<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Chained 301 redirects should be avoided for SEO, but Google will follow 2 or 3 stacked redirects</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jamesburton.net/chained-301-redirects-google-search-impact/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jamesburton.net/chained-301-redirects-google-search-impact/</link>
	<description>Digital Inspiration and Ideas</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:50:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Pauliina Jamsa</title>
		<link>http://www.jamesburton.net/chained-301-redirects-google-search-impact/#comment-113</link>
		<dc:creator>Pauliina Jamsa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:50:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jamesburton.net/?p=78#comment-113</guid>
		<description>Very interesting article! The main trouble with 301 redirects is that no one remembers or knows that the page they want to redirect already has a 301 or 302 redirect in place. Fortunately usually creating a 301 redirect  for 302 redirect doesn&#039;t work and it is easy to identify, but if the client wants a 301 redirect for a certain url we may create chained redirects by accident. Occasionally this is intentional, so thank you for the justifications to explain why it should be avoided!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting article! The main trouble with 301 redirects is that no one remembers or knows that the page they want to redirect already has a 301 or 302 redirect in place. Fortunately usually creating a 301 redirect  for 302 redirect doesn&#8217;t work and it is easy to identify, but if the client wants a 301 redirect for a certain url we may create chained redirects by accident. Occasionally this is intentional, so thank you for the justifications to explain why it should be avoided!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kevin blumer</title>
		<link>http://www.jamesburton.net/chained-301-redirects-google-search-impact/#comment-98</link>
		<dc:creator>kevin blumer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jamesburton.net/?p=78#comment-98</guid>
		<description>Ive just done a redirect i am Gunnar see how long it takes Google to catch up its a pain but i had to redirect it because i was renaming directory and it was getting very cluttered i have also done it for a bit of a test for my biggest blog since that has a page rank of 3 it will be quite painfull to lose that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ive just done a redirect i am Gunnar see how long it takes Google to catch up its a pain but i had to redirect it because i was renaming directory and it was getting very cluttered i have also done it for a bit of a test for my biggest blog since that has a page rank of 3 it will be quite painfull to lose that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

