Is there anyway for redirected links to still provide SEO value?

[MarloSchneider]

I help a site that helps spread word by getting links on peoples social media pages.  These links are truncated ie website.com/XyUE  for the purposes of tracking clicks, referrals and so forth.  I have heard that when a link is in a redirect form like that it loses close to all, if not completely all of its link value.  The links themselves are technically 301's.  Do these still maintain value?

For example, the stopped.at links on this person's twitter. http://twitter.com/#!/Melewis18

Is there any way to make links of this type maintain SEO value?  Is there a workaround to truncating for tracking purposes?

[andresgmontero]

Hi Spencer, this will make you feel better:

"A 301 Redirect is a permanent redirect which passes between 90-99% of link juice (ranking power) to the redirected page."

Here is the source: http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/redirection

[MarloSchneider]

Thanks.  I wonder how this works in a social media context though?  Since twitter and facebook don't count for direct link juice, how would a 301 link affect the social media power?

Also does anyone have any idea what the anchor text counts as in that scenario?  probably just stopped.at/SAuadh

[aarondicks]

These links will be nofollowed so will carry no link juice. Twitter links have recently been throught to carry the largest of all social signals however, so although they do not carry juice, they can send a signal to ranking factors for a short period of time.

[MarloSchneider]

I am aware that social media has its own signal as I stated above.

Let me try to refine the question once more.

Does anyone know if a 301 redirect link on a social media page still sends ranking signals?

[andresgmontero]

I Agree with Aaron, these links are nofollow, just the regular follow site-to-site redirect maintain most of the link value.

But within a social media environment, these are some signals that carry value for SEO:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/correlation-data-for-seo-and-social-media-analysis-part-2-whiteboard-friday

Q.Does anyone know if a 301 redirect link on a social media page still sends ranking signals?

R/ 301 from a Nofollow? Social media or not, the answer is no.

[joemas99]

Either you guys don't understand Spenser or I'm pretty confused. It's obvious that no follow links don't pass link juice, and if Andres is correct, do follow passes 90-99%. BUT... I have links on pages that are no follow and are from high DA sites, and "link value" to me isn't just link juice, it's any value of having the link. I am led to believe from reading that these links add depth or breath (whatever) to my linking structure. Spenser is asking specifically if a link is in a redirected truncated form, does it lose most or all of it's link value, including ANY value a link can have? Not to mention the effects of truncating!

[MarloSchneider]

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Any reasoning behind assuming a 301 passes link juice, but it wont pass through any social media ranking signals?

[MarloSchneider]

Exactly Joe, although I'm focusing on the SEO value derived from social media.  As was stated above social media sites have no-follows that don't pass link juice, but still affect rankings.  I am basically trying to ascertain if anyone on here knows "if a link is in a redirected truncated form, does it lose most or all of it's link value, including ANY value a link can have?" with an emphasis on the social media pass through value.

Does it still count as a like or a share when the link is truncated and redirected?

[randfish]

Hi Spencer - I think there's some awkward phrasing combined with the challenge of parsing the true meaning/intent of your question on this one. I'll do my best to answer what I think you're asking.

A shortened link, by default, does not lose its ability to pass link juice, PageRank, trust metrics, anchor text signals or anything else an engine might associate with a link. If it did, all these years, our TinyURL links (which existed long before any social stuff) and all those 301 redirects (which are essentially how shortened URLs function) would have failed. Clearly, they didn't, nor do bit.ly, j.mp, t.co, etc. type links today.

If you're asking if, by placing a shortened URL on a normal webpage and linking to it, the target of the 301 redirect loses out compared to a direct link, the answer is no. If you're asking whether nofollowed links in Twitter tweets or profiles that contain shortened URLs (or that exist elsewhere in the social web and may not be followed or even crawlable by engines) lose value, the answer is "it depends," but also "probably."

All that said, at one point in time, a Google representative did note that 301 redirects and rel=canonical tags do lose a small amount of the PageRank they pass to another page compared to a non-redirect/canonical. We're of the strong opinion this is between 1-10% of the PageRank value, though we also suspect that other link signals, many of which are often more important than PageRank nowadays, are unaffected. This is my opinion only, and we can't know for sure whether Google still puts this slight dampening on redirects/canonicals.

Hope that helps!