Error reports showing pages that don't exist on website
-
I have a website that is showing lots of errors (pages that cannot be found) in google webmaster tools. I went through the errors and re-directed the pages I could. There are a bunch of remaining pages that are not really pages this is why they are showing errors. What's strange is some of the URL's are showing feeds which these were never created. I went into Google webmaster tools and looked at the remove URL tool. I am using this but I am confused if I need to be selecting "remove page from search results and cache" option or should I be selecting this other option "remove directory" I am confused on the directory. I don't want to accidentally delete core pages of the site from the search engines.
Can anybody shed some light on this or recommend which I should be selecting?
Thank you
Wendy
-
I would avoid using the "remove URL" option in GWT. The 301s are more ideal in my opinion because let's say I have that old URL posted on my website somewhere, and now it's going to a 404 page. When you redirect it, people will be taken to a different page, and you don't have to worry about having me update the old URL on my website. The link will work, it will take you to an active page and can get you some traffic. However, the "remove URL" option won't give you this same benefit.
Here's a helpful link straight from the source on when NOT to use the Remove URL option: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1269119?hl=en
-
Ok this sounds good because it's not exactly duplicate content so it would be better I agree to do the redirect. I downloaded a redirect plugin yesterday that worked pretty good. I noticed that some pages have already redirected people (the tool has an area to see this)
Final question for you, what are your thoughts on that "remove URL" option in Google Webmaster tools? Wasn't sure if that would be better than a 301 redirect for these remaining senseless errors.
Just curious on your thoughts.
Thank you
-
Rel=canonical is used more when you have duplicate content. If you have the same post or page in two areas, you can use the rel=canonical tag to tell Google where the original of the duplicate is. It sounds like you don't need rel=canonical in this situation.
It sounds like you have 80-something 404 Page Not Found errors. I would use the "Redirection" plugin with Wordpress. Take each URL that is giving you the 404 error in your report, and redirect each one to the most relevant page associated with what was supposed to be on the page that is giving the 404 error. If there really is no relevant page at all, I would just redirect it to the homepage. In my opinion, it's better to have it redirect to the homepage than to have the user land on a 404 page. I would do that for every 404 error you are getting. Doing this, I don't think you'll need rel=canonical at all.
-
Thank you for your reply. You are correct the site is in wordpress. The long story of this whole situation is this....I had initially built the client a wordpress site, things were fine with, traffic and business was good for him. Then one day one of his employees suggested that her father build him a new site that was more graphically pleasing (rather than saying can you please update the graphics on the current site) so the father built an entirely new site on Joomla (I didn't find this out until he was launching this new Joomla site) The guy also went and changed the domain to a www. the original site I had built had no www on it. Fast Forward.....I have re-built the site in wordpress, went back to the non www version. The errors I am getting I have 301 re-directed where I could. I have also in webmaster tools changed the site settings to the preferred domain.(the new site) I fetched all the new pages in Google. I have submitted new site maps. I'm down to 82 errors. The errors are showing pages that do not exist and to re-direct those pages I don't have pages that would really make sense to re-direct them to. I'm wondering now if I'm to a point where I need to "remove the URL's" as offered in Google webmaster tools...??? What do you think on this?
As for the rel-canonical....I understand why I would use these. I see in the Yoast plug in where I can insert the rel-canonical. My question is this:Do I insert the rel-canonical on the page that is correct? So I go to my correct website (the non www one) and go to that page that is correct and I prefer the engines index that page and insert the rel-canonical on that page that is the preferred one? Or am I to go to the non preferred page and insert the rel-canonical on that page so when search engines see that wrong page they see the rel-canonical tag showing them the correct page to index? I looked at a video by Matt Cutts and I wasn't clear on which page I put the rel-canonical on (old site or new one?) I don't have access to the old site so this is why I was thinking maybe just "remove the URL's" as offered up in webmaster tools.
Your input? I really appreciate your help. Thank you
-
For me personally, on Wordpress I use the Yoast SEO tool and I went through the tutorial on the Yoast website. He shows you how to eliminate a lot of the duplicate content that automatically gets created with all Wordpress websites. Once you noindex and get rid of all the unnecessary archives and all that, at that point I would recommend going back to the error report and see the difference and see if those pages keep coming up. If they do, just simply 301 redirect them to another page on your website. Then check again after you redirect them and see what you're left with. Sometimes it takes a couple weeks to reflect from what I've seen. Not sure if this is the exact issue you're having, or if you're even using Wordpress at all, but it sounds like if you are this might help you as it helped me get my errors down to zero.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
I'm in Canada and building a website for the US...approach?
Hi there - we already have a Canadian website for the company and we're building one for our American branch. From an SEO perspective what is the best approach here? We have already purchased a .com domain and the company is branded a little different in the US than in Canada. How do I tell Google that this site is American and should be served primarily to the American audience? Should I be tagging duplicate content with rel=canonical (for similar pages like the About us section for instance) or does that matter here? Hope you guys can help. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MelcorDev0 -
We are redesigning our existing website. The domain is staying the same, but the sub-structure and page names are changing. Do I still need to do 301s?
We are redesigning our existing website. The domain is staying the same, but the sub-structure and page names are changing. Do I still need to do 301 redirects or will search engines know to remove the old 404 pages from the SERPs? We are redesigning our existing website. The domain is staying the same, but the sub-structure and page names are changing. Do I still need to do 301s?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GrandOptimizations0 -
Blank Cart Pages Showing as Duplicate, HELP
Hi Everyone, I'm seeing a bunch of URLs that look something like this [ domain.com/cart?add&id_product=42&token=776d4a08721f3d8c920e287248797547] showing as duplicate content in my Moz crawls. I think these are just blank pages for the most part. Is there anything to be concerned with here? Is there a way to clean this up? Thanks! Ricky
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RickyShockley0 -
Wrong Website Showing Up On Knowledge Graph - Car Dealer SEO Question
Hi Everyone, I have a client who has two website platforms, one of them is mandated by the manufacturer and the other is the one we use and is linked up to our Google Plus/Maps/etc. accounts. The one that is manufacturer mandated is showing up on the Google Knowledge graph and this is not ideal for us. Unfortunately, we cannot get rid of the other site because it is mandated. So how do we go about fixing this issue? I Had a few ideas, and I'd like to know if they would work. If you can think of something that's outside of the box, I'd appreciate it. 1.) Put a rel=canonical across the website 2.) Remove all keywords that might trigger it to show up on the knowledge graph from the URL of the non ideal site 3.) Go for a .net or .us domain. Do these kind of domains have less authority and are less likely to show up in a google search? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | oomdomarketing0 -
My landing pages don't show up in the SERPs, only my frontpage does.
I am having some trouble with getting the landing pages for a clients website to show up in the SERPs.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | InmediaDK
As far as I can see, the pages are optimized well, and they also get indexed by Google. The website is a danish webshop that sells wine, www.vindanmark.com Take for an instance this landing page, http://www.vindanmark.com/vinhandel/
It is optimzied for the keywords "Vinhandel Århus". Vinhandel means "Winestore" and "Århus" is a danish city. As you can see, I manage to get them at page 1 (#10), but it's the frontpage that ranks for the keyword. And this goes for alle the other landing pages as well. But I can't figure out, why the frontpage keep outranking the landingpages on every keyword.
What am I doing wrong here?1 -
Strange 404s in GWT - "Linked From" pages that never existed
I’m having an issue with Google Webmaster Tools saying there are 404 errors on my site. When I look into my “Not Found” errors I see URLs like this one: Real-Estate-1/Rentals-Wanted-228/Myrtle-Beach-202/subcatsubc/ When I click on that and go to the “Linked From” tab, GWT says the page is being linked from http://www.myrtlebeach.com/Real-Estate-1/Rentals-Wanted-228/Myrtle-Beach-202/subcatsubc/ The problem here is that page has never existed on myrtlebeach.com, making it impossible for anything to be “linked from” that page. Many more strange URLs like this one are also showing as 404 errors. All of these contain “subcatsubc” somewhere in the URL. My Question: If that page has never existed on myrtlebeach.com, how is it possible to be linking to itself and causing a 404?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fuel0 -
Can't find X-Robots tag!
Hi all. I've been checking out http://www.unthankbooks.com/ as it seems to have some indexing problems. I ran a server header check, and got a 200 response. However, it also shows the following: X-Robots-Tag:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blink-SEO
noindex, nofollow It's not in the page HTML though. Could it be being picked up from somewhere else?0 -
404 Error on Blog Pages that Look Like Loading Fine
There was recently a huge increase in 404 errors on Yandex Webmasters corresponding with a drop in rankings. Most of the pages seem to be from my blog (which was updated around the same time). When I click on the links from Yandex the page looks like it is loading normal, expect that it has the following message from the Facebook plugin I am using for commenting Any ideas about what the problem is or how to fix it? Critical Errors That Must Be Fixed | Bad Response Code: | URL returned a bad HTTP response code. | Open Graph Warnings That Should Be Fixed | Inferred Property: | The 'og:url' property should be explicitly provided, even if a value can be inferred from other tags. |
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theLotter
| Inferred Property: | The 'og:title' property should be explicitly provided, even if a value can be inferred from other tags. |
| Small og:image: | All the images referenced by og:image should be at least 200px in both dimensions. Please check all the images with tag og:image in the given url and ensure that it meets the recommended specification. |0