Google stops passing anchor text through certain 301 redirects

by Patrick Altoft on / 60 responses

Last week we spotted a strange thing happening with Google, it seems that anchor text is no longer passing via certain types of 301 redirect.

So far this has only been verified for a couple of websites under certain conditions so the following information should be treated as theory based on observation rather than concrete facts.

We’ve seen this happening on blogs but it might happen on other sites too. The blogs in question used to have pages with incoming links from some huge blogs which we can safely assume are never going to be penalised by Google.

The pages no longer exist so rather than wasting the incoming links they have been 301 redirected (12+ months ago) to the sites homepage.

When a link passes anchor text it means that if TrustedSite.com/blog-post/ linked to www.website.com/old-page.html with a unique phrase we would see both the TrustedSite.com page and the website.com/old-page.html page ranking in Google for that unique phrase. Clicking on the “cached” link in the search results would show a message from Google saying “These terms only appear in links pointing to this page” rather than highlighting the results as normal.

In the past if the old-page.html page was deleted and redirected to the homepage then the homepage would also start ranking for that query.

Now this doesn’t seem to be happening, in effect the link is still (perhaps) passing PageRank but it isn’t passing anchor text.

Google is certainly passing anchor text when URL structures change and when pages are moved but they don’t seem to pass anchor text when a page is deleted and redirected to the homepage.

Thinking about it from Googles point of view this is logical – if a page has been deleted then why rank another unrelated page based on the links built to the old page? Most likely there is some kind of filter similar to the Googlebomb algorithm which stops the 301 passing anchor text if the target page doesn’t contain the actual text of the original link or is substantially different to the deleted page.

Perhaps the end for bait & switch tactics?

Patrick Altoft is Director of Search at Branded3, a Leeds SEO & Digital Agency specialising in SEO, Web Design, Development & Social Media.

Get daily posts direct to your inbox

You can get our blog posts delivered for free by email every day - simply add your email address to the box above, or alternatively you can grab the RSS feed.

Comments

Read the 47 comments below, or add your own!

Conrad
February 1, 2009 at 12:36am

It would be intersting to see whether this only happens with redirects to a homepage.

Reply

February 1, 2009 at 6:14pm

Redirecting to a homepage is effectively wasting a valuable link anyway – there’s far more benefit to redirecting to something relevant.

Reply

February 2, 2009 at 1:13am

Hi Patrick
I’ve seen similar patterns here lately. It seems that a 301 redirect from xxx.com to yyy.com does pass PR but no longer pass the “anchor text value”. Actualle I’ve seen this on three very different sites in different niches over the past 2-3 weeks.

Reply

February 2, 2009 at 7:40pm

Interesting. Thanks for bringing this up.

It does make sense from Google’s point of view to do this. I think it’s a really smart move on their part.

Reply

February 2, 2009 at 8:25pm

This actually does make alot of sense, given the idea that redirecting a listing that ranks to a page that is irrlevant and having that page rank made no sense.

Reply

Alan
February 2, 2009 at 8:36pm

This is pretty interesting. Do you think the same thing happens with cname redirects not passing anchor text description?

Reply

February 3, 2009 at 10:03am

CooL post.
@Alan CNAME redirects are not problem.

Reply

February 3, 2009 at 5:20pm

I’d guess that your theory, “Most likely there is some kind of filter similar to the Googlebomb algorithm which stops the 301 passing anchor text if the target page doesn’t contain the actual text of the original link or is substantially different to the deleted page.”, is likely the correct one.

Reply

February 4, 2009 at 1:29am

I agree with Donna, we always thought that if the target page doesn’t contain the actual text of the original link or is substantially different to the deleted page, then the 301 redirect was almost worthless from a link juice perspective.

Reply

February 4, 2009 at 12:24pm

Very intresting post ! Thanx. I think passing pagerank with 301 redirect will soon be history to.

Reply

Greg W
February 4, 2009 at 5:19pm

Interesting- this makes sense, link to the new page, for there should be a relevent page on a new site, I always went the page by page 301 method, makes more content to content match. Google seems to prefer this as your theory is pointing out.

Reply

Greg W
February 4, 2009 at 5:23pm

I wonder if anyone has any current thought on how many sites if there is a limit you can set 301 to point to a new site…we are launching a new main site to consolidate about 7 sites and plan to 301 all those 7 sites to one main new site ..page by page 301 for relevent content matching. Does Google accept more than 3 sites at a time doing a 301 to one main site..? should it be done over time? like 3 months?

Reply

February 5, 2009 at 6:27am

A very interesting post which make a lot of sense to me. I always believed that is should be so, that’s why when I remove pages, I redirect them to the next existing page which content matches most. Thanks for bringing up this issue. Very cool observation.

Reply

February 5, 2009 at 1:02pm

Awesome finding Patrick – do you have any insights in regards to domain-wide 301 redirects?

Reply

February 6, 2009 at 1:53pm

This is an interesting find. I need to throw some more light into it before coming to a final conclusion. Well do you have any particular details on websites which explains this. Just curious :)

Reply

February 7, 2009 at 9:38pm

Great findings Patrick

I was just googling on how 301 pass anchor text value, so this is great stuff.

Reply

February 9, 2009 at 12:22pm

Wow, thanks for the posting. I am curious about more insights …

Reply

October 24, 2009 at 5:42pm

Is this still the same currently? or have changed?

Reply

November 1, 2009 at 12:40pm

Well, in my opinion this makes sense because you should not be able to just redirect all of your pages to a specifik page to get it to rank higher.

….Google +1 !

Reply

November 14, 2009 at 1:37am

This is interesting. I guess we need to wait and see how this plays out.
Any updates?

Reply

November 19, 2009 at 6:39am

This makes perfect sense after all why would you count a anchor text to a missing page. Thanks for great info!

Reply

November 20, 2009 at 4:17pm

Patrick did you notice that the member Google Sniper and Google Terminator is the same person and a comment spammer?

Reply

November 21, 2009 at 3:18am

I don’t see myself spamming as this is really news to me, I’m not an SEO expert yet but I do read this blog and subscribed to this post.

Reply

December 15, 2009 at 9:42pm

Thanks for the post. I am pretty new to SEO and the idea of linking to inner pages is challenging to me. You still have to do it as an overall insurance policy to make sure your site(s) have relevancy, right?

Reply

Amy
December 22, 2009 at 1:16am

It does make sense for Google to do this.

Read more about Google stops passing anchor text through certain 301 redirects by Blogstorm SEO Blog

Reply

February 2, 2010 at 6:04am

I recently redirected from ebookireland.com/galwayrest.htm to ebookireland.com/galway-restaurants.htm

Now my new page is coming in result but not showing any back links or “ebookireland.com/galway-restaurants.htm” instances for old page
Just want to ask does google also transfer links or not
2. As new page is already there shall i delete my old page and remove redirect from .htaccess
Help

Reply

February 8, 2010 at 1:19am

Thanks for the post. I was preparing to work on redirects and luckily found your blog on the way before doing it.
Great blog, by the way!

Reply

March 3, 2010 at 12:53am

I don’t want to seem like a complete dork… but here goes anyway. Does this mean that if someone lands on your blog for a certain keyword they will only see that particular page?

Reply

March 5, 2010 at 7:40am

Great every time I start thinking i am getting a handle on this crap Google goes and changes the rules.

Reply

May 8, 2010 at 11:46pm

Great I like it so much.

Reply

June 2, 2010 at 7:32pm

Thanks Patrick. Its always a battle keeping up with Google.

Reply

June 6, 2010 at 8:37pm

I am really fed up from there polices. I implement what they like because they are the search engine leader.

Reply

June 20, 2010 at 3:31pm

Its not good at all. Sometime it become necessary to use 301 redirects but this policy can really loss your previous efforts.

Reply

July 13, 2010 at 8:40am

Thanks for informing .. a lot of effort is wasted!

Reply

July 13, 2010 at 9:06am

HAHA i didn’t even observe this..thanks

Reply

July 21, 2010 at 11:36pm

Google is really making online living difficult. They take full benefit of the monopoly they have and sometime do it in a negative way.

Reply

August 12, 2010 at 5:48am

makes sense i suppose

Reply

August 22, 2010 at 5:42pm

As always Google is smarter than we think. I fully agree with Googles policy on this.

Reply

April 9, 2011 at 11:33am

Patrick is there any other method to do a redirect now and gain trust in Google eyes?
You really done a great job with this article…

Reply

Dan
April 14, 2011 at 12:48am

Excellent article you have written Patrick. It’s well researched and very informative. I agree with the others who have said that Google knows best in this case. I agree with the policy as well.

Reply

May 15, 2011 at 10:23am

It’s very useful to learn how Google looks at the things all the time in search engine marketing. Now I’ve got more knowledge about 301 redirect…

Reply

May 20, 2011 at 11:38am

Hello,

Really great post you have written here.
I didn’t know about that.
Ehh, now Google is smarter…

Reply

August 27, 2011 at 9:28pm

What are we suppose to do now for redirects to include our anchor text?

Reply

October 17, 2011 at 2:53pm

I guess the simple answer is to redirect to the nearest relevant page when you take another page down. i can hardly blame google for using logic like this at all though…… makes a change.

Reply

October 21, 2011 at 1:51pm

Well from a customer point of view it makes perfect sense, that Google doesn’t pass the “anchor text value” if you delete a page and 301 to the homepage. I don’t think it’s good SEO to just 301 to the homepage, it should be to a page that offer content close to the deleted page.

Reply

December 19, 2011 at 7:39pm

Thanks for bringing this up.

Many regards from sweden

Reply

February 26, 2012 at 7:57pm

I fully agree with google. A lot of people just try to pass google policy and great a better SERP…

Reply

13 trackbacks

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Fields marked with an asterisk are required.
 

  *

  *

You can use one of the following tags:
<a href=""><blockquote><code><em><strike><strong>