Distributing penalties/backlinks through redirect 301 - advice needed?

[emeraldodge]

Hey guys,

Let's admit we've got a site (not aged) domain.com and a sub domain test.domain.com.

I've heard that eventual penalties don't distribute from sub domain to domain.
This means if test.domain.com get crushed by panda for duplicated contents or w/e, domain.com is still safe unless there is any direct link between them.

Moreover, I've read somewhere if you make your sub domain test.domain.com redirect (301) toward your domain.com. Your site domain.com benefits from test.domain.com's backlinks.

Here comes my doubt, imagine you get your sub domain sandboxed because of a massive backlink velocity (like 10k backlinks/day) and the backlinks are indexed.

1) If you redirect test.domain.com toward domain.com, does your main domain benefit from the indexed backlinks pointing toward your sub domain?

2) Can your domain.com get sandboxed because of the redirection (of the sandboxed sub domain)? (remember our domain is not aged enough to avoid sandbox)

I'd really appreciate some clarifications from you guys,
have a nice day

 

[Gozpy]

The short answer (as I have actually experimented with this):
1)
Yes
2)
Yes

- Assuming you by "panda" mean (one of) Google's filter(s) and by "sandboxed" mean filtered.

Have a nice day.

 

[emeraldodge]

Thank's a lot for your reply.
That still bugs me, cause It means you could crush some of your competitors by redirecting junk/sandboxed domains toward their site.

Thank's anyway.

 

[Gozpy]

Thank's a lot for your reply.
That still bugs me, cause It means you could crush some of your competitors by redirecting junk/sandboxed domains toward their site.

Thank's anyway.

Yes, you could. But maybe I should clarify something. If you by "sandboxed" mean deindexed, it wouldn't have any effect.

Anyway, the same goes for direct linking, using a website's url parameters to create duplicate content, and so on. That is Google's achilles heel when it comes to filtering. And they have all their bets on that "good" sites are too big to "fail".