CGI Redirects versus HTML Links - Does it Hurt more than Help

Google will sometimes "programatically-assign" the SERPs URL the identity of a frequently spidered CGI redirect -
meaning that the SERPs will display the Title and Cache and Meta Description of the page being redirected to -

--- BUT---

The URL in the SERPs will be the CGI redirect - and the link will go there first - then - come to the real page -
causing the Real Web master to loose ALL referrer tracking information - except - for that CGI redirect site

Do Redirects REALLY help Link Popularity

 

I use CGI redirect solely to prevent the internal GPR channeling to uselles pages or prevent internal linking with uselles anchor text. There are no problems, since the redirect script resides in a folder dissalowed in the robots txt. If I wish to see a page in SERPS, it must be linked directly, without redirect.

 

They dont help link popularity, they do prevent PR bleed though.

getting a CGI link to your site isnt worth as much as a normal link.
Giving out CGI links though wont hurt your SERPS/PR/etc

 

I don't think CGI links are helpful at all unless Google recognizes the redirect.

 

I mean if you are serving CGI links to external sites, like having an exit link script for when you want to link to a page without givving away all your PR.

 

Is there a possibility that cgi-redirects may be interpreted by Google as Cloaking and get some sites banned?

That would be the ultimate SE irony! - would'nt it.

It seems with the constant fluctuations in Progamming Algos - you can't take ANYTHING for granted.