homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.46.115
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

Featured Home Page Discussion

    
Reconsideration request reply included 302 redirect as 'sample link'
jammy8891




msg:4680563
 3:11 pm on Jun 17, 2014 (gmt 0)

Title says it all really. I got a reply to a recon request this morning and one of the example links was a page that didn't actually contain a physical direct link to my site.

It contained a URL that included a /goto/[mysite] command which eventually 302 redirected to my site.

If this is the sort of thing that Google is concerned about then it really increases the workload for anyone cleaning up their link profile.

Has anyone experienced anything similar in the past?

 

aakk9999




msg:4680649
 11:38 pm on Jun 17, 2014 (gmt 0)

It would not surprise me if Google is counting as a backlink a page that does not have a direct link to the site, and instead it has a link to URL which then redirects to a site.

If links going over 301 redirect can boost the site by passing the juice (this is one of reasons we do 301, right?) then I guess that in the same way links which go over redirect may be evaluated by Google as any other direct backlink when re-evaluating reconsideration request.

Interesting part is that this link was 302 (Temporary redirect) rather than 301 (Permanent redirect) - which is inline with Google saying that they might sometimes treat a 302 like a 301.

jammy8891




msg:4680712
 7:48 am on Jun 18, 2014 (gmt 0)

That's true, thanks for replying.

But it's very worrying and perhaps makes it even harder for us to identify bad backlinks. I'm 100% confident that this link was not placed by anyone working on my clients site, it is so unusual.

fathom




msg:4681214
 4:51 pm on Jun 19, 2014 (gmt 0)

Like the https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en Link Scheme Reference said: "Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file"

The reverse would be an unnatural link.

xaappx




msg:4681318
 10:01 pm on Jun 19, 2014 (gmt 0)

Remember that these are sample links, so they could just very well be an example of what they find wrong. And just because you have a 302 redirect, doesn't mean you can't be spamming.

Sgt_Kickaxe




msg:4681384
 2:18 am on Jun 20, 2014 (gmt 0)

Remember that 302 is the default browser behavior if no code is specified when a page has moved. I'd be curious to see what happened if you added a 301 code.

Also, about that webmaster link for Google, it's not a good idea to block pages with robots.txt since those pages still end up in serps but without your page description. They still count towards your Quality rating so to speak.

aakk9999




msg:4681393
 2:39 am on Jun 20, 2014 (gmt 0)

Remember that 302 is the default browser behavior

I think you must have meant a default server behaviour (not browser behaviour). It is server who issues a response code.

fathom




msg:4681409
 5:30 am on Jun 20, 2014 (gmt 0)

Also, about that webmaster link for Google, it's not a good idea to block pages with robots.txt since those pages still end up in serps but without your page description. They still count towards your Quality rating so to speak.


It isn't on your domain it is on the domain "allegedly" offering an unnatural link... I would think the quality you expect isn't the quality you really want... since Google isn't lifting the manual review - due to it.

@jammy8891 ... Google Webspam Team is just as human as you and I and they are not infallible. They look at tons of data without any insider knowledge to use as backup reports. If they are locating questionable links it generally means you going in the right direction. Double-check your findings and stick to your guns, and point out their errors in assessment. (Obviously, is there is one)

SEOMike




msg:4681561
 4:33 pm on Jun 20, 2014 (gmt 0)

I've seen Google count links in webmaster tools where the "linking" page just had the url typed out in plain text in the copy of the site but the source code contained no actual link. (neither did Google's cache / text cache) Try explaining THAT link removal to a webmaster...

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved