301 redirect vs 307 redirect

Question

I am wondering about the difference between 301 and 307 redirects.

I am looking to generate backlinks through a home-brew url redirector, and I wish for any of the "link juice" or "page rank juice" to flow directly from the originating back page through to the final URL, but if one of the originating back pages goes bad, I'd like to be able to shut that link off by deleting the redirect link for that particular page. Make sense?

My understanding is that 301's are permanent meaning that google will see the 301 and update its cached URL as the final destination, regardless of whether I kill off that redirect at a later time.

If I use a 307, it won't cache the destination URL and will keep checking the redirect URL to see where the back link actually points to, and if I kill off the redirect link, Google will no longer assign that back link to the destination URL.

Is this a correct summary?

Solution

It's correct. Actually 307 is variation of the more common 302 redirect

301 Moved Permanently This and all future requests should be directed to the given URI.

307 Temporary Redirect (since HTTP/1.1)
In this case, the request should be repeated with another URI;
however, future requests should still use the original URI.

Comments

[CoR]

307 will preserve POST request! While 301 might/will change POST to GET.

[BBagi]

Thanks for the answer. So specifically, will "link juice" flow through a 307? And when that 307 is deleted or updated, will the "bad juice" either stop affecting the end-point url, or can the "link juice" be directed to a new URL? WHat I mean by "link juice" is the influence back links give to a page, whether it's good PR, or bad. For example if I have a link coming from a blog that google decides is a bad blog, and I delete the back link to my site by converting the 307 to a 404, will that effectively cancel any negative effect that back link had?

[Markus Unterwaditzer]

@HighParkCoder I don't think a link from a malicious site to yours would have a big effect, but more if you link back to that site. After all, you shouldn't spend too much time on such little things, since Google's ranking criterions are very opaque.

[BBagi]

@MarkusUnterwaditzer thanks for the feedback, but for academic purposes, can you clarify my question?

[Markus Unterwaditzer]

@HighParkCoder I don't really understand. You meant answering?

[BBagi]

@MarkusUnterwaditzer You weren't really answering my question, you were giving an opinion of whether my question had any merit.