Have you ever had someone tell you not to use 301 redirects because “you’ll lose 10-15% of your link juice”? It’s like those playground myths about swallowed chewing gum staying in your stomach for seven years – absolute nonsense that refuses to die.
Where this rubbish came from
Back in the dark ages of SEO (around 2010 I think (!)), Google representatives mentioned that 301 redirects might not pass 100% of link signals. SEO forums went mental, and suddenly everyone was treating redirects like they were digital kryptonite.
Fast forward to today, and this myth is still making the rounds, despite being thoroughly debunked years ago.
What Google says now
In 2016, Gary Illyes from Google clarified that 301s, 302s, and 307s all pass PageRank. In 2019, John Mueller confirmed that “301s don’t lose value.” But for some inexplicable reason, the SEO world keeps clutching its pearls about “losing link juice” whenever redirects come up.
(For the love of all things digital,can we stop saying “link juice”?)
Before we go any further, I must express my utter disdain for the phrase “link juice.” It sounds like something you’d find in the back of a dodgy fridge. It’s a childish, outdated term that makes our entire industry sound like we’re still building websites with tables and Flash animations.
Let’s call it “link equity” or “link authority” or literally anything else that doesn’t make clients squirm when we say it in meetings.
The truth about 301 redirects
Modern 301 redirects pass virtually all ranking signals. Full stop. End of story. The end.
I’ve overseen dozens of site migrations where we’ve implemented proper 301 redirects, and guess what? Rankings stayed stable or even improved. If there was any significant link authority loss, we’d have seen dramatic drops – and we didn’t.
Why redirects sometimes appear to “lose value”
When people claim redirects hurt their SEO, it’s usually because:
Their redirects were implemented poorly
Redirect chains, improper mapping, or technical errors will absolutely hurt your SEO. But that’s not the redirect’s fault – that’s just shoddy implementation.
They redirected to irrelevant content
Redirecting a page about blue widgets to one about red gadgets will confuse users and search engines. The content relevance mismatch is the problem, not the redirect itself.
Other issues were at play
Site migrations often involve multiple changes happening simultaneously. Blaming rankings drops on redirects alone is like blaming your hangover exclusively on the tonic water in your gin and tonic.
They didn’t give Google time
Sometimes rankings fluctuate temporarily after significant changes. Patience is required before declaring a redirect disaster.
How to implement 301 redirects properly
Since we’ve established that properly implemented 301 redirects don’t damage your SEO, here’s how to do them right (I also wrote about 301 redirects here):
Create a proper redirect map
Don’t wing it. Create a comprehensive spreadsheet mapping old URLs to their most relevant new destinations. If there’s no perfect match, find the next best thing or create a new page.
Redirect to equivalent content
A page about dog training should redirect to another page about dog training, not your homepage or a page about cat grooming.
Keep an eye on redirect chains
Each additional hop in a redirect chain adds latency and complexity. Keep chains to a minimum (ideally no chains at all).
Monitor after implementation
Check for 404s, crawl errors, and ranking changes. Fix issues promptly rather than blaming the concept of redirects.
Don’t redirect everything to your homepage
This is the digital equivalent of telling visitors “you figure it out” – it’s lazy and provides a terrible user xperience.
It works for e-commerce too
Last year, I helped a UK e-commerce site migrate to a new platform with a completely different URL structure. We implemented over 5,000 301 redirects, mapping each old URL to its most relevant counterpart on the new site.
The result? Organic traffic dipped by less than 5% for about two weeks, then recovered completely. Three months later, they were outperforming their previous traffic numbers.
A properly implemented 301 redirect is like forwarding your post – everything still gets where it needs to go, with minimal fuss or delay.
The weird persistence of this 301 myth
Why does this outdated concept persist? I reckon it’s because:
Some SEO “experts” haven’t updated their knowledge since 2012
If your SEO consultant is still banging on about keyword density and meta keywords, they’re probably also spreading the 301 redirect myth.
It’s an easy excuse when things go wrong
“It wasn’t my implementation that was rubbish – it’s just that redirects lose value!” is a convenient way to avoid responsibility.
Once something becomes “common knowledge,” it’s hard to kill
The SEO industry has a particular talent for preserving outdated information like flies in amber.
What to do instead of worrying about 301 redirects
Instead of stressing about imaginary link equity evaporation:
Focus on creating a solid redirect strategy
Map everything properly, choose appropriate destinations, and implement technically sound redirects.
Keep the user journey in mind
Remember that redirects aren’t just for search engines – they help real people find what they’re looking for when pages move.
Monitor changes but don’t panic about short-term fluctuations
Give Google time to process your changes before declaring victory or defeat.
Update your mental SEO model
If you’re still operating on SEO beliefs from a decade ago, it’s time for a knowledge refresh.
In short, stop letting outdated myths dictate your SEO strategy. 301 redirects don’t massacre your link equity, and pretending they do is just making your job harder than it needs to be.
Now go forth and redirect with confidence.
Want to avoid falling for more SEO nonsense like this? My “SEO Myths Debunked” book exposes over 70 ridiculous SEO myths that are costing you time and money. Get your copy now and stop wasting resources on SEO snake oil that never worked in the first place.
