Which is the best option - 301 and 302 redirects

301 and 302 redirects

[macdunbar]

Just been told that one of our site is using 302 redirects which may affect Search Engine Ranking.

We have no control other than an admin panel on the hosting reseller site.

Any suggest how we resolve this.

Thanks / Dunbar

[Quadrille]

Plan A - talk to your host

Plan B - change hosts

If you need a 301, then you need a 301. It's really that simple.

[harrysmit]

Try to get access to your server log file and edit your .htaccess file with 301 redirect instead of 302 redirect
You know 302 redirect tells Google the site is temporary moved and this may be the reason Google hates such redirect because visitor are not confirm whether it is permanent address or not.

[Pirates]

I would only ever recomend 301 redirects.

[rkrause]

macdunbar:

The choice of redirect should be dependent on the functionality required in accordance with the HTTP/1.1 spec. The 301 is permanent the 302 is temporary.

I have been using 302 redirects successfully for years and it has never been detrimental to my Google search engine ranking. It usually results in improvement esp. for sites that originate at long, obscure URIs.

Similarly, there are instances where the 301 is clearly more beneficial, for example when appending the trailing slash to a directory name. (This, mod_dir does automatically.)

--Randall

[Pirates]

301 or 302 redirects should only ever be used on your own site. As I say 301 is my preferred and here's why

[clsc.net...]

If you link to other sites using 302's you may cause that site problems and accidentally hijack there content.