Is a Meta Refresh Safe When You Can't Do a 301?

[mjtaylor]

In this WPW thread, which asks, Can javascript redirect harm website?, the subject of using a meta refresh when a 301 is not possible was raised.

In this article, Google and Yahoo accept undelayed meta refreshs as 301 redirects, Yahoo is quoted as follows:

" META Refresh: <meta http-equiv="refresh" content=...> is recognized as a 301 if it specifies little or no delay or as a 302 if it specifies noticeable delay."

And the same article quotes Andrew Adam Lasnik as saying

[The] "best idea is to use 301/302s directly whenever possible; otherwise, next best is to do a metarefresh with 0 for a 301. I don’t believe we recommend or support any 302-alternative. "

though I couldn't find that quote on Lasnik's site.

Perhaps some of you have recent experiences using a Meta Refresh with 0 or can point us to a definitive answer from Google on this - though everything I read suggests Google has not addressed this question.

Thanks!

MJ

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

In this WPW thread, which asks, Can javascript redirect harm website?, the subject of using a meta refresh when a 301 is not possible was raised.

In this article, Google and Yahoo accept undelayed meta refreshs as 301 redirects, Yahoo is quoted as follows:

" META Refresh: <meta http-equiv="refresh" content=...> is recognized as a 301 if it specifies little or no delay or as a 302 if it specifies noticeable delay."

And the same article quotes Andrew Adam Lasnik as saying

[The] "best idea is to use 301/302s directly whenever possible; otherwise, next best is to do a metarefresh with 0 for a 301. I don’t believe we recommend or support any 302-alternative. "

though I couldn't find that quote on Lasnik's site.

Perhaps some of you have recent experiences using a Meta Refresh with 0 or can point us to a definitive answer from Google on this - though everything I read suggests Google has not addressed this question.

Thanks!

MJ

Excellent post and resources. Thanks for sharing. Still scanning.

[SebastianX]

You don't find this quote on Adam's site bladam.com because I've cited from an IM chat. You should find it in Google's help files soon.

[coolguy27]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

In this WPW thread, which asks, Can javascript redirect harm website?, the subject of using a meta refresh when a 301 is not possible was raised.

In this article, Google and Yahoo accept undelayed meta refreshs as 301 redirects, Yahoo is quoted as follows:

" META Refresh: <meta http-equiv="refresh" content=...> is recognized as a 301 if it specifies little or no delay or as a 302 if it specifies noticeable delay."

And the same article quotes Andrew Adam Lasnik as saying

[The] "best idea is to use 301/302s directly whenever possible; otherwise, next best is to do a metarefresh with 0 for a 301. I don’t believe we recommend or support any 302-alternative. "

though I couldn't find that quote on Lasnik's site.

Perhaps some of you have recent experiences using a Meta Refresh with 0 or can point us to a definitive answer from Google on this - though everything I read suggests Google has not addressed this question.

Thanks!

MJ

Nice posts. Thanks for the great information about that matter.. +rep for you..

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by coolguy27

Nice posts. Thanks for the great information about that matter.. +rep for you..

Aw, gee, that's so cool! Thanks!

[joncase]

There was a thread back in September about this.
301 Redirect vs a 0 Meta Refresh
The 0 refresh meta tag was put on the site marbayhotel.com along with a notice in the title tag and on the page as recommended. The new site, hotelmarbay.com is #1 in Live Search for "Hallandale FL hotels" and is slowly moving up in Google. Of course the original site, being on Tripod, was in the cellar to begin with but the Refresh does not seemed to have hurt the new site. There's no way to know if the PR2 of the old site has been passed on yet. If there is something I should be looking for in the way of any adverse effects of implementing the 0 meta refresh, suggestions would be appreciated.

[mjtaylor]

I knew I had read that some place!

[joncase]

Matt Cutts addresses 301s, 302s, and meta refresh in the first question in this article published 10-08-07. Matt Cutts Interviewed by Eric Enge on September 24, 2007
Jon

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by joncase

Matt Cutts addresses 301s, 302s, and meta refresh in the first question in this article published 10-08-07. Matt Cutts Interviewed by Eric Enge on September 24, 2007
Jon

I read that two days ago. Good reading.

[dux]

This is great news - I have a high ranking site on free ISP space at the moment that allows me very little control over the .htaccess file. I have wanted to move it to proper hosting for a while but have been put off by the thought of losing my rankings.

Something has cropped up which makes this matter much more urgent - I have found another domain (from China) has copied my site, replaced my AdSense publisher id with theirs and is now sourcing all of the images from my site to their domain. I have thought about contacting Google with the id number, do you think think that would be worthwhile?

Ultimately, I need to get the site hosted somewhere else that will allow me to stop people hot linking and set up a zero meta refresh for each page on the old server. Any suggestions on a good US hosting company that allows .co.uk domains to be hosted on their servers?