(11)
This is probably obvious to most of you but I don't think I covered a Google saying that 302 redirects to indeed pass PageRank, aka link juice.
John Mueller of Google said this in the comments area of a Google+ thread:
it's incorrect that 302 redirects wouldn't pass linkj Pagerank. That's a myth.
We know sometimes Google will treat 302s as 301 redirects but we also have heard Matt Cutts say that 301s don't pass full PageRank - although that may have changed over the years.
So using a 302 is fine, although I'd still recommend a 301 where you know the move will stay in place forever. It is just that many folks use 302s without thinking and Google needs to handle it.
Forum discussion at Google+.
Image credit to Barry Makariou.
Comments:
DP
02/03/2016 02:15 pm
This is good to know when you implement IP-based redirects. I would have thought otherwise because of all the SEO misinformation out there but apparently 302 is the way to go and homepage link juice trickles down same as always.
Jack
02/04/2016 06:25 am
Now that's something Interesting. Google is now clearing all the myths and doubts for SEO's
Adam Stevens
02/04/2016 08:34 am
When you say "we also have heard Matt Cutts say that 301s don't pass full PageRank" JM isn't saying that 302s pass full PageRank, just that it's incorrect that they wouldn't i.e. they do but maybe don't pass all of it.
David
02/04/2016 10:23 am
Funny how people is stil concerned with PR..
shendison
02/05/2016 05:10 pm
Wait... what? Link juce DOES get passed though 302's? And why should "this be obvious to most of you"? I remember the news of "sometimes they treat 302's as 301's" but was there other news?
shendison
02/05/2016 05:37 pm
Youre right David, nobody cares about TBPR (ToolBar Page Rank) which is long dead, but inherent PR still exists and is still important - it's the value of a page in Google's eyes...
Kristine S
02/08/2016 05:11 pm
Matt stated after a session at Pubcon that all 302s are treated as 301s after about 6 months give or take, which makes sense since they are supposed to be temporary and the 302 should not be used as a long term solution.
shendison
02/12/2016 06:43 pm
Really? I totally do *not* remember that, and never missed one...
Kristine S
02/12/2016 07:04 pm
LOL it was not during the session it was after when he was talking to someone and I was waiting to ask a question... :)
Roger Rogerson
02/14/2016 10:39 am
Google have stated for years that they will (eventually) treat a 302 similar to a 301. As they pass value through 301's, they would logically pass value through a 302. (They've also stated that they will treat 301's as "permanent" after a period of time - but I've never managed to get one to confirm 100% that you can remove a 301 after N-months and G won't stop the value flow!) But that still leaves multiple other questions; a) are the 302's treats "as" or "similar" to 301s? b) when asked about the value-loss of 301's, MC told us it was similar to the loss of CLEs, at about 15% - but never told us the actual 301 value - so what is it? c) We know that PR passes through, and that there is a % of PR loss - but we don't know if there are other modifiers, such as to relevancy. Considering; 1) These are long standing knowledge points 2) There are huge amounts of redirects (301/302) and Canonical Link Elements in use 3) The chance of "spamming" with them is kind of minimal The biggest question is why G aren't supplying more/clearer information.
Andy Kuiper - SEO Analyst
02/18/2016 06:14 pm
news to me - thanks :-)