301 rediredt chain?

Hey, have anyone tried makind a 301 domain chain? say you buy 3 domains, and you redirect them to each other to point to your money site: domain1->domain2->domain3->moneySite
would this be penalized? is there a better way to do so?

Each hop will lose juice. It works, but what's the use?

bartosimpsonio said:

Each hop will lose juice. It works, but what's the use?

Click to expand...

in order to avoid too many 301 direct-redirects to the money site, and thus penalties

juanpopo said:

in order to avoid too many 301 direct-redirects to the money site, and thus penalties

Click to expand...

Sounds like tiered link building. 301's are just different types of links.

bartosimpsonio said:

Sounds like tiered link building. 301's are just different types of links.

Click to expand...

kindof, I know I wont be getting as much link juice, but would be safer, do you agree or have a different point of view/suggestion

this is just tier link building.

You can try all methods, they all work. Nothing is 100% safe so don't be afraid to try.

Check out these links. I think it will help you.
https://moz.com/blog/accidental-seo-tests-how-301-redirects-are-likely-impacting-your-brand
http://www.redirect-checker.org/how-many-redirects.php

It would work but it's just tier link building.

Yes it will work by passing link juice to each 301 redirect.

I would suggest not doing them all at once to avoid a footprint.

I've also been wondering about this. Since creating content for a PBN site that passes link juice from referring domains is more expensive than the price of the domain, I've been thinking about whether it would be possible to (reasonably safely) 301 redirect a domain with plenty of good links to another - effectively combining link power of multiple domains, without having to create plenty of content.

The following is conjecture based on what I have read. It may not be true, but it is what I can piece together.

It seems chain 301 redirects do work. The Moz article referenced above suggests that there is a 15% drop per redirect. One thing to bear in mind is that a straight forward link doesn't pass 100% either, so the 15% reduction isn't (for me), a reason not to use 301s. Nor is it a big price to pay if it saves me money from having to create content. I've also read that standard links drop about 15% of the juice as well, so there is no juice power benefit in creating a PBN that has one link to your money site from the home page over redirecting the domain.

There is nothing wrong with using 301s. 301s are used all the time between two domains. The best example are websites that start on free hosting on a subdomain (like wordpress.com), then upgrade to a "real" domain name. The old subdomain is 301ed to the new. The other example is when a business is bought out by another and the buyer 301s the domain of the bought business to his site. There could never be a penalty for implementing a 301 in itself because it is a natural thing to do.

But some people suggest that there might be penalties for implementing too many in a chain.

This I do not believe. I don't think 301s themselves are the reason for (algorithmic) penalties. I think the reason for poor performance (or penalties) of sites with lots of 301s is that 301s change the link profile of a site.

Google seems to treat a 301 as if the links to the 301ed site were actually pointing at the target site. Except it doesn't pass all the link juice.

In other words, the target site inherits the anchor texts and any other information Google creates about links. If you chain enough domains together, the link juice from the ones at the bottom of the chain is severely reduced, but the rest of the information is not.

The implications would be:

• warning signs that Google keeps about bad link neighbourhoods are passed on (note though that such information has not been confirmed to exist - it is rumour)

• the anchor text profile changes - too many exact matches for a keyword will trigger Penguin; anchors unrelated to the subject of the target site confuse Google as to what the site is about and the rankings drop

• the link profile of the site changes so that more power is given to the root of the domain (the home page) than to internal pages - possibly suspiscious

So if you redirected a domain that had 200 links, all with anchor text about cats (over-optimised money keywords) to a page about dogs that was balanced with only (5) 10% exact match for dog related keywords, and 50 brand related anchors, then you will get a site with 255 links in total, 50 of which are brand, 200 of which are cat-related and 5 which are dog-related. That will make the combined profile over-optimised for cat keywords when the subject of the site is about dogs. The site will not rank well because topical relevance will change.

What I pull from this is that:

• there is low benefit from chaining too much because you lose significant juice after the second redirect, but have to accept the link profile of those de-powered sites

• you should make sure that the anchor text profile of the site being 301ed does not contain lots of keywords unrelated to the page you are redirecting it to

• make sure the domain you are redirecting hasn't been spammed

• make sure that the inner pages of your target site have plenty of links to them, so that you don't have a site where all the links (being a lot of powerful ones) point to the home page

The advantage of using a domain to create a PBN rather than redirecting the domain is that through the content, you should be able to change the subject of a page and make it relevant to your target site. In my example, the site about cats would have a section about dogs, and there would be pages that talk about the relationships between the two. The links in come to pages about cats, the links out come from pages about dogs.