Subscribe: Comments on: The anatomy of a server sided redirect: 301, 302 and 307 illuminated SEO wise
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
broken xyz  content  engines support  engines  fly  greatexample  mike  much  page  redirect  seo  slash  trailing slash  trailing  uri  uris  xyz 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: The anatomy of a server sided redirect: 301, 302 and 307 illuminated SEO wise

Comments on: The anatomy of a server sided redirect: 301, 302 and 307 illuminated SEO wise

If you've read my articles somewhere on the Internet, expect something different here.

Published: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 15:00:44 +0000


By: Divya

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:12:28 +0000

I want to redirect my guests from a current broken link to another valid/available link for now. In a month my broken link will be available, then i want the guests to be able to reach Which of 301/302/307 redirect should i use? [307]

By: Mike

Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:32:09 +0000

Hi Wow - that is a tough read, but really useful and interesting - thanks very much for addressing this topic in so much detail. About trailing slashes and directories, you say this: > Also, the requested URI without its trailing slash may address a file or an on the fly output We have decided to standardise on using a trailing slash for on the fly output (ie - generated from our database). Is this incorrect (since the URL does not strictly represent a directory), and/or are there any other negative implications? It isn't clear to me if it is best to leave the slash off for on the fly content, or not. Thanks very much, Mike [I'm doing fine with topic/ URIs where the content gets pulled from a database :) ]

By: How To 301 Redirect A Website

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:10:27 +0000

[...] ever need to use 303. (If you’re still interested in the differences, here’s a great status code pamphlet by [...]

By: Stan Bongers

Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:15:17 +0000

I never thought twice about using a 301 redirect before but now I understand the implications of doing so in a way I never did before. I will have to think twice in the future about using a site with a high page rank as just a vehicle for a redirect

By: John

Mon, 06 Dec 2010 06:47:56 +0000

I'm still not sure whot is optimal for maintenance temporary redirect. 307 or 302 ...? [During maintenance windows serve a 503, don't redirect! Sebastian]

By: Sebastian

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:35:00 +0000

Mike, if this 'move' makes sense at all, then make sure that the new content doesn't share URIs with the old stuff that will be served from On each and every Web object currently living off provide a rel-canonical meta element pointing to its corresponding URI at Unfortunately, you can't do that with non-HTML objects yet, so those should perform a 307 redirect pointing to their new URI (until the engines support LINK headers). When the new content is ready to launch, 301-redirect the old stuff (HTML pages as well as all other objects) to corresponding URIs at As long as lives, do not reuse old URIs. That doesn't work for all URIs. As for the root index page, should have a hint like "if you're searching for ancient stuff no longer available here, try" or so.

By: Mike

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:19:47 +0000

Sebastian, I know very little about the technology beyond starting my browser and typing in a URL. Will you recommend my best option based on your knowledge? I want to point to I will change to have content of it's own, but that will not happen for a few months at least. I want found (vs. always redirecting to when the content is ready. Should I use a 301, 302, or 307 redirect? I have also heard of "web forwarding", but I don't know which of these four options is best. Thanks!

By: SEO Toxin: Directory-like URI Structures | SEO Bullshit

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:24:19 +0000

[...] server name canonicalization), and search engines won’t index any product page, because five redirects in a row is the maximum. There’s no maximum when it comes to SEO myths, so probably most [...]

By: As if sloppy social media users ain’t bad enough … search engines support traffic theft

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:19:19 +0000

[...] what a mess. The candidate from Redmond fails totally on understanding the HTTP protocol. Their search index is flooded with a bazillion of URI-only listings that all do a 301 redirect, [...]

By: Jehzeel Laurente

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:07:45 +0000

I still can't understand what's the difference between 302 and 307 redirection. :( [302-found-elsewhere indicates crap. 307-temp-redirect-don't-cache is a cool way to tell the user agent that a resource must get requested under this address but the content will be delivered by another URI at the moment, or from frequently changing URIs ....]