ciml
msg:175574 | 4:08 pm on Sep 13, 2002 (gmt 0) |
If the PageRank is high, then Google can follow 302 redirects. So if A links to B which redirects to C then C can be credited with the link from A, but not always.
|
mbauser2
msg:175575 | 4:47 pm on Sep 13, 2002 (gmt 0) |
| It seems that google treats them as different sites - I know this because i do site searches on both domains and they come back with different results. |
|
It's supposed to do that. According to RFC 2616 [w3.org]'s definition of status code 302, "The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future requests." In other words, Google is supposed to leave the first URL in the index, since it hasn't been told the redirect is permanent.
|
ciml
msg:175576 | 6:54 pm on Sep 13, 2002 (gmt 0) |
Good point mbauser. I guess that this is another case where Google will bend the rules in order to index a non-perfect Web.
|
mr_dredd2
msg:175577 | 8:32 pm on Sep 13, 2002 (gmt 0) |
thanks.
if thats the case, then i am hoping that changing them to 301's should sort out this duplication. its amazing how many webmasters just throw on a 302..!
|
ProfMoriarty
msg:175578 | 8:53 pm on Sep 13, 2002 (gmt 0) |
Itīs not too amazing. E.g. every redirect via PHP header(location: ...) throws a 302 if the following page doesnīt set a 301 manually.
|
jatar_k
msg:175579 | 9:40 pm on Sep 13, 2002 (gmt 0) |
>>301's should sort out this duplication It should. The premise would be that with a 302 google would continually come back to the old url on the possibility that the content has returned because you said that it would. If it finds a 301 it should follow the redirect and on the next spidering return to the new url because you told it the old one is no longer used.
|
|
