Common Question: “rel=canonical VS 301 redirects / A major loss in link juice?” ANSWERED!

[matt@denverbacklinks]

Common Question: “rel=canonical VS 301 redirects / A major loss in link juice?” ANSWERED!

Having a lot of clients in the SEO space, often times we get questions beyond asking for our help to rank them #1 in Google. These questions involve advice on how our clients can best optimize the “money machine” of a site after Denver BackLinks has ranked it #1 for them. Many of our clients have expressed a fear in using 301’s because they are unsure about a major loss in link juice.

From my experience there is no major loss in juice using a 301. In fact over time you only lose a small amount of juice with 301’s and the benefits easily overwhelm any small loss. Google has to leak out a small amount of juice with a 301 or else all of us would use 301’s and not conventional links.

Should you use rel=canonical instead of 301’s?
The answer; No.

301’s are the industry standard, all major search engines are set to handle 301’s and they are much cleaner and easier to set up than rel=canonical. The only time I would use rel=canonical is if I was unable to get access to the server header. With a rel=canonical you don’t need access to the header to get a rel=canonical running.

If you can do a 301, do it. There is no difference in the loss of page rank between 301’s and rel=canonical.

-Hope that helps,

Matt from DenverBacklinks

[tpw]

Google advises 301 redirects for a permanent redirect, and 302 redirects for a temporary redirect.

If we can trust Google is telling us the truth -- and I do in this case -- then I would always choose the 301 or 302 redirect according to my goals in doing so.