homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.22.37.143
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe and Support WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Link Development Forum

    
301 passes link "benefit"-a myth?
glengara




msg:3135966
 7:58 pm on Oct 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Right, I've done some searches on this, and while there's endless threads on how a 301 WILL pass on link "benefits", I found NO authoritative sources to back this up.

Anyone got any?

 

jakegotmail




msg:3136010
 8:32 pm on Oct 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

tbo is there such thing as authoritative SEO sources?

its all hearsay. no one knows except google.

All people know is there own experiences, trials and tribulations.

With regards to that...

I have never seen a 301 redirect not pass the weight of the old page to the new.

Take it as you will ;)

glengara




msg:3136024
 8:42 pm on Oct 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

*I have never seen a 301 redirect not pass the weight of the old page to the new.*

But pass what exactly, PR, anchor text, both?

seo_joe




msg:3136999
 2:52 pm on Oct 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

A 301 redirect *should* pass everything (pr, link popularity) since it means that a site has "permanently moved"; however, if the site you are doing the 301 from looked nothing like the one you are doing the 301 too then it may not be interpreted the same. Also, I don't think the engines are very good at handling 301 redirects since, even though it passed the pr and rankings, there have been problems with google and yahoo in my case of redirecting a subdomain to a new domain.

jakegotmail




msg:3137139
 4:35 pm on Oct 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

might be because it was a subdomain.

and not a typical www.whatever.com/oldpage.htm 301ed to --> www.whatever.com/newpage.htm

glengara




msg:3137387
 7:09 pm on Oct 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well I found my concrete evidence, a directory listing to site A that is 301'd to site B is showing up on G as a link to site B.

QED ;-)

ichthyous




msg:3154058
 4:15 am on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

I replaced an old site with a new one about 6 weeks ago and 301'd about 1000 pages. Each old page was redirected to a similar content page on the new site, but the pages are quite different. 6 weeks later I have yet to see any page rank passed and the new pages rank far worse than the old ones did. I did everything by the book, so unless the pages are practically the same it may not work

tedster




msg:3154067
 4:49 am on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

In some cases the influence doesn't show up nearly as fast as a new backlink can - so I assume there is some extra "trust checking" going on. But backlink influence definitely and eventually does pass through a 301 redirect in the cases I've worked with.

Robert Charlton




msg:3154117
 7:34 am on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

I replaced an old site with a new one about 6 weeks ago and 301'd about 1000 pages.... 6 weeks later I have yet to see any page rank passed and the new pages rank far worse than the old ones did. I did everything by the book, so unless the pages are practically the same it may not work.

ichthyous - First, let me say that 301s were indeed the way to go, and are the only way, in fact, to redirect an old domain to a new one. But while you did everything by the book, you may not, in fact, have read the whole story.

Early in 2004, I think it was, reports began circulating that new domains were not ranking in Google. The ranking delay ultimately became known as the "sandbox," and the term has been (mis)used since to describe just about every ranking problem known to man.

There is some general agreement, though, that there are various aging factors in the Google algo, or factors which behave like aging factors; and they're domain, link, and perhaps content related. They are intended to combat various forms of link spamming and domain spamming.

Unfortunately, legit sites that end up renaming themselves generally end up as collateral damage in these spam wars. In my experience, it takes about 6 months to a year for a site to recover from redirection to a new domain... if it fully recovers at all... and during that time you may not rank for your own company name if it's a popular term. When you do recover, in my experience, it will be as if someone had flipped a switch, and it's pretty clear that the 301s and the old links have kicked in.

On the other hand, heavily trafficked sites may experience little or no ranking problems because of a domain redirect.

301 redirection within the same domain, in my experience, has not been a problem at all. I have no doubt that 301s pass link benefits.

I discourage clients from rebranding, though, unless it's absolutely necessary, and I warn them multiple times, in writing, of the likely consequences.

You can help your site recover more quickly by getting as many of your old inbounds as you can changed to the new domain, and as quickly as possible. New high quality inbounds will also help.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:35 am (utc) on Nov. 12, 2006]

ichthyous




msg:3154273
 2:22 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

I was mistaken in saying 6 weeks...the site went live 6 weeks ago with a few redirects. I started redirecting in batches over the course of the following three weeks. So it might be slow to come. I also broke up the content as I had basically three sets of unrelated content across 2,500 pages or so on my old site. 500 pages were redirected to another domain about that topic. About 500 were dropped entirely as it was a line of business I was no longer interested in serving. And the remainder were redirected to a new site on a 5 year old domain. These are the pages that I have yet to see pass any rank.

I should mention that I had a monumental amount of cleanup and redirecting to do when the site went live as Google was indexing it all along during development and I had many 404 errors. Those have been fixed and Google is only reporting about 100 missing pages on my site now. The new site's pages get indexed very quickly and thoroughly, but the old pages just ranked much better.

Most of my traffic on the old site used to come from a few searches across a broad range of terms. I never did rank well for the more general terms in the past. Now the new site is ranking fine for a few general terms but poorly on the specific terms. It's easy to see why because it's basically only the terms on the home page's title that rank these days. I have definitely worked to accumulate links to interior pages, but they haven't seemed to have any effect yet, So I am wondering if I have been sandboxed.

@ Robert,

This questions leads us to "what do the search engines see as a new site, and what do they see as an updated site?". I did not change domains, just replaced old site with new one

loudspeaker




msg:3155820
 2:42 am on Nov 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

6 weeks is nothing and 3 weeks is even less.

From my experience you have to wait MINIMUM 6-10 months if there was a domain name switch. Someone told me they had to wait one year.

And you will probably never transfer the old page's full rank.

P.S. I am talking only about Google's algorithm here. Not sure how others work...

glengara




msg:3159741
 11:58 am on Nov 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Must say I'm still having problems with the 301 concept "as is", seems too open to manipulation.

"We" build five sites all targeting the same KWs and use them with slight variants in the internal navigations, pay for some directory listings, let things mature and over time 301 four of them to the main site.

Must have been done countless times, but I've been reading here since 2001 and can't remember a single "301 made my site drop" post.

IMO it's unlike G to allow a "benefit" without having a corresponding "penalty" when the benefit is abused...

Robert Charlton




msg:3160218
 8:11 pm on Nov 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

"We" build five sites all targeting the same KWs and use them with slight variants in the internal navigations, pay for some directory listings, let things mature and over time 301 four of them to the main site.

glengara - My emphasis in the above. I think I'm just now seeing where you're going with your other thread on 301s...

Do links from a 301'd page count?
[webmasterworld.com...]

I'm almost thinking you should repost this over there... but, in my opinion, I think you're assuming an extra bit of institutional memory that doesn't exist.

When you 301 a page, that page... that url... ceases to exist. The url is replaced by the new one. What may remain are links from other pages on the web to that url... and if the anchor text of those links contains keywords you want, I've observed that those anchor text benefits seem to persist.

But... the old nav anchor on old pages that you redirect to new pages won't be remembered. What is seen are the new pages and the anchor text that's on those new pages.

Robert Charlton




msg:3160233
 8:33 pm on Nov 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

"We" build five sites all targeting the same KWs... and over time 301 four of them to the main site.

PS to this part of your post (whether or not you vary the nav text)...

I've never thought this was a good strategy, particularly if you've gotten your inbound links for all of the sites in roughly the same places.

I also think that Google has been on to possible 301 abuse for quite a while, and I've been perhaps even too cautious about avoiding the appearance of gaming the engines when doing redirects for previously promoted mirror sites... in some cases even using robots.txt to block spiders on these domains.

I don't understand why you wouldn't just put the extra energy into building additional targeted content and getting links to it.

glengara




msg:3160309
 9:33 pm on Nov 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi Bob, must say I'm having trouble reconciling:

" I have sites that have been 301'd that are clearly still benefitting from their internal nav structure.."

with:

"But... the old nav anchor on old pages that you redirect to new pages won't be remembered."

Robert Charlton




msg:3160494
 2:36 am on Nov 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi Bob, must say I'm having trouble reconciling:

" I have sites that have been 301'd that are clearly still benefitting from their internal nav structure.."

with:

"But... the old nav anchor on old pages that you redirect to new pages won't be remembered."

For those trying to follow this, half the discussion is on the other thread.

glengara - You'd asked: "Do links from a 301'd page count?

I said yes, but we were talking about different things, and I didn't realize it until your post above about long-gone variations in internal navigation being remembered. That was a scenario which, for a bunch of reasons, never occurred to me.

I was talking about the current links from a page that has been redirected.

You were asking about the old nav links, that were on the redirected page and are no longer on the web.

In the same way, I should add, when you redirect a page, the search engine does not remember its old content... though I can imagine in future algos that they may decide to keep track of these things as a further way to combat some kinds of domain spam.

Receptional




msg:3169374
 2:26 pm on Nov 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

How about looking for something like "matt cutts on 301s".

That's about as authoritative as you can get.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved