.txt block of your /ads/ directory too.
-
If you read the article I mentioned above, it really does not hide anything from Google, but you are clearly saying that these links are of no value.
I would use the 301 redirect.
In your case, yes that would save a step to just put /ads/ into robots.
-
Google will follow a 301 and will transfer almost all the link equity/or lack of it. Common practice is to 301 redirect through a page that is in robots.txt. This prevents Google from following while moving the user along.
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
-
Unsolved Are links from staff profile pages no longer good for SEO?
Hey there, We run a small site that lists lawyers and we have an opportunity to ask the lawyers to display a 'badge' on their own website's staff page, linked back to the page on our site that they are listed on. Initially I thought this would be good link building (i.e. the lawyer's own staff/profile pages on their website linking to our site where they are listed = a highly relevant link). I was less concerned about the authority of the law firm's sites, though these will range from sometimes low-ish to medium. I just assumed that Google would see the value in the lawyer wanting to link to our site where they are listed. However, our SEO has said that these days Google doesn't give much/any value to these types of links from individual staff pages. His advice was to try and get the badge added to one of their service pages (or their About page) which will be unlikely as the badge is person-specific. I thought I'd ask if this was everyone else's experience regarding Google not valuing links from individual staff pages? Thanks for you help 🙂
Link Building | | Andy-H0 -
Internal Linking - Post links vs Side Bar Links behaving differently
Hi, I have a question regarding the internal linking behavior. My website is www.hindimeaning.com which is approx 3 years old. I have approx 450 posts. Now i have a widget on right sidebar "Popular posts". A widget below my posts "Related Posts". And a simple html CSS menu above the posts (I removed menu around 6 month before so currently it will not show.) I crawled my site with moz crawler (same are the result from google crawler as well) and it shows menus links as internal links. While sidebar widget "Popular posts" and "Related Posts" are not showing as internal links. If we talk theoretically what i learn till now is "every link on a page behaves as internal link". Then why the widget links are not showing as internal links. Thanks, Mahesh Kumar
Link Building | | chaudhary04890 -
Nofollow affiliate links
I am setting up an affiliate program using software built in to my shop already (x-cart). The links generated by the software do not have the rel="nofollow" in them. I'm assuming they should have? When looking at Amazon, there must be millions of links out there pointing back to Amazon and all those links are followed back to them for link juice. Am I missing something? Surely best practice here is to re="nofollow" so you're not seen to be manipulating Google PageRank?
Link Building | | sparrowdog0 -
What is a good ratio of total links to linking root domains?
Is 100 total links for every linking domain too high? I suppose I could also look at ratios of sites that are doing well in the rankings.
Link Building | | ProjectLabs0 -
Do inbound links to download .exe files improve SEO?
The site, (http://www.bartenderbarcodesoftware.com/) sells barcode software. They also provide free printer drivers on their site. During a recent domain change (before I started helping them), they began looking at their inbound links and found quite a few external sites linking to these download files. However, when someone clicks on the link on one of these sites (i.e. http://vvs-motor.com.ua/barcode-printer-drivers) it immediately begins downloading the file (i.e. http://www.seagullscientific.com/downloads/drivers/archive/7.2/7.2.4/Unimark_7.2.4.exe) without taking the visitor to the site. The owner would greatly prefer this traffic to engage with the site and is considering 301 redirecting those download links to an actual webpage. Question: Would this look suspicious to Google? Would this have a positive or negative effect on SEO? The last factor to consider is that many of these sites will likely just recreate the list based on the new links at some future point. Thanks for any help!
Link Building | | motosantiago0 -
Link Detox and Link Removal
I have a question about which links to remove after running a link detox from Link Research Tools. First a little back story. I had had an SEO company link building for one of the websites I own. But I have recently stopped working with them. In the last month my rankings have near dropped off the charts. I have just recently gotten access to Google webmaster tools and noticed an unnatural link warning from back in March. So yesterday I ran link detox and it reported 19 toxic links, 120 suspicious links, and 24 healthy links. It's rather obvious that I should remove all of the toxic links. They all from sites that have been deindexed by google. But my question is a about the suspicious links. What should my criteria be for removing them? Am I better off removing them all and leaving my site with only 24 healthy links or should I personally comb through them and remove only the worst of the worst so that I leave my site with a few more links? I'd really like to get the site ready to resubmit to google as soon as I can. Thoughts? yyCOf.png
Link Building | | CobraJones950 -
Is it important to have a geo modifier for local SEO link building?
If anyone here is familiar with local SEO, you may have noticed that there are different local results for: "city + Keyword" and just the "keyword". When building links will you end up targeting both with a geo modifier in the link, or is it beneficial to build links without the geo modifer for the keyword?
Link Building | | dignan990