URL redirect patterns / chains

Are there issues with redirecting to a redirecting site multiple times?

[hansondodge]

We have a client of which we are redesigning a website and will post new site on a new server. Typically we would utilize 301 redirect from old site to new. Prior too, we like to make sure we identify all utilized domains and understand how they are pointing and then point appropriately to new.

In doing this for this client, I see something I haven't seen before.

A marketing URL (URL A) redirects to an old URL (URL B) utilizing a 302 redirect.

URL B redirects utilizing a 301 redirect to an old URL C

URL C redirects utilizing a 302 to an URL D

URL D finally returns header 200.

URL D has been in existence for more than two years.

My gut tells me that there has to be some negative to redirecting so many times, but haven't been able to find published proof.

I want to suggest the below, but am not 100% sure it is best route. Please weigh in...

SCENARIO ONE
Step 1 - On marketing URL A - remove 302 redirect. Replace with permanent 301 redirect to site URL E.

Step 2 - On URL D place 301 redirect to new URL E.

Step 3 - Delete URLs B and C as D has been in place for two years.

OR would we be better off with...

SCENARIO TWO
Step 1 - On marketing URL A - remove 302 redirect. Replace with permanent 301 redirect to site URL E.

Step 2 - On URL D place 301 redirect to new URL E.

Step 3 - Change 301 on URL B from URL C to URL E.

Step 4 - Change 302 on URL C to 301 on URL E.

OR...

SCENARIO THREE
Step 1 - On URL D place 301 redirect to new URL E and just add to the chain without worrying about how strange and cumbersome it looks.

Wow, I hope that made sense.

Thanks!

[phranque]

i would go with scenario 2, assuming that the appropriate response for the marketing url is "Moved Permanently".

if you have valuable or a large number of inbound links to any urls i would think hard about putting content at those urls instead of redirecting to a new one.

"Cool URIs don't change [w3.org]" TB-L (1998)