GreenLeaf
msg:218713 | 5:43 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Anyone?
|
UDaMan
msg:218714 | 6:37 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Try reading jdmorgans method linked to from this thread, I think it is what you are searching for. I had exactly the same needs as you. [webmasterworld.com...]
|
t2dman
msg:218715 | 6:19 am on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0) |
302 redirects for are real bad for the people you are linking to, as your page/url often shows instead of theirs, and you can pick up all their backlinks. The page you are linking to can stop showing for the search phrase, and even after you correct the link to a 301 redirect, the page you are linking to may take weeks/months to start showing on particular search terms. I have a situation like this at the moment for a PR6 index page that no longer shows for its main search term. A "friendly" site had got a new link tracking program and placed a new link to the page. They removed the page from Google using their remove page facility, but still the page does not rank for its term. The issue relates to Google's duplicate content filter, and what I believe is a bug relating to the 302 redirects. 301 permanent redirects are by far the next safest Google friendly form of links from a straight text link.
|
allanp73
msg:218716 | 6:29 am on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0) |
t2dman is right. The same thing happens with Yahoo. I'm in the process of trying to get my site back into Yahoo's index after someone linked to me this way and it trigger the duplicate content problem.
|
GreenLeaf
msg:218717 | 4:49 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Thanks, guys! >> 302 redirects for are real bad for the people you are linking to... But are they a real bad for ME? BTW, i changed this script to send
header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently")
and now my affiliate links respond with 301 redirect.
Did i understood right your suggestions?
|
t2dman
msg:218718 | 6:34 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| >> 302 redirects for are real bad for the people you are linking to... But are they a real bad for ME? |
|
I consider the internet is a community. If your links harm another sites rankings for a phrase, then you should do as you have done to put it right. Do unto others as you would like them to do yo you, and all that. While it may give you rankings for the moment, you don't know how the algo may change to make it a negative for you in the future. People are more likely to want to recip link with you when you provide quality links.
|
dirkz
msg:218719 | 12:27 pm on Aug 27, 2004 (gmt 0) |
> But are they a real bad for ME? If you hit the wrong person with it it could be real bad for you :)
|
GreenLeaf
msg:218720 | 2:18 pm on Aug 27, 2004 (gmt 0) |
:-)))
|
mbennie
msg:218721 | 4:36 pm on Aug 27, 2004 (gmt 0) |
>> 302 redirects for are real bad for the people you are linking to... So my competitor could place some 302's to my site and effectively drop me off the map?
|
UDaMan
msg:218722 | 9:38 pm on Aug 29, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Did anyone read this thread I detailed above? [webmasterworld.com...] - It leads to this thread [webmasterworld.com...] The .htaccess rule fixes the 302 redirect if someone has linked to you that way..... It drops the listing from the SERPS!
|
|
