Do robots.txt redirections really create issues for crawling?

How does this statement change the game?

Historically, Google's official recommendation stated that a robots.txt file should respond directly with a 200 status, without intermediaries. Many SEOs considered that a 301 or 302 redirect on this file could be ignored or even block the site's crawl entirely.

This cautious position stemmed from the fact that robots.txt is consulted before any other request: if GoogleBot cannot retrieve it properly, it applies a precautionary principle and stops crawling. Any technical ambiguity could have catastrophic consequences for indexing.

What does this tolerance for redirects actually change?

Mueller states that GoogleBot now follows redirects from the robots.txt file, which opens up possibilities during migrations or infrastructure changes. If your main domain redirects to a subdomain or a new TLD, the robots.txt can follow this logic without blocking the bot.

This also means that temporary configuration errors during a migration no longer automatically penalize your crawl budget. GoogleBot will try to resolve the redirect chain instead of giving up immediately.

What limitations should you keep in mind?

The statement remains deliberately vague on technical details: how many redirect hops does GoogleBot accept? What is the difference between 301, 302, 307, and 308? What timeout does it apply if the chain is too long?

Moreover, not all bots necessarily follow this logic. Bing, Yandex, or social media crawlers may behave differently. Relying solely on a robots.txt redirect weakens your site against the broader bot ecosystem.

• GoogleBot follows robots.txt redirects, but technical details remain unclear (number of hops, accepted HTTP codes).
• This tolerance facilitates migrations, but does not exempt you from a clean direct 200 configuration whenever possible.
• Other search engines do not guarantee this behavior: a robots.txt redirect remains a point of vulnerability.
• Precaution principle: if your infrastructure allows it, avoid any redirects on robots.txt even if Google tolerates it.
• Legitimate use cases: HTTPS migration, CDN changes, or temporary multi-domain unification.

Is this statement consistent with real-world observations?

Yes, in the majority of cases. Real-world feedback confirms that GoogleBot has been effectively following 301/302 redirects on robots.txt for several years. Some migrating sites have even functioned for months with a redirected robots.txt without visible loss of indexing.

The problem is that Mueller does not quantify anything. How long does GoogleBot tolerate this situation? One month? Six months? Indefinitely? And what latency does this redirect resolution add to each crawl session? [To be verified]: the real impact of a permanent redirect on crawl budget remains undocumented.

What nuances should be added to this statement?

First nuance: the redirect chain matters. A single hop (domain.com/robots.txt → www.domain.com/robots.txt) likely passes without friction. Three or four successive hops? Then you're entering undocumented territory.

Second nuance: the type of redirect. A 301 (permanent) should logically be better accepted than a 302 (temporary), but Google specifies nothing. And what about 307/308, less common but technically cleaner? Silence. [To be verified]: empirical tests show that 301 and 302 work, but nothing formal on the other codes.

In what cases does this rule fall short?

Critical case number one: you depend on other bots than Google. If your traffic also comes from Bing, Baidu, Yandex, DuckDuckGo, or if you need social media bots (Facebook, Twitter) to respect your robots.txt, this Google tolerance does not cover you.

Case number two: SEO diagnostic tools. Many third-party crawlers (Screaming Frog, OnCrawl, Botify) do not necessarily follow the same logic as GoogleBot. Your monitoring may therefore report false positives while Google crawls normally.

What should you do during a migration?

If you are migrating your site (changing domains, moving to HTTPS, redesigning architecture), you can temporarily leave your robots.txt redirected while stabilizing the new configuration. GoogleBot will follow the redirect and continue to crawl normally.

But don't stop there. As soon as your infrastructure allows, create a robots.txt file that responds directly with a 200 status at the new URL. The redirect is a crutch, not a permanent solution. Each hop adds latency and weakens your crawl against non-Google bots.

What mistakes should you absolutely avoid?

Number one mistake: chaining multiple redirects. If your robots.txt goes from domain.com → www.domain.com → https://www.domain.com, you're multiplying points of friction. GoogleBot may follow, but you are wasting crawl budget unnecessarily.

Number two mistake: counting only on Google. Bing still represents 5-10% of organic traffic in some sectors, and its tolerance for robots.txt redirects is not documented. The same goes for Yandex in Eastern Europe or Baidu in Asia.

How can I check if my robots.txt is optimal?

Use Search Console (robots.txt testing tool) to verify that Google correctly retrieves your file. If a redirect exists, the tool will show you the final resolved URL. Compare with an online curl test to see how many HTTP hops are necessary.

At the same time, check your server logs. If GoogleBot queries robots.txt at each crawl session and consistently receives a redirect, it unnecessarily burdens your statistics. A file with a direct 200 response reduces this technical friction.

• Audit your robots.txt file: does it respond with a direct 200 status or does it go through a redirect?
• Limit redirect chains: a maximum of one hop, never more than two.
• Favor a 301 if a redirect is necessary, rather than a temporary 302.
• Test with multiple bots: Google, Bing, and a third-party crawler (Screaming Frog) to detect inconsistencies.
• Migrate to a direct 200 as soon as your infrastructure allows, even if the redirect is functioning.
• Monitor your logs: if GoogleBot queries robots.txt at each crawl, a redirect unnecessarily burdens interactions.