Shared publicly  - 
 
41
Scott Kellam's profile photoDiana Studer's profile photoDavid Faltz's profile photoSudhir Kumar Shah's profile photo
26 comments
 
What do you think +Cyrus Shepard? Is the 302 an intentional move by Google to remove equity from user profiles that were implementing Authorship markup with numeric profile IDs? 
 
+Brian Jensen it's a 302 because the authority is flowing to the profile number URL & not the other way around, that's the way it's always been. I'm preparing to write up some more details on this soon.

Ultimately this URL plus.google.com/107070305268662654617 is what is indexed with all posts in Google Search & that is where the posts show their authority.

To prove my point click on the top Right Link to post above, that is the exact URL of this post which will ultimately be indexed & show up in Google Search, not the vanity URL.

Oddly enough though, in a direct search of the entity's specific name, it is the vanity URL that will show up instead. https://plus.google.com/+GlennGabe/

Also IMO, regardless of the URL we use in Authorship (which technically is supposed to be https://plus.google.com/107070305268662654617?rel=author ) as explained here support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2539557 , the indexing algorithm already has the whole G+ URL structure mess worked out & PR appears to flow smoothly.

My point being, this is pretty much a non-issue to be too concerned about.
 
Why would you think Google paying attention to some SEO best practices... They can just hardcore these profiles at the top, who cares about page rank flow at that point..!
 
+Dennis Goedegebuure because as analysts, we'd like to think we kinda know how the technicalities work. Sometimes we get it right. ;)
 
What do you guys make of the T&C's that state the reserve the right to later charge for these vanity URLs?
 
Google is probably using a 302 for browser caching and all the other reasons a non-SEO would use it. Since these vanity URL's are new, a 302 makes sense while they get the whole system figured out.  From a crawling standpoint, a 302 is not a show stopper because Googlebot will consider a 302 to really be a 301 if they think its intention was to be a 301.

As +Joshua Berg pointed out, the vanity URL is indexed, so this is very likely what is happening. (See https://plus.google.com/111252451865413191675/ which 302's to vanity URL https://plus.google.com/+surveymonkey/ and the vanity URL is indexed.)
 
+Stephen Hamilton that's Google thinking ahead to when they won't be the competition, cause there isn't any. What I have an inkling of here is, that conceivably someday the Google URL could be worth as much, or more than the domain name. Recall that with one fell swoop the EMD Penalty update, Google made worthless many millions of mostly parked domain names.
 
I refused to have a new custom Url - Later people can see that I was one of the first to participate in Goolge Plus having a very cool Google Plus number.
 
All responses above make sense as to "why", though Im not entirely sure we have uncovered why the vanity urls are indexing via a 302?
I guess google could have their own rules for this... 
 
+Jon Dunn I know +Matt Cutts has said several times that he has had to do SEO best practices on Google properties, it could be an oversight as crazy as it is to think that, that might be all it is.
 
Seems like engineers released a feature that people wanted and then the SEOs were informed of the release only after the site was available publicly. In other words, it was like every time something new is released on the web ;). 
 
+Joshua Berg or +Cyrus Shepard, I know nothing about redirects, but is it possible they are using 302 until Google sends an email stating it will cost $XX to keep that vanity url?  And if a user chooses not to pay, they  still have the numeric code url?
 
+Brad Yzermans This makes the most sense from an business stand-point, but I don't think the 2 teams (G+ and SEO) talk to each other a whole lot so I'd assume it's just something the engineers baked in.
Bob K
+
2
3
2
 
One reason could be that they experiment with the new URLs (that's why 302) and will make it 301 once they confirmed the new URL structure will remain intact.
 
we are the G lab rats. They will observe our behaviour - do they new URL or old URL, why, how - and then G will throw the next shiny new update at us. Take that!
 
+Brad Yzermans the answer is still as I stated above, all of the G+ posts are indexed in search with the profile number. So that is the root URL. It is only when the profile name itself is searched that it appears with the Vanity URL, hence the 302 redirect.
 
Thanks +Joshua Berg , why would people be advising we go back and replace our numeric code with the vanity name in our websites to link our content to our g+ profile?
 
That may be a little premature +Brad Yzermans , because Vanity URL's were just handed out to most people this week there has not been a lot of focus on this issue. However I have considered the URL structures a lot since 2012 & can tell you we're good with applying URL's exactly the way Google has suggested. support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2539557

Let me give you another good solid example, hover your mouse over any +mention of a name, what you see their is the root profile URL with the number (never the vanity URL). Then going on to other Google tools, in Blogger which uses +mentions as well, they will all go to the root profile number URL as well. Again this is why the 302 (temporary redirect) is used with the vanity URL, because the number profile is still primary & does not change across the Google platforms.

Another reason for only using the 302 is that in some cases the vanity URL may be changed, or edited by Google at certain applicable user's requests. On your About page you are also allowed to make small changes to how it is displayed, either capitalization, or dashes. Those are big changes from the URL structure point of view, so the number URL must remain the one constant across Google to not cause a great deal of confusion & endless re-indexing upon any future changes.
 
The G+ badges on my blogs have updated themselves to display my vanity URL. G seems to be sorting things out to suit itself.
 
+Joshua Berg Not sure about these assumptions.. Almost all author vanity urls are now showing up in serps as indexed and final urls.
 
+M Pekala I would need some examples of what you're referring to. There are a number of reasons why a profile, or just all of their posts, will stop showing up in search. I have identified what some of these specifically are.

When you say, "almost all," that seems a few too many to me. So I'd need to know more specifically what you mean.
 
+Joshua Berg Sorry perhaps I didn't make this clear. I was referring to your statement "all of the G+ posts are indexed in search with the profile number. So that is the root URL."    I'm simply saying that Google is choosing to index and have picked the vanity urls as what is showing up in serps. 

My best example would probably be Joshua Berg ;)
In the serps you get: https://www.google.com/+JoshuaBerg which you get another awesome 302 to https://plus.google.com/+JoshuaBerg  200

I think they can't make up their mind.
 
Yes +M Pekala I see what you're saying, Google has been using both vanity & number URL's to index G+ content for a while now. Since releasing a large number of vanity URL's over a month ago now, they have been indexing a great deal more content using just Vanity URL's. So you currently you can expect to see both in Search. Whether they will make that switch over for all posts, I'm not sure yet.
 
It's not just vanity URLs, I've seen google plus pages verified with a re-direct 302 URL and appear in google search fine, this goes against what they stated about not linking to a re-direct url but to the primary one. I guess if your primary URL is a re-direct then Google will just have to index on a case by case. 
 
+Evelina Jankauskyte this matter has now been pre-empted by Google deciding to make the custom user id (vanity URL) the canonical. Which I explained in my recent How Google SEO Affects Posts & Search Rank. 
Add a comment...