I'm working with an SEO consultant that is recommending basename/URL reuse. The idea is that Google recognizes a given URL as high value and that URL will maintain value over time if the content is fresh. I'd like to know if this is a valid SEO strategy.

So, we'll start with an article under:


Then, a couple of weeks later we'll "move" the content:

http://example.com/some-search-term becomes

and a new article is published under:


Does this scheme make sense? It seems to break a lot of the assumptions about URLs, for end users (bookmarks break) and third party sites (Facebook like counts point to the wrong content).

  • The worst SEO strategy that i have heard.. Google is just another foolish head. Especially when the hummingbird updates are coming you blog is going to suffer..
    – Anz Joy
    Oct 1, 2013 at 14:07

1 Answer 1


If you move the content that was indexed under: http://example.com/some-search-term to: http://example.com/12345, in attempt to maintain the same value, you'd have to do a 301 redirect to let Google know that it moved.

If you don't, then the next time Google indexes http://example.com/some-search-term, it will find the new content there and evaluate it accordingly, and it will index and evaluate http://example.com/12345 as a new page.

If you continually redirect a URL elsewhere, you'll also run into issues with caching - see this for more on that: 301 Redirects: The Horror That Cannot Be Uncached

As you might suspect, this seems to be an attempt at SEO manipulation, which Google spends a lot of time trying to circumvent. Generally if it impacts users, it's not a good SEO strategy either.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.