[R=301,N] is this good SEO

[barells]

I created a redirect, that will use another rewrite rule after the redirect rule.

I was wondering if [R=301,N] will send the appropriate headers back to Search Engines. Or if it would make a difference to do [R=301,L].

I'm not sure if there is a difference between the 2 methods for my circumstance, but if there was I would assume the [R=301,N] would be most efficient.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you.

[barells]

I noticed no matter how I set it, I see a response header of 200, when I view the redirected page.

[jdMorgan]

Actually, even without the [N], mod_rewrite in .htaccess is recursive. But [N] tells it to restart "Now".

Can't answer your question, though, without seeing your code or knowing how you tested. Many "tools" for viewing headers show only the final step, which would of course give a 200-OK. For step-by-step viewing of headers, I suggest the "Live HTTP Headers" extension for Firefox/Mozilla browsers. It will show the client and server headers for each and every HTTP transaction.

Jim

[barells]

ah yes, thats what i was looking for, the "view live headers" plugin.

Ok, so that answers my question that indeed, in either case [R=301,N] or [R=301,L] the 301 status gets sent in the exact same way.

So, I guess, since you said that .htaccess is recursive by nature, then it doesn't really matter if you use [R=301,L] or [R=301,N].

Thanks for your help!

[jdMorgan]

I recommend that you use [N] only if you must. See the efficiency warning note in the RewriteRule flags documentation.

[R=301,L] will invoke an immediate 301 Redirect (as documented), the client will then re-request the document at the new (redirected-to) URL, and then your internal rewrite will be applied.

Jim

[g1smd]

Always beware of doing an external redirect to a new URL that then calls yet another external redirect to yet another new URL.

That type of redirection chain is almost always bad news.

A redirect followed by a rewrite doesn't have that problem.