The question comes up every campaign, and it gets two wrong answers — "it kills your SEO" and "it passes link juice." The real answer comes down to the difference between two HTTP codes, and it has a consequence nobody anticipates for click counting.
A short link is a redirect. You publish example.com/sale, the server responds "go over there instead," and the browser follows. The entire SEO question comes down to how it responds.
There are two ways to respond, and they don't say the same thing to search engines.
That's the starting point, and it's shorter than you'd think. Google Search Central's page on redirects, "Redirects and Google Search", establishes two facts:
What this documentation doesn't say anywhere is that a redirect would "lose a percentage of link equity." That number appears everywhere online; it comes from no official source. The useful concept here is canonical page, explained on Google's page on duplicate URLs — not a story about juice flowing through a pipe.
| 301, permanent | 302, temporary | |
|---|---|---|
| What the search engine retains | the destination becomes the canonical page | the original page stays shown |
| What the browser retains | it caches and stops asking | it asks again every time |
| Effect on click counting | the second click isn't counted | every click is counted |
| Good for | a permanent page move | a link you're measuring |
The middle row is the most consequential, and it's the one nobody mentions in SEO articles. A permanent redirect allows the browser to cache the destination. A visitor who clicks again a week later goes directly to the destination, bypassing your server. They clicked; you didn't see it.
The classic mistake is serving a campaign link as a 301 "for speed." The symptom arrives a few days later: clicks drop in the report while nothing changed on the distribution side. The cause is nearly impossible to find, because there's nothing to find — the browser simply stopped asking.
That's why all our redirects respond as 302, with no option to change it, and the response is marked never to be cached: a short link's destination can change any minute, and a link cached somewhere is a link you no longer control. The detail is in the 301 and 302 redirect lexicon entry.
In other words, the "301 vs. 302 for SEO" debate doesn't apply to a tracking link. A campaign link isn't meant to be indexed — it's meant to be clicked, and counted every time.
This is the only case that really matters, and it concerns the domain of the link, not the link itself. If a site cites you with a public shortener's address, the link points to that service's domain, which then redirects to you.
On your own branded domain, the question disappears: the cited link carries your name, it's readable, and it stays yours even if you ever switch tools. It's a brand argument before it's an SEO argument, but the two converge: yourbrand.com/guide inspires more trust and gets more clicks than seven random characters — made possible by a chosen slug.
Don't. A site's navigation should point directly to its pages, using full URLs. An internal redirect adds a step between the crawler and the page, with no benefit. Same for sitemaps: only final URLs belong there.
Short links are made for going out: a profile bio, a message, a printed medium, a partner. Not for internal navigation.
Some links don't lead to a clean redirect but to an intermediate page — to fire advertising pixels, for example. Those pages need a noindex, nofollow directive: they have no business appearing in a search index, and that's what ours carry. An indexable interstitial is the real SEO problem with a short link; the redirect itself isn't.
The real risk of a short link isn't in indexation. It's in the reputation of the domain serving it. A domain shared by thousands of strangers eventually appears on filtering lists, and the warning screen that then appears applies to all links on that domain — including yours. That's a separate topic, covered in the article on anonymous shorteners.
The second risk is more mundane: the provider shuts down, and all your links die at once, including those printed on paper. A short link is a dependency; it's better when it carries your name and its status is public.
If your short link serves a paid partnership, an affiliate arrangement, or a paid placement, the question changes nature. It's no longer the redirect that matters — it's how the site citing you qualifies its link.
Google requires that paid links be marked with the rel="sponsored" attribute, and notes that nofollow, formerly recommended for these cases, is still accepted even if now less precise. This is written on its page on qualifying outbound links.
The practical consequence applies on both sides. When you buy a placement, don't expect any SEO benefit: a correctly marked link doesn't pass any, and a wrongly marked one exposes the publisher hosting you. When you sell a placement, mark it: it's the cost of peace of mind, and it takes nothing away from the traffic value it delivers — traffic your short link counts perfectly.
"My short link is appearing in Google results — is that normal?" It happens when the short link has been cited and crawled. It's not harmful, but it's a sign that it's circulating as a public address. If the destination page is what should appear, that's what needs to be cited.
"Does a redirect slow down the page?" It adds one network round trip, measured in tens of milliseconds when the redirect is served from a network edge. That's nothing compared to the image weight of an average page.
"What about networks that already rewrite my links?" Several platforms wrap outbound links in their own redirect. Your short link still works underneath, and that's precisely why the counting needs to belong to you: you'll never see inside their wrapper. The topic connects to traffic filed as "direct".
"Does a QR code change anything?" No — a QR code encodes an address, and it's the same redirect mechanics behind it. What changes is that a printed medium can't be corrected — hence the dynamic QR code.
"Can I verify this myself?" Yes, in one command. A request to your link with header output gives you the response code and the destination. The method is described in the technical documentation.
The vocabulary — redirect, slug, unique click, branded domain — is in the lexicon. And for the full mechanics of a link served from your own domain, it's the short links and domains page.
Read next
The same revenue, three different answers depending on the attribution model. The method, and what each model refuses to tell you.
Measuring a campaign doesn't require identifying anyone. What a tracked link actually records, and who is responsible for what under GDPR.
The monthly letter
What we published, what we learned building it, and the numbers we can show. No offers, no automated follow-ups.