303 Redirects

Selected answers from the Dumb SEO Questions Facebook & G+ community.

• 
  Rotimi Orimoloye (Orims): 303 Redirects Anybody?
  
  Hey folks,
  
  I've searched quite a bit and noticed that there isn't a terrible lot of information out there about 303 redirects.
  And Google seems mysteriously silent about it as well.
  (unless I'm not searching properly - anyone? kindly help with a link)
  
  So far all I have gathered about the 303 See Also (or See Other) ;redirect is that you get much less "link juice" when you use it, as in comparison to the more common SEO redirects. ;
  But I would love to know if any of you is aware of any other downsides to using this redirect?
  
  Thanks guys!
• 
  Edwin Jonk: There are so many HTTP status codes and most of them are not mentioned in G's guidelines. According to w3c the 303 " MUST NOT be cached ". That is similar to a 302. Furthermore ;
  " Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303 status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern, the 302 status code may be used instead "
  
  http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html
  
  Therefore my guess would be that G-bot would threat it as a 302 and thereby link juice will not follow through. But I would stay away from these status codes and use a 301 or 302 instead.
• 
  Parvesh Sareen: It basically works like 302 redirect but the difference here is that when you will be searching in google for the main website, it may be possible that you will have confused search engine snippet. It may show the URL of the website that is being redirected to and may show the title for the old website that is getting redirected. Also it will not pass any link juice. And also both the websites will get indexed in google. Best is always to use 301 for permanently redirecting websites.