301 or 302 for redirect from domain.com to www.domain.com?

[poprockart]

I noticed on one of my client site's that they are redirecting their homepage "domain.com" to "www.domain.com" using a 301 redirect. By doing so, Google only shows link popularity for the www.domain.com site.

Another client uses a 302 for the same purpose and shows the name link pop for both instances of the url: domain.com and www.domain.com

Is 302 the answer or is there an even better solution?

Thanks!

[sweepthelegnate]

you want to use a 301 to redirect one to the other.

[KevinSource]

you want to use a 301 to redirect one to the other.

Agreed...definetly 301 and NOT 302

[poprockart]

ok - but what about the link-pop issue? should i be concerned that domain.com has no links according to google while www.domain.com has 387?

[semplayer]

When you put 301 Google will also transfer the link popularity and PRV. 301 is better solution.

[poprockart]

yes - i see in most cases when you view the link popularity figures in google using link:domain.com, you typically see the same number of links when you perform the search for link:www.domain.com.

my issue for one client is that google reports no results for link:theirdomain.com but it reports hundreds of links when I search for link:www.theirdomain.com

I can't seem to find any other examples of sites with the same issue although i am still looking. I can't be the only one.

[poprockart]

after digging a little deeper i think the reason may be that the current 301 redirect has a query string in it. that might be cluttering the transfer of the link pop. i removed the string and will see if that helps things in the coming weeks.

[SuperZu]

When you put 301 Google will also transfer the link popularity and PRV. 301 is better solution.

Is this true? I thought that 301 was just to tell Google and other search engines / humans that the page had permanently moved. I'm having a bit of trouble myself being that I have to move some content from one page to the other and 301 the old to the new page. I haven't moved the content yet because I am afraid of loosing the position the original page has and I can't just move the content to the new page without doing a 301 because that would be duplicate content. But if what you are saying is correct, the problem doesn't exist. Any thoughts on this?

[Cristian Mezei]

Is this true? I thought that 301 was just to tell Google and other search engines / humans that the page had permanently moved.

Isn't this the whole point ?

The 302 is just to tell : X is in the Y spot , temporarly.

[SuperZu]

Isn't this the whole point ?

The 302 is just to tell : X is in the Y spot , temporarly.

Yes, but when you do a 301 will Google also transfer the link popularity to the new location like semplayer said? :confused:

[Marcia]

A 302 is for a temporary redirect and can nd has caused a lot of problems. A 301 is for a permanent redirect, which is more accurate and the way it should be done. In time, the PR and backlinks to the former will be credited to the new URL it's' been redirected to, which has "replaced" the old one.

[Cristian Mezei]

Yes, but when you do a 301 will Google also transfer the link popularity to the new location like semplayer said? :confused:

Yes it will.

[SuperZu]

Thanks for shedding light on that one :)