Catch up with the search engines before you continue giving misinformation, please, for the sake of those who read here ... You're both spewing inaccuracies that have No Bearing whatsoever on the specific topic of this thread.
"Index the 'content' located at the page's new, temporary location but associate it with the old URL." The old URL is not deindexed.
What is this, 2007?
Even the information given in the OP of this thread contradicts and proves your point incorrect.
The redirect has been in place for years. It has not been an issue.
(It means the quote I cited above is just plain refuted, even in the very thread it's posted in ... It's unbelievable to me someone would try to say a 302 is handled in a greatly different way than a 301 in a thread where a 302 has been in place and a non-issue for years. How do we know it's incorrect to say the originating URL will still be credited and indexed? How about tedster's info in the linked thread and the info in the OP of this one. If, of course, you haven't seen it yourself in the results, which I have.)
All you have to do is read the OP to know a 302 is not the issue, because it's been in place for years and Google didn't just revert their handling of redirects to circa 2007.
You're both Totally Incorrect.
If you two would actually read the threads you post as if you're an authority on the subject in, you would see how wrong you are. The 302 in this thread is being handled just fine. The first thread phranque and I got into it in, he said the only way the issue with the results happened was the robots.txt, even though one of the two sites in question didn't have a robots.txt, so it Could Not Possibly be the robots.txt.
Your posts are helping no one, because they're incorrect and completely ignore the information already given about the specific situation(s), so what they do is send people on a wild goose chase armed with nothing but misinformation.