Gossamer Forum
Home : Products : Gossamer Links : Discussions :

302 redirects

Quote Reply
302 redirects
Hi,
Someone recently wanted their link in my directory moved which was in there as a jump link. They accused me of 302 redirects which appears to be a hot topic on the net. After some investigation, I did notice that the jump links are doing 302 redirects. I also checked several other Links SQL sites as they did 302 redirects as well like hotscripts.com for example. I assume the jump script was set up to do it this way or is this a server configuration issue ? I know I can move to a direct 200 status link but I have my own reasons for preferring to use a jump link. One being that my hits counter is updated before the redirect.

So, can someone who understands this stuff a lot better than me, help me to defend the use of these jump links. Are they really a problem at the moment and are we really affecting another site's ranking by using them ?

Thanks in advance,
Peter.


Quote:
I hope you realize the damage that
you can cause by linking to sites using a 302 redirect. Or maybe you are
doing this in order to damage sites in the google rankings? One thing I'd
like to know is why on earth are you linking in the way that you are. Why
can't just do a normal link that results in a code 200. If you persist in
doing it the way you are you may find yourselves in some sort of legal
situation. If you are trying to preserve page rank, then why don't you
just place a robots meta tag in the redirect files disallowing robots, and
then link normally??? What you are doing, in effect, is hijacking the
content and backlinks of the sites that you redirect to.
You can read about this in Webmasterworld.com:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/22754.htm
Note that it says there that if you have to use the redirect, then the
redirection files should be placed in a separate folder with a robots.txt
no follow, no index and also a meta robots tag in each redirection file.
This may prevent the damage. Of course, I would still change your linking
from a 302, 'temporarily moved' meta refresh, to a standard straight link
that returns a 200 code.

Quote Reply
Re: [ppuglisi] 302 redirects In reply to
That is so pathetic. 302's are nothing to worry about.

Quote:
hope you realize the damage that
you can cause by linking to sites using a 302 redirect. Or maybe you are
doing this in order to damage sites in the google rankings? One thing I'd
like to know is why on earth are you linking in the way that you are. Why
can't just do a normal link that results in a code 200. If you persist in
doing it the way you are you may find yourselves in some sort of legal
situation. If you are trying to preserve page rank, then why don't you
just place a robots meta tag in the redirect files disallowing robots, and
then link normally??? What you are doing, in effect, is hijacking the
content and backlinks of the sites that you redirect to.
You can read about this in Webmasterworld.com:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/22754.htm
Note that it says there that if you have to use the redirect, then the
redirection files should be placed in a separate folder with a robots.txt
no follow, no index and also a meta robots tag in each redirection file.
This may prevent the damage. Of course, I would still change your linking
from a 302, 'temporarily moved' meta refresh, to a standard straight link
that returns a 200 code.

This guy needs to grow up. Simply redirecting people via jump.cgi will NOT affect your Google ranking, or theirs. To be honest, I think they are just trying to stir trouble.

We use jump.cgi on pretty much ALL our sites, and I've never had a problem, whereas someone's Google PR or rankings are "downgraded" or damaged.

Personally, I would just tell this guy/girl that there is nothing wrong with jump.cgi ... and they should be greatful for any traffic you send to them Tongue

Cheers

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk
Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!
Quote Reply
Re: [Andy] 302 redirects In reply to
Thanks Andy. This is what I thought but I didn't understand this stuff well enough to be sure.
Quote Reply
Re: [ppuglisi] 302 redirects In reply to
No prob.

BTW: HotScripts.com don't use LSQL any more... so any 302 code's being produced are totally seperate from LinksSQL ... and must be a generic problem/issue. I *really* don't think Google do/will penalize for this though :)

Cheers

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk
Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!
Quote Reply
Re: [ppuglisi] 302 redirects In reply to
Just to expand on this 302 issue.

The person that emailed you is talking about the current trend of 'pagejacking'. As Andy has said, this person is confused and jumping to the wrong conclusion. Using a 302 on it's own has no effect on pagerank or anything else. The real pagejackers are using it conjunction with cloaking and server-side scripting. The biggest offender is the tracker2.php script.

As far I understand, the end result is that the search engines index your content but list the pagejackers url and apply PR etc to this bogus page. The link will initially simply redirect to your site but after a while once the bogus link ranks well in the SERPS and it starts getting good referrals, the pagejacker will change it to a 301 redirecting to a page on their site, thus stealing the traffic.
Quote Reply
Re: [paulj] 302 redirects In reply to
Thanks. Yes, I agree he's confused alright. I gave the guy information based on the comments here and on my own research but he's got it in his head we are doing the wrong thing. This is his last reply before I told him to leave me alone.

Quote:
Sorry Peter,
I've done my homework for sure -- over two months studying this. Just use
google to search for forums talking about this deceptive practice.
Certainly you haven't done this or you wouldn't be responding the way you
have. Here's just a small example:
http://www.realestatewebmasters.com/thread953.html
There are many many more examples, but it's quite obvious that you can't
be bothered.

Quote Reply
Re: [ppuglisi] 302 redirects In reply to
Hi,

This is my understanding:

The only problem with using jump links is if you are using your directory as a reciprocal link directory. Many people use reciprocal links to increase the page ranks of both sites and if you are using jump links then this isn't fair because the link in your directory isn't counted towards the pagerank of the site you are linking to. However, it will not damage the pagerank of the site. I think that the purpose of most directories is to send traffic to the sites concerned rather than to increase their page rank, so in the vast majority of cases this isn't an issue. It all depends who is using your directory and why.

Laura.
Quote Reply
Re: [ppuglisi] 302 redirects In reply to
He's off the wall :)

Actually, if he's "done his homework for the past 2 months" he'd know that the PR displayed by Google in the search bar, has *NO* bearing on what google *actually* ranks the page as. ;) Apparantly, it's so easily hacked, google doesn't update it any more, or more recently than 2-3 months, *but* does use PR to rank pages, just doesn't tell people the *real* PR. The "expose" on that was a few days ago. Some interesting examples were tossed around too, but he *should* have known that, if he's done his homework. (Must be visiting "gripe" boards, or boards manned by people trying to run scams, rather than real sites.)

Also, if people are stealing things, google has figured out a way around it. The theives are no way near as smart as the collective brains at google.

Here's another "tidbit" on trying to figure out the google PR system. Bang your head on your keyboard for awhile over this.

If you google ultranerds.com/forum, and ask for backwards links, check out what we have. Most are self-referential, and there are *only* 26 of them. Yet that page has a PR of 4/10 .

What does that do to the whole theory of how google uses and calculates (as well as lets us in on how they use and calculate) PR ???

Like Area 51, it's major re-direction. While everyone concentrates there, the *real* stuff is going on elsewhere.

So you did good, tell the guy to blow off, remove him from your directory, ban his URL, his IP block, and everything else, and tell him to have a nice life ;)


FWIW: I've done some major exploring, over 300 sites, with a depth of 1 page, an 100's of pages. While I have not run statistical analysis on placements, depths, etc, I have come to the conclusion, that the one thing Google values when ranking a page, is "CONTENT", and how they figure out what "CONTENT" is, is the real closely guarded secret.

Adwords now runs in frames, so if they can figure out that, they can deal with redirects.

I have a few more "secrets" from running so many shallow, and mixed sites, about how Google works, but my goal is not to help the spammers/scammers so I'm not going to post them. Don't fret, none of the secrets tells you how to get a better page rank, they just help explain google/googlebots behaviour.

BOTTOM LINE:
If you want a good page rank, don't worry about who links to you. Worry about what is seen when they get there.

Oh.... and don't underestimate the use of Lynx when looking at your pages ;) Remember, most HTML is still top down, spiders still "crawl" (they don't randomly worm hole from one page area to the next), and using <Hn></Hn> headline tags, *really* does make a difference over <font>, and css. (And... spiders are BLIND!).

Oh, #2... If you worry about DMOZ.org and being listed there... don't. They have *serious* problems. I was an original editor there, and I reapplied, and was told I don't/never existed. I did a search, and my sites were expunged from there as well. I was an active editor, posted in their original Nosology areas, and was involved in hacking out some of the earliest layouts of a few areas, mostly medical. Was active for over a year. Oh well..... We have some of the oldest sites on the Internet, and none are in Dmoz. Someone really didn't like me -- and thus I have proof (at least to me) that all the claims about DMOZ's politics and corruption are true, without a shadow of a doubt. It's not laziness, not overwork, but true honest to human nature corruption. But I digress. ----> *TAKE HOME MESSAGE* The important thing, is to realize that despite that, many of my sites are listed as #1 on google, for their various important keywords, despite not being in DMOZ. We are even rising in M$ search.

So, again, it's *C*O*N*T*E*N*T* ..... not who, what, or where you get linked.

ONE link, on ONE site, is enough to get the google bot to find you. That's all it takes.

The rest, as they say, is p*ss*ng into a fan.

PS: As for dmoz, refer to the statements about google preferring and _valuing_ "CONTENT" ;) <G> Sly <G>

PPS: Take a look at the top message here: http://forums.seochat.com/t16565/s.html

PPPS: For a slightly different issue, and how to contact google about it: http://www.platinax.co.uk/...google_denies_3.html


PUGDOG� Enterprises, Inc.

The best way to contact me is to NOT use Email.
Please leave a PM here.

Last edited by:

pugdog: Dec 5, 2004, 7:25 AM
Quote Reply
Re: 302 redirects In reply to
Hi

I just had a similiar request for removal of a link for the reasons mentioned in the first thread.

So how does Google and others redirect the paid for listings. i.e. Google AdWords

This may become a bigger issue in the future.

I just found the following at
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/2/5/183516/0997

It may be part of the bigger picture.

Quote:
Googlejack Test

Type the following into the nearest Google searchbox:

allinurl:yourdomain.com

Look through the results. If you see a Title and Description that are identical to your site with the URL for another site underneath it, you may have been pagejacked, or as I say it, Googlejacked.

Technical Details:

Two primary types of redirects are used on the web - 301's and 302's. A 301 redirect means 'moved permanently.' This is the type of redirect you should use most of the time if you care about search engines. The other type, a 302 redirect, basically means 'moved temporarily.' When someone redirects to your site using the 302 method, Google seems to be associating their website (i.e. their URL) with your page (i.e. your CONTENT.)

Why Googlejack?

Before you fire off a cease & desist letter, keep in mind that a lot of people are doing this unknowingly by using link directory software that utilizes the 302 redirect for some reason. They may not know they're potentially harming your site by linking to it.

However, it's entirely possible (imho) for a nefarious, blackhat SEO to use a 302 redirect from a throwaway domain to negatively influence your website rankings. Yes Virginia, SEO SPAM scum exist and they'll try all they can to make money, no matter who they hurt. They live to try to game the search engines.

Regards

minesite

Last edited by:

minesite: Mar 19, 2005, 9:35 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [minesite] 302 redirects In reply to
Can the jump script use a different method to forward the sites?
Quote Reply
Re: [loxly] 302 redirects In reply to
I'd also like to know if there is another method we could use apart from 302 redirect and direct links.

Regards

minesite
Quote Reply
Re: [minesite] 302 redirects In reply to
Hi

I do not link to any third party sites.
Here is my setup:

(A) Each link owner gets a subdomain hosting account of 30 MB which becomes the <%URL%> in links sql and this is linked to jump.cgi

(B) Each Link owner also gets a domain.tld which has DNS zone file and forwarder setup to redirect to <%URL%> but no httpd entry. This again uses a 302 redirect (cpanel's domain forwarder setup) for accessing the site on subdomain by typing domain.tld. There is a column in Links for Primary Domain entry and this is also published in links.thml and detailed.html

Are there going to be any pitfalls with this type of setup?
I am just doing this to:
  • Push in bigger number of sites on a given server (as no logfiles, no httpd entries etc for the domain.tld)
  • No linik owner without a domain.tld in the long run.
  • No linking to external sites.
All the above in the perspective that it's a paid service that i am using it for and links sql is a small part of the whole setup. In fact it is lsql+gmail+hosting (and GTAR +site builder to follow later) all combined into one.

TIA

Thanks
HyTC
==================================
Mail Me If Contacting Privately Is That Necessary.
==================================
Quote Reply
Re: [HyperTherm] 302 redirects In reply to
Well, that is great, but I do link to 3rd party sites, LOTS of them :) And there is word that Google is liable to start punishing sites that use 302 redirects, so I am just asking if there is an alternative method of doing the jump?

I do block the jump.cgi in my robots.txt but there are some engines that ignore robots.txt. Just seeing if there is an easy alternate method! There are lots and lots of reasons *to* use jump.cgi, it is a very important part of the package, but if 302's come under further fire, are there other methods, that can be built in and not need plugins or customization?
Quote Reply
Re: [loxly] 302 redirects In reply to
I'll look into this tomorrow. Technically speaking, a 302 is a temporary redirect, so it isn't really the correct one to use. A 301 redirect is a permanent one, so it should probably be using that for jump.cgi. However, a link that jump.cgi redirects to can change, so it may not be permanent.

Adrian
Quote Reply
Re: [loxly] 302 redirects In reply to
Hi,

Here's a good summary on the "302 issue":

http://clsc.net/...-302-page-hijack.htm

They mention a couple of solutions including usings robots.txt to tell robots not to follow it. I can't imagine a site getting penalized for using 302 redirect, as it's very common. Yahoo implements it for instance:

http://dir.yahoo.com/...ions_and_networking/

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: [Alex] 302 redirects In reply to
I have used a rewritten url for my jump links - I was rewriting all my dynamic links at the time. However, I did come across the problem a couple of times where my site appeared in Google as the rewritten static jump link in the url linking to another site. At the same time the actual site link disappeared from Google and, as you can imagine the site's owners were not happy. Luckily Google seemed to revert to the site's url quite quickly in both cases.

This situation has only happened (so far) with my static rewritten urls and never with the jump.cgi link - not sure what to conclude from that as I know that php dynamic links are a problem.

It would be great if there was a solution to this as it could potentially lead to legal problems as well as Google issues. I can't understand why Google hasn't fixed this yet as they have known about it for a long time.
Quote Reply
Re: [afinlr] 302 redirects In reply to
The solution offered in that article, treating same-domain-name redirects differently as off-domain-name redirects is a fairly good one. Usually, when a site does a temporary redirect for maint, the 3rd level domain name is changed, not the second. So, if www.domainname.com has been serving the pages, www2.domainname.com will be the temporary server.

Google has the technology to do this, why they don't, is potentially a problem in numbers.

They are now a public company, and not the "good guys" people want to still believe they are. (Look how Bill Gates went from boy wonder to devil incarnate).

If they rearrange how they index pages, then total amount of indexed pages will suddenly drop (like when AOL did their first purge of unused member names waaaaay back).

There is a selfish, profit-motivated reason for doing what they do.

The only thing that might work, is making this 302 issue a top priority on your websites, writing the various media REGULARLY on it, sponsoring "awareness" campaigns, etc. Put pressure on Google to explain why they *knowingly* allow fradulent and malicious data to be stored in their database, and why they make it so hard to get it corrected.

We have sites that have taken our page titles, turned them into the name of an html page, and get higher raking than we do, for UNRELATED products! Google refuses to take action, and this is OBVIOUS and MALICIOUS FRAUD. Pure and simple. They are using our business name, location, and product to promote and steal traffic for an unrelate product. IT does no one but the hijackers any good -- it deceives the surfers and makes their index less useful.

As I've always said, an index is only as "good" as the data it returns. If it starts returning bad data, people will stop using it.

M$N, oddly enough, is starting to come up with more specific, and valid searches, than Google for some things. And, if M$N actually figures out it's "value" of the content returned (which they can't control, but they *can* index), they can end up controlling that sector, simply because they have more money than anyone else to throw at it.


PUGDOG� Enterprises, Inc.

The best way to contact me is to NOT use Email.
Please leave a PM here.