Unless I'm mistaken crawlers don't follow post urls, they only follow links so I doubt it would really matter from an SEO perspective what code we used when doing a post redirect. I really only commented to avoid a blanket change to 301 being introduced.
If you want to be able to do a permanent redirect then I'd consider naming them as such instead of using the response codes e.g. request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent. Maybe an option is to allow a status-code attribute on the response element? It could be used for a number of things even outside of redirects. Regards Scott On 26/06/2012, at 10:03 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > I suggested initially to use the more open 3rd option, we could use 301, 302 > and 303? > > For the difference between 301 vs 307 I think we can agree on : <<The > difference between the two being that you shouldn't use the > 307 as it is not understood by many agents. (simple ehy )>> > http://jesperastrom.com/seo/different-variations-of-redirects-301-302-303-304-etc/ > For 302, I don't see any needs, apart in case of temporary errors which > should not happen (You will have still the bots keeping the > initial link referenced) > > What I did not talk about is the default, so you would suggest to use 303, > right? > The problem is most people will never notice it and it seems 303 is not good > for SEO and eCommerce > I Googled for "303 seo" > 1st answers: http://sharkseo.com/nohat/303-redirects-seo/ > http://www.marketingchip.com/seo-experiments/how-does-a-303-redirect-affect-seo/ > But found also answers saying it was not much an issue > like at http://www.seomoz.org/q/usage-of-http-status-code-303 , I read at > bottom > "however technically if there are no inbound links pointing to the pages that > you want to 303 redirect, it will not hurt your seo." > > At some point I thought we could introduce request-redirect-303 for form and > mostly backend side (maybe keeping request-redirect-303 > named request-redirect for the sake of simplicity) and request-redirect-301 > for eCommerce when you need to do redirections without > fearing double submits. But then we would have to also duplicate all others > redirect response types :/ > > I'm now perplexed and need more time to check about this sentence and our > current OOTB situation, at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get I read > "However, HTTP 301 may be preferred in cases where it is not desirable for > POST parameters to be converted to GET parameters and > thus be recorded in logs." > > Sorry for the long post, seems that we need to get into details > > Jacques > > From: "Scott Gray" <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> >> Right, so they recommend using 301 for a permanent redirect but like I said, >> the bulk of our redirects (as far as I am aware) are >> used for Post Redirects which 301 isn't appropriate for. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 26/06/2012, at 2:15 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=93633 >>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=40132 >>> http://searchengineland.com/images/301-302-explained.gif >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "Scott Gray" <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> >>>> I think most of our redirects OOTB are used as a Post/Redirect/Get pattern >>>> for which 303 is best on HTTP 1.1 or 302 on HTTP 1.0 >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get >>>> >>>> Do you have a reference for your SEO best practices? Or alternatively do >>>> you have an example of where a 301 redirect would be >>>> more appropriate in the ecommerce app? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 25/06/2012, at 8:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is the easiest way to go, so I'm not against, no other opinions? >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> >>>>>> A 301 permanent replacement makes sense to me. >>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>> On 6/22/2012 8:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since all redirect response types (url, cross-redirect, >>>>>>> request-redirect, request-redirect-noparam) call >>>>>>> HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect() through >>>>>>> RequestHandler.callRedirect(), all controllers redirections do 302 >>>>>>> redirections. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#3xx_Redirection >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To keep short: >>>>>>> 301: permanent redirect >>>>>>> 302: temporary redirect >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SEO best practices recommend to use 301 instead of 302 (just Google for >>>>>>> "301 vs 302") >>>>>>> Of course this does not matter much for an ERP only used in an >>>>>>> intranet, but for eCommerce it matters. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So we have 3 solutions at hand: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Keep as is (ie continue with a 302 redirect) >>>>>>> 2. Permanently replace the 302 redirect by a 301 >>>>>>> 3. Offer an option between the 2 (or even others if we want, like 307). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we choice 3, what name would you pick for this option >>>>>>> ("redirect-type", between {"301","302"}?). Then it would not have >>>>>>> any sense for non redirect response types, maybe a reason to prefer >>>>>>> option 2. Though a temporary redirect could still be >>>>>>> useful in case of redirection on error, hence my preference for 3... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's your opinion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>> >> >>
