Receptional_Andy - 2:50 pm on Feb 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

the 301 redirect is intended specifically for problems like yours

I don't agree that a redirect is intended as a replacement for updating links when the destination has changed. A redirect is for a URL - not a link. Even the spec suggests that links should be updated:

Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the Request-URI to one or more of the new references returned by the server, where possible [w3.org...]

Explicit in the specification of a 301:

"...any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs"

I.e. update the links wherever possible.

From an SEO point of view, the point has been made a few times above - 301s may retain the ranking signals, but they have less chance of doing so than a straight link. This is increased risk for the client's website performance.

Finally, how difficult can it be to update site-wide navigational links? This should a quick and straightforward task IMO, which should make any argument against updating moot.