Multiple 301 Redirects

[TechEvangelist]

I have a new client that I picked up just before their site crashed in Google in the fateful December/January updates. The site is clean and they do not engage in Black Hat SEO techniques.

The client owns about three dozen domain names, almost all of which they had pointed to their main site with a combination of 301 and 302 redirects. They insisted that they wanted to keep these domains pointed at the site, so we reconfigured the 302 redirects into 301 redirects to avoid mirror site penalties.

The client also engaged heavily in link buying programs and had over 300,000 links to the site using very focused text links. Before the Google updates, they held top 10 positions for their most important keyword phrases. Since the update, you cannot find the site in G for their most competitive phrases, but they do show up for less competitive terms.

A few months ago they parked the alternate domain names and the client is no longer heavily engaged in buying site-wide links, but the site has not yet recovered.

Someone else told the client that the 301 redirects created the problem and multiple 301 redirects cause a 6 to 9 month penalty. Has anyone ever heard of this? I've been doing SEO work for over seven years and have never seen a properly implemented 301 redirect cause a problem. Also, I have never found any links anywhere that use the alternate domain names and they were never promoted or actively used by the client.

Does anyone have any experience with multiple 301 redirects causing a penalty with G?

[bhartzer]

have never seen a properly implemented 301 redirect cause a problem

The 301 Permanent Redirect, if implemented properly, won't cause a problem. It just won't.

There are most likely other problems that causing a lack of rankings. You might want to concentrate on Google LocalRank--make sure the links are on-topic or build more on-topic links.

[TechEvangelist]

Hi Bill

I don't see any LocalRank problems with this site. There isn't any interlinking of sites on the same class-C IP, and most of their inbound links are from related industry authority sites that rank in the top ten for their targeted keyword phrases. A lot of inbound text links are site-wide links, but they are focused on a range of industry keywords. The inbound links are focused on pages with related topics.

Google has been hitting 100 to 300 pages every day recently, so it may be getting close to resuming the site's former rankings. When the site first dropped out, we did get a response from Google. They advised us to look at problems with "web rings and link farms". We have not been able to get any additional responses since then. Because the company is not engaged with web rings or link farms, we interpreted that as a warning about excessive link buying or site-wide links, so the company backed off on their linking campaign.

Still no joy with this one.

[incrediblehelp]

A few months ago they parked the alternate domain names and the client is no longer heavily engaged in buying site-wide links, but the site has not yet recovered.

Don't you think these are the real reasons their rankings are worse?

I never park domain names, EVER. To many chances of Google dulpicating website results for multiple domains and it is hell to clean this up. Have you seen any duplicated results within Google?

If they are not buying site wide links and they recently dropped the amount of backlink purchases to their website, one could "assume" that this might be the real reason for the drop in rankings. I have seen Google move website page rankings down when Google sees a drop in overall backlinks for pages.

Someone else told the client that the 301 redirects created the problem and multiple 301 redirects cause a 6 to 9 month penalty. Has anyone ever heard of this?

This would not be an issue. Did person that stated "multiple 301 redirects are bad", give you examples they have seen to back this up?

[bugmenot]

301 never hurts rankings...

Example: Do a backlink search for link:www.house-values-cma.com That domain was heavy used for linking, then once it built up tons of baclinks, was deleted and turned into a 301 to housevalues.com

Ta-da, intstant one-way incoming links. Nevermind all the poor webmasters who exchanging links with this site. The site ranks #1 for their highly competitive terms too.. I'm sure they make tons of cash.

I don't see how you are having problems???

[Bluevoodu]

A few months ago they parked the alternate domain names and the client is no longer heavily engaged in buying site-wide links, but the site has not yet recovered.

Don't you think these are the real reasons their rankings are worse?

I never park domain names, EVER. To many chances of Google dulpicating website results for multiple domains and it is hell to clean this up. Have you seen any duplicated results within Google?

If they are not buying site wide links and they recently dropped the amount of backlink purchases to their website, one could "assume" that this might be the real reason for the drop in rankings. I have seen Google move website page rankings down when Google sees a drop in overall backlinks for pages.

Someone else told the client that the 301 redirects created the problem and multiple 301 redirects cause a 6 to 9 month penalty. Has anyone ever heard of this?

This would not be an issue. Did person that stated "multiple 301 redirects are bad", give you examples they have seen to back this up?

I have 75+ domain names under my belt... none with parked pages, BUT they all are forwarded to my main site.

I won't get penalized for that will I?
The forwarding is set up through the admin panel.... and when I checked the headers, they seem to be 301 redirects.

BV

[midwesternsky]

The problem may be too many backlinks with the same anchor text. And 300,000 is alot.

The argument is that Google is penalizing sites with backlinks with the same anchor text because it smells like an unnatural linking situation.
Links gained naturally would tend to vary in text. Anchor text like "home" "click here" "next" or whatever would be a certain percentage of anchor text for any site. So if your site has over say 90% of the same text then vary the anchor text.

This is only a theory and subject to much debate.

I'm not sure I buy it myself.

You can read more here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ancho...50%2CGGLD%3Aen

[incrediblehelp]

If the headers are stating a 301 is happening then you are OK. I only said not to park because intially that is what TechEvang said he was doing.

midwest is right, I have heard this theory many times and it seems to warrant some consideration.

[TechEvangelist]

Thanks for the replies. I was looking for opinions on this issue. It looks like everyone is in synch with my opinions on linking campaigns and 301 redirects.

All the 301 redirects were showing the proper 301 status code in the headers. I do not believe that the 301 redirects were causing a problem, but another "expert" in the industry told the client that the multiple 301 redirects were the problem and this typically causes a 6 to 9 month penalty.

Incrediblehelp, I think you initially misunderstood what I said about parking the domains. Parking the alternate domains that were previously pointed to the site with a 301 will not cause a duplicate content penalty for the main site, and that is the real issue here. Parking a domain means that it is not pointed to the site in any way, but is using the registrar's default page. That should be the safest way to isolate a problem with redirections. I have heard people theorize that parking domains can cause a duplicate content penalty for the parked domains because the default page is always the same when using the same registrar. The real concern here is the client's main site and main domain.

I agree that the number of backlinks is large, but the hyperlink text has been varied and links spread out among different themed pages in the site. Since ceasing most linking campaigns, the number of backlinks showing in Yahoo is down to about 24,000.

This client is in a very competitive industry and most of the major competitors engage heavily in link buying. The initial feeback about "web rings and link farms" that we received from Google pointed to linking issues, but they do not seem to have affected the competitors who mostly pretty much follow the same linking strategy and buy links from the same industry sites. This makes it hard to convince a client that links may be the issue.

Although I just took on this client when the site tanked in Google, I have never seen a penalty issue with Google that could not be identified and resolved in a short time.

This issue is strange, because the site still shows up in G for the localized and non-competitive search phrases, but cannot be found for the competitive phrases, which coincidentally are the same phrases used in the linking campaigns.

I'm still looking for some blue sky for this client.

[GunMuse]

Parked vs 301

Ok I Park domains have for years and here is the pro and con from personal site experience.

The Oldest domain will get the Google rank. aagunsales.com gets pages ranked while gunmuse.com does but not the same ones.

GunMuse.com has many more incoming links although that number fluctuates daily at Google between 28,000 and 600 depending on their mood.

None of which effects my traffic. I keep a steady climbing rate of new traffic every month. And we average 80-200 readers online at any given moment. For a speciality site we stay tickled.

In short Parking doesn't lose any traffic it really gives it to which every domain winds up with the best result and the other domains will get dropped for (FOR JUST THAT PAGE) for dup content. GunMuse.com doesn't receive a dup content penalty from parking my old brand name on my new one.