Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.

Matt Cutts posted on his blog under title "Switching things around" that he is 302 redirecting his domain to a new one Here are few important points of what Matt Cutts wrote:

- "I added an .htaccess file that will do 302 redirects from to".
- "if you were truly moving a site, a 302 redirect wouldn’t be the right redirect to use--a 301 (permanent) redirect would be better."
- "I may move back to soon, which is why I stuck with 302s."

Personly I think Matt is testing the way Google handle 302 redirect in relation to moving a whole site from one domain to another.
Danny Sullivan has also posted his guess about possible Matt Cutts testing ", huh? Why do I suspect some ultra-secret Google we get 302s right test is going on :-)"

So how well has Google handled Matt Cutts 302 redirect? Not well at all, IMO.

Here are some of the consequences of Matt Cutts 302 redirect:

- Two identical sites both listed on Google serps. Duplicates?

- The two identical sites rank on Google serps for several searches. For

etc... (For your convenience, I’m posting the example within first comment).

Above illustrate very clear that Google hasn’t been able to handle the results of 302 redirect used in moving a domain to a different one properly.
Comments4 Comments  


from Harith 3331 Days ago #
Votes: 0

References:- Matt Cutts post "Switching things around" - Danny Sullivan’s comment.- Two identical sites both listed on Google serps. Duplicates? The two identical sites rank on Google serps for several searches. For example:

from g1smd 3331 Days ago #
Votes: 1

"I added an .htaccess file that will do 302 redirects from to". <div></div><div></div><div>Hehe.</div><div></div><div></div><div>This bit caught my eye:  ""redirects from""  as it is a very incomplete description of what you actually need to do.</div><div></div><div></div><div>So, did he also cater for non-www URL requests, and/or appended period on hostname, and/or appended port number on hostname, too?</div><div></div><div></div><div>If you don’t cater for *all* of those, you can end up with some very ’interesting’ issues. Ahem.</div>

Avatar Administrator
from dannysullivan 3330 Days ago #
Votes: 4

I think Matt’s just testing something, probably that Google might be smarter in handling 302s than we think -- or that this will change in the near future. He’s too smart to have done this to his blog for no good reason.In particular, this search: cuttsbrings up the domain but this: up the domain, matching the search terms entered. I think Google might be trying to figure out which is the right domain to show depending on a search query, in cases where it sees 302s.Note that in two of your examples, it’s not both and that are showing. it’s and -- that happens to plenty of sites.I suspect he’s also more than happy for people to show how Google is "screwing up" with his domain, so he has plenty of examples to illustrate how a future change to the algorithm might solve those things.

from youfoundjake 3328 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I’m still trying to figure out what he meant by digg torture testing, think it could be related to the digg bar and how it frames content? what happens if the framed content is actually a page that is 302’d?

Upcoming Conferences

Search Marketing ExpoSearch Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.

Join us at an upcoming SMX event: