passing PR thru jump.cgi style links

[oilman]

Does PR pass down if the link to me is something like www.domain.com/jump.cgi?id=33 where my site is denoted by the id=33?

[djgreg]

Hi,

I have a search engine which works with that concept, and I can tell you, that Links like jump.cgi?ID=32 do not get any PR form the site the link comes.

greg

[ciml]

I'm pretty sure that at the moment (well, in the last index), if the PageRank is high enough then PR can flow through redirects (301 and 302), but it's not always been that way.

I haven't worked out whether the PR reduces by more than the normal amount, though.

[heini]

Very interesting, Ciml - some important directories use such links.
Any suggestion as to how high you think PR needs to be?

[onlineleben]

Hi,
forwarding with jump scripts or like I do it with sending a 302 header with a php script doesn't forward PR. At least it hasn't done so with my setup over the last 2 updates.

[Woz]

I must admit I am of the opinion that PR does pass through redirection scripts.

I use them and I have seen log entries from recipient sites where the referrer is my listing page, not the referral script page. (does that make sense)

The Pr of the referring site may come into it, I am note sure. My sites using these scripts range from Pr6 - Pr8.

Onya
Woz

[diddlydazz]

I have always wondered if having the CGI bin NON-Indexable would affect these links, for instance with say a jump link:

www.domain.com/jump.cgi?id=33

I presume the url *attached* to the ID (33) would be stored in a document inside the CGI bin (along with the script itself), so surely googlebot would not be allowed to follow?

or if it did then can it legitimately index it ?

or am I totally on the wrong track here :)?

Dazz

[ciml]

If you look for a site with an old and well linked address, that redirects to a new address that people haven't linked, then you should see the new URL with the PageRank and backlinks of the old one (just as if they were matched as duplicates).

As for how high the PR needs to be, I don't know, but keep in mind that there's a PR barrier caused by a ? in the URL anyway.

diddlydazz:
> googlebot would not be allowed to follow

Yes, if the CGI URL was /robots.txt protected then Google should not request it and would never know the destination URL.

[Brett_Tabke]

I have to agree that pr passes through those links.

Google bot will certainly follow those links. It appears that they have to lead to offsite stuff.

If those are critical proprietary links, I'd block GoogleBot from following those. They will pick a directory clean of links - you do not want this.

[mack]

I use a directory that uses the jump id style of link. I built a site fr a friend and placed it in the directory. Next update some pr had passed from my page to the new site. My page also showed up in backward links.

[Marcia]

>As for how high the PR needs to be, I don't know

A PR4 will do it with a 301 redirect. I moved a site a month and a half ago; it's got some direct links, but the ones still pointing to the old URL show as backlinks to the new.

Also, it was PR4 for all the pages (about 7) in a /subdirectory/ of a domain that's PR5 for the index and PR4 for interior pages whether they're in the root or in directories. Even /directory/pagenames.html were PR4, no loss for being further in, but it did have a few exterior links pointing to it, so that's not the case with pages off the other directories that don't have external inbound links.

All the pages at the new URL are still PR4, and it's off my isp, so it's not even a domain site. The links pointing to the old URL seem to be treated the same as if they pointed to the new.

Which has nothing to do with jump.cgi? links, but nice to know.

[Torben Lundsgaard]

I have got a site which uses jump.cgi? for all external links and they all pass on PR. All internal links are filtered to remove '?' so they all look like yadayada.htm

I have only got limited evidence but I believe that the parrent URL needs to be static in order for the jump.cgi? link to pass on PR. Am I way off?