Is there any benefit to changing 303 redirects to 301?
-
A year ago I moved my marketplace website from http to https. I implemented some design changes at the same time, and saw a huge drop in traffic that we have not recovered from. I've been searching for reasons for the organic traffic decline and have noticed that the redirects from http to https URLs are 303 redirects. There's little information available about 303 redirects but most articles say they don't pass link juice. Is it worth changing them to 301 redirects now? Are there risks in making such a change a year later, and is it likely to have any benefits for rankings?
-
It's a tricky lesson to learn as Google often release posts and content which over-burdens developers with false-confidence (it's not the developer's fault). Basically, website owners and company owners often ask broad brush questions and pressure Google to respond with simple, succinct answers (like in Matt's old Webmaster videos).
Google cave into this pressure and say stuff like "yeah doing redirects for your migration is good", but in some (not all) of their published content, completely neglect to mention that some redirect types are more worthy than others within the context of certain situations.
Developers read posts written by Google and just think "ok fine that's how it is now so we just do that" and, of course - unless you make a livelihood studying all this stuff, you end up pretty far wide of the mark.
I recently answered this question by a webmaster whom had taken it for granted that, because Google 'can' crawl JS they always will (under all circumstances). He made a move in terms of technical on-site architecture and saw loss as well
Just ask the guys who know!
And yes, do the redirects, you may as well. You might still get something back from it (probably not a lot though)
-
Thank you for the comprehensive response.
I had never heard of a 303 redirect until I discovered today that I had them all over my site almost by accident, so I've learned a major lesson learned on getting input from an SEO specialist before undertaking any major website work with my developers because clearly there's a lot I don't know and they don't know... worse, I don't know what I don't know until something goes wrong!
I didn't expect I'd be able to get any of my link equity back after a year of trying to find the cause of the problem, but I will definitely have the redirects changed ASAP just in case there's anything left of it!
Thanks again for the helpful advice.
-
You should have used 301 redirects which infer a 'permanent' move from one place to another. Google doesn't send link juice through 301 redirects because that's what the SEO industry says they should do, it's the other way around. Status code 301 infers that the contents of a web page have permanently moved from one URL to another, thus is 'may' be fair to shift all (or a portion) of SEO (ranking) equity from one address to another
Note that even if you do the right thing at the right time, it won't always work. If your redesign heavily removes content (which was previously perceived as useful) from a web page, don't expect the 301 redirect to carry 'all' the link juice from one page to another. Had this recently with a client who decided to streamline some of their more in-depth articles as part of a site redesign and move to HTTP (simultaneously). They did correctly use 301 redirects (A to B, nothing in the middle) and they did point all the posts from the old HTTP URLs to the HTTPS URLs on the new site (same domain, but again - protocol altered and change of design)
Because the posts contained quite radically different (stripped down) content on the new site, the 301 redirects only seemed to pass across between 25% and 33% of the ranking equity. They did everything right, but if you're telling Google that content has moved from one URL to another, you had better actually move the content (lies don't work)
If you take into account that, even doing most things correctly you can cause some major issues, if you use the wrong response code then obviously you greatly increase the risk of losing all (or much of) your ranking power
I'm going to say this now, one year is probably way too late to get back to where you were just by changing some redirects. If that's your expectation, check yourself before you wreck yourself. Redirects (of any kind) slowly decay over time and most people think that a lot of the equity transfer has occurred by six months, let alone twelve. If you transferred your ranking equity into the void of cyberspace... well, it's probably 'mostly' gone by now. I'd still recommend converting the redirects as it really is your only option other than building your ranking equity over from scratch
**Let's get onto, why what you did was wrong **(why is important!)
So to you, a '303' is a type of redirect. But in its wider context, it's actually a 'status code'. Not all status codes result in a redirect and they all mean completely different things. They basically tell a client or a web-browser, which makes a request (that results in some kind of error), what the best way to proceed is. Some just send information back, others perform more concrete actions like the 3XX codes (redirect codes)
One common thing we get on here is, people saying: "I want to de-index some pages from Google, but I can't get Meta no-index into the source code, what can I do?" - very often I look at those questions and find, the pages which they want de-indexed are sending status code 404. Status code (error) 404 simply means "this resource or page isn't available temporarily, but keep tabs on it because it's only temporary and it will be back". So quite often I suggest to them, well you can deploy no-index in the HTTP header via X-robots, but also why don't you change the status code from 404 to 410? Status code 410 roughly means "gone, not coming back so don't bother coming back"
You did use a redirect code, but you used the wrong one which had the wrong meaning:
So what does status code 303 mean?
I cite from Wikipedia:
"The HTTP response status code 303 See Other is a way to redirect web applications to a new URI, particularly after a HTTP POST has been performed, since RFC 2616 (HTTP 1.1).
According to RFC 7231, which obsoletes RFC 2616, "A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the origin server does not have a representation of the target resource that can be transferred by the server over HTTP. However, the Location field value refers to a resource that is descriptive of the target resource, such that making a retrieval request on that other resource might result in a representation that is useful to recipients without implying that it represents the original target resource."
So in English a 303 translates roughly to:
"Hey web user. I can't give you the page you are requesting because it's gone, and I can't redirect you to that same content on another URL because guess what? It wasn't moved to another URL. That being said, I think this page I am going to send you to, is at least partially relevant. I'll send you there - ok?"
But you're only stating that the resource is partially equivalent, so you can only expect fractional (at best) equity transfer from one URL to the other
Using a 301 tells Google: "this exact page has moved to this other exact page and it's likely to be 75% the same or higher overall. Ok so maybe we changed how the nav menu looks an moved to HTTPS, but the written content and images and stuff that was unique to this page to begin with - that should basically be all the same. As such, you don't need to re-evaluate the ranking potential of this page"
... of course, Google still will (in many instances) re-evaluate the page against the query, which is why (although loads of people say they do) - 301 redirects don't always transfer 100% of your SEO equity. If the content is adjusted too much, even 301s don't save you and it's time to build up again from ground zero
As stated redirects decay over time as the SEO equity moves from one place to another. In your case you have asked Google to move one portion of the equity from one URL to another (which they may or may not have, depending on content alterations) and also to delete the remaining portion of your ranking power. If that movement is now complete, then gains from fixing the redirects won't be all you are hoping and dreaming of
It will help. Be sure that you do it, because it's a seconds to minutes change in your .htaccess file or web.config file. It's not hard, it's very simple and you could luck out. But with a whole year behind you... the odds aren't fantastic. Still it's some 'free' equity that you can get back, which you won't have to re-earn (so take it). But it won't be all-encompassing (sorry)
-
You have to use 301 redirect. Read this link from Google Search Console help https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6073543?hl=en
you can preserve the "link juice" from SEO perspective if you use 301 redirect.
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
-
301 vs 302
We recently launched a redesign and I noticed from running a crawl using Screaming Frog SEO that our redirects are all being seen as 302. I know 302 is a temporary redirect, but does this hurt SEO rankings when all our redirects are being seen as 302s instead of 301s? Also, the way I implemented the redirects was by using the IIS Manager Tool. Is it possible that our IIS Manager Tool is not configured properly and instead of adding the redirect as 301, it is inserting it into the rewrite file as 302s?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rexjoec0 -
Urgent Site Migration Help: 301 redirect from legacy to new if legacy pages are NOT indexed but have links and domain/page authority of 50+?
Sorry for the long title, but that's the whole question. Notes: New site is on same domain but URLs will change because URL structure was horrible Old site has awful SEO. Like real bad. Canonical tags point to dev. subdomain (which is still accessible and has robots.txt, so the end result is old site IS NOT INDEXED by Google) Old site has links and domain/page authority north of 50. I suspect some shady links but there have to be good links as well My guess is that since that are likely incoming links that are legitimate, I should still attempt to use 301s to the versions of the pages on the new site (note: the content on the new site will be different, but in general it'll be about the same thing as the old page, just much improved and more relevant). So yeah, I guess that's it. Even thought the old site's pages are not indexed, if the new site is set up properly, the 301s won't pass along the 'non-indexed' status, correct? Thanks in advance for any quick answers!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JDMcNamara0 -
Please suggest! Overstuffed URLs - to change, or not to change?
Hello guys, We are in doubts about changing URLs on our http://www.fiberscope.net/ store The site was hit by Google in January and has dropped from top 3 to top 20 for most of its keywords. Now we're working on some redesign, including removing of over optimized content from it. It looks like our categories and content pages URLs are overstuffed with keywords. Here is a dilemma. Should we rewrite them and set up 301 redirect or just leave as is? I look trough the seomoz Q&A and find out that a lot of guys got in troubles after redirecting PLEASE, Suggest!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Meditinc.com0 -
Need advice on 301 domain redirection
Hello friends, We have two sites namely spiderman-example.com & avengers-example.com which sells the same product listed out under similar categories, since we are about to stop or put down the site “avengers-example.com” because we just want to concentrate in bringing up a single brand called spiderman-example.com. “Spiderman-example” has comparatively more visitors and conversion rates than ''avengers-example'' ie. 90 % more traffic and conversion. Avengers-example has a small fraction of loyal customers who still search for the brand-name & there are a hand-full of potential keywords those ranking on its own. So is it advisable to redirect Avengers-example to spiderman-example using 301-redirect? Will this help to gain any link-juice from Avengers-example? If so how can we effectively redirect between two domain’s with minimal loss in page authority & linkjuice to enhance ''spiderman-example''? Off beat:These names "Avengers" and "Spiderman" were just used as an example but the actual site names has no relation to the ones mentioned above.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | semvibe0 -
301 redirects and Blogger - moving blog
Is there any way to add 301 redirects to individual posts on a blogger-hosted blog? We're getting ready to finally move our blog off of Blogger and onto our own webserver. We're probably going to use BlogEngine.net to run it. right now the blog is located at blog.MySite.com. We're probably going to move it to MySite.com/Blog. We don't have any really popular posts and we only really get ~10 visits a day on about 70 posts. Just trying to figure out the best way to handle this without inadvertently shooting myself in the foot.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | _JP_0 -
Google Re-Index or multiple 301 Redirects on the server?
Over a year ago we moved a site from Blogspot that was adding dates in the URL's (i.e.. blog/2012/08/10/) Additionally we've removed category folders (/category, /tag, etc). Overall if I add all these redirects (from the multiple date options, etc) I'm concerned it might be an overload on the server? After talking with the server team they had suggested using something like 'BWP Google Sitemaps' on our Wordpress site, which would allow Google some time to re-index our site. What do you suggest we do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seointern0 -
Multiple domains expiring that have 301 redirects to my primary domain. Am I in trouble?
I recently took on the SEO of a large website with http://example.com. My predecessor bought 40 plus domains for specific cities like Jacksonvilleexample.com, Miamiexample.com, etc. ZERO of the additional domains linked to our main website. The domains that were bought basically had our exact same website in terms of content, links etc that mirrored our main http://example.com. I added 301 redirects to help problems that may be a result of this type of structure. Some of the additional domains were indexed and some were not but all have 301's and as far as traffic is concerned I'm not worried about loosing short term traffic. My question: All the domains are set to expire in June and I don't want to continue to have them 301 redirected to my main domain (example.com). I'm not trying to avoid the additional cost of all the domains but I don't see an advantage to having them so CAN letting all these domains expire hurt me from a long term SEO position if I don't renew them?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ballanrk0 -
301 Redirect or Canonical Tag or Leave Them Alone? Different Pages - Similar Content
We currently have 3 different versions of our State Business-for-Sale listings pages - the versions are: **Version 1 -- Preferred Version: ** http://www.businessbroker.net/State/California-Businesses_For_Sale.aspx Title = California Business for Sale Ads - California Businesses for Sale & Business Brokers - Sell a Business on Business Broker Version 2: http://www.businessbroker.net/Businesses_For_Sale-State-California.aspx Title = California Business for Sale | 3124 California Businesses for Sale | BusinessBroker.net Version 3: http://www.businessbroker.net/listings/business_for_sale_california.ihtml Title = California Businesses for Sale at BusinessBroker.net - California Business for Sale While the page titles and meta data are a bit different, the bulk of the page content (which is the listings rendered) are identical. We were wondering if it would make good sense to either (A) 301 redirect Versions 2 and 3 to the preferred Version 1 page or (B) put Canonical Tags on Versions 2 and 3 labeling Version 1 as the preferred version. We have this issue for all 50 U.S. States -- I've mentioned California here but the same applies for Alabama through Wyoming - same issue. Given that there are 3 different flavors and all are showing up in the Search Results -- some on the same 1st page of results -- which probably is a good thing for now -- should we do a 301 redirect or a Canonical Tag on Versions 2 and 3? Seems like with Google cracking down on duplicate content, it might be wise to be proactive. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Matt M
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MWM37720