Does 301 vs 302 matter when dealing with "social signal"?
-
When looking at links and how search engines look at "social signal," does it matter if a link is 301 vs 302?
In addition to that, if I build out my own short URL system that gets used for link redirects that include referral attributes, would/could I get penalized if I use 301 instead of 302?
-
Hi Robert,
Jonathan has said that nothing will be passed as parameters, but even if they were, I don't see that there would ever be a _penalty _for this (in the true sense of a penalty - algorithmic or manual penalisation for spam). You could flood Google with a million query strings and no canonicalisation if you did it badly which could get dangerous, is the only thing I can think of and even then, this would be easy to fix with canonicalisation on your own sites.
-
That's exactly what I'm looking at, thank you Jane.
@Robert, the "referral attributes" would not be passed through as parameters, but maybe as session data instead, therefor providing stronger SEO benefit.
Very thorough, thank you Jane
-
Jane,
Frankly, when I read your response I was a bit dismayed at myself. I think you zeroed in much better than anyone else did.
In his question Jonathan adds an interesting qualifier: "...own short URL system that gets used for link redirects that include referral attributes, would/could I get penalized if I use 301 instead of 302?" (italics are mine and are used to highlight the qualifier).
You state, "There would be no reason to penalise a URL shortener or its target URLs for this."
Don't you think that would be dependant on the "referral attributes" he is adding?
Best,
Robert
-
Hi Jonathan,
I think I understand what you're asking - you're asking if it matters for social signals if a link out from a social media website (be it Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, etc.) goes through a 301 or a 302 redirect, e.g. a bit.ly link goes through one 301 to get to the target page, right?
Unfortunately, I don't know whether a 301 or 302 has any influence over how Google treats links from social media (which are usually also nofollowed, but we're talking purely about social signals here). I can only speculate that if I were Google and I wanted to look at social signals as opposed to SEO ranking signals, I would not take into account whether the redirect was a 301 or a 302.
If I were building my own tool to do this, I'd absolutely use 301s just because they are best practice for SEO, so you're going to get the benefit of the 301 if the link comes from somewhere other than a nofollowed social media site. There would be no reason to penalise a URL shortener or its target URLs for this.
-
Please provide an exact example of what you are trying to do, or planning to do. That will allow you to get much better advice.
-
I think Spencer answers this well. You also have to ask, what is the issue with social signals that you are worried about? The only application I could think of is you want to redirect, not pass link juice (like with a page with a lot of poor quality links) but want to maintain social signals to that url.
I am going to guess that the 302 would not work for passing social as well.
Best,
-
It's hard to understand exactly what you're asking but I'll try to answer anyways.
A 301 redirect is a permanent redirect and passes link juice.
A 302 redirect is a temporary redirect and does not pass link juice.
There are very few situations where you would use a 302 redirect instead of a 301 redirect. I've never advised anyone to use a 302.
Unless you're doing something manipulative I highly doubt you would be penalized for using a 301 redirect. Note that Bitly uses 301 redirects.
Here's a great Moz resource to check out on the topic of redirects.
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
-
Backlink "class=X-hidden-focus"
Is anyone familiar with class=X-hidden-focus? Do these links still contain link juice or are they similar to no follow?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Colemckeon0 -
If I use links intag instead of "ahref" tag can Google read links inside div tag?
Hi All, Need a suggestion on it. For buttons, I am using links in tag instead of "ahref". Do you know that can Google read links inside "div" tag? Does it pass rank juice? It will be great if you can provide any reference if possible.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pujan.bikroy0 -
WordPress – parent category "blog" instead of regular "post page"?
In WordPress you normally show you blog posts on: Your home page. Your "posts page" (configurable in the Reading Settings) I want to do neither and have a third option instead: Assign a parent category called "blog" for all posts, and show the latest posts on that category's archive page. For the readers, the experience will be 100% the same as a regular "posts page". The UI, permalinks, and breadcrumbs will be 100% the same. But, I have heard that the "posts page" is important for Google for indexing and understanding your blog. So is is smarter SEO-wise to use a "posts page" instead of a parent category named "blog"? What negative effects might there be, if I have no "posts page" and just use the parent category "blog" instead?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NikolasB0 -
Do I need to use rel="canonical" on pages with no external links?
I know having rel="canonical" for each page on my website is not a bad practice... but how necessary is it for pages that don't have any external links pointing to them? I have my own opinions on this, to be fair - but I'd love to get a consensus before I start trying to customize which URLs have/don't have it included. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Netrepid0 -
Is it ok to use both 301 redirect and rel="canonical' at the same time?
Hi everyone, I'm sorry if this has been asked before. I just wasn't able to find a response in previous questions. To fix the problems in our website regarding duplication I have the possibility to set up 301's and, at the same time, modify our CMS so that it automatically sets a rel="canonical" tag for every page that is generated. Would it be a problem to have both methods set up? Is it a problem to have a on a page that is redirecting to another one? Is it advisable to have a rel="canonical" tag on every single page? Thanks for reading!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SDLOnlineChannel0 -
Warning about a 302 redirect
Hello everyone, I'm testing the pro software and recently I installed an SSL Certificate on one of the websites I'm monitoring, I put in place an .htaccess directive to force all traffic to the secure version of the site (https) and I noticed how this raised a warning because my directive is forcing the traffic with a 302 redirect. These are the lines: _RewriteCond %{SERVER_PORT} 80 _ RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://example.com/$1 [R,L] I understand that this is not good so I figured since I'm already redirecting all www to -www I can force traffic that arrives trying to use www to the secure version like so: RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^example.com$ RewriteRule (.*) https://example.com/$1 [R=301,L] But this is not 100% effective because if someone visits the site directly on the -www version this person wont get redirected hence it wont be forced to see the https. So my question is: does anybody know of an alternate way to force traffic to the secure socket using a 301 instead of a 302? Oh boy, just by writing the question I think I may have figured it out, I'll post it anyways because (1) I could be wrong and (2) It could help someone else. It just hit me but the directive that is forcing www to -www specifies what type of redirect to do here [R=301,L]. So to try to answer my own question before even posting it this could probably do the trick: _RewriteCond %{SERVER_PORT} 80 _ _RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://example.com/$1 [_R=301,R,L] I'll be testing it out ASAP and again I'll post the question anyways just in case it doesn't work, in case someone has a good suggestion or to help someone that could be in the same situation. If this is turns out right I will need someone to slap me in the face 😐
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevenpicado0 -
301 Redirect shenanigans.
So our website (www.FrontlineMobility.com) Has a canonical link redirect to the non www. version. However when I put in website.com it comes up with a small list of links and says this site links to www.website.com. So I'm curious if I used to wrong canonical linking method( that is the method I tried and I placed it in the Head Tags.) I greatly appreciate any assistance in this matter ^.^
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FrontlineMobility0 -
301 Redirect To Corresponding Link No Matter The URL?
Hey guys I have hosting on Host Gator with I believe an apache web server. I need a code to put in the HT ACCESS to redirect all WWW URL's to their corresponding http URL. I haven't been able to get a code to work. For example, http://www.mysite.org/page1.html -> http://mysite.org/page1.html , without having to redirect hundreds of pages individually Here is the format my server uses in the HT ACCESS file for 301 redirects. RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mysite.org$ [OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.mysite.org
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DustinX
$RewriteRule ^Electric-Pressure-Cookers.html$ "http://mysite.org/Pressure-Cookers.html" [R=301,L] Thanks0