I noticed recently, doing some research (posting this on my forums too, here ), that Google now sees (and counts) 303 temporary redirects as IBL's, which up until now were not taken into account. Links from THIS page (for example), are counted as IBLs altough a redirect script is used. Nevertheless, the URL is used in the ecuation (the URL). I think that Google is starting to show a more public aproach to the fact that internally, he KNOWS about ANY links to a website. Just that up until now many of these types of weight or reference to a website, was just counted internally. This is an example of link, found in the page stated above: Guys... any opinions ?
From http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html: Sounds like 303's could cause problems. Do you have a server header checker that will output the 303 code, as they do with 302's? It could explain why in this post it seems that the script using a similar redirect is giving 200 status codes, same as the links you mention do. Yet it seems to cause the 302 redirect hijack bug. Perhaps one should not use such a script...
The example i gave above, is not one of my websites. I just pointed out that such links DO VISIBLY count as IBL's now. What you are saying, is not what i intended to transmit
http://www.google.com/search?q=link:www.ejs.as.ro This site has no backlinks, which are showing the backlinks counted as IBLs?
http://64.233.185.104/search?hl=ro&q=link:http://www.ejs.as.ro&btnG=Căutare+Google&lr= I don't know if this DC is showing post or pre jagger results. What's important is that that kind of link is counted as an IBL.
http://64.233.185.104/search?q=http...site=6988&url=http://startwebdesign.zap3x.com http://64.233.185.104/search?q=http://startwebdesign.zap3x.com Hmm... looks like two listings. See the title, descriptions, and the cache? This site is listed first on the page you mentioned as counting for backlinks... Generally the 302 bug hits the first listed on such page first, and the hardest. I have a feeling this site will soon be penalized for duplicate content, and the redirect link itself will win. Then a Google search for "startwebdesign.zap3x.com" will bring up the listing for http://webdirectory.rol.ro/index.php?catg=P:1 with the title and description for zap3x. I don't think Google will treat these any differently than 302 redirects. And I do not believe at this time that Google has changed a thing about the handling of 302 redirects, based on this thread.