Soft 404s for unpublished & 301'd content
-
Hi,
One site I work with unpublished a lot of thin content. Great idea, right?
These unpublished pages were then 301'd up to the main category page that they previously existed in.
Now Google Webmaster Tools calls them out as soft 404 errors. This seems unexpected since the pages
were 301'd. Here is my question; Is this a serious problem that may affect the site's overall organic results
and if so what should I do about it?
Thanks... Darcy
-
Short answer: create a custom 404 page, not just for these pages, but one that can show for everypage on your site.
A few resources:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93641?hl=en
Example: http://moz.com/sadfklfadsadfjs
-
Cyrus, thanks for hanging in there with my questions. If I just give back a 404, what am I showing them on the page?
I would think seeing the main questions page would be better than just sitting at the original url and looking at 404 page notice - seems like a bad user experience if Google wants to get all user-experiency about it.
Thanks... Darcy
-
Yes, it's possible, but that could be considered cloaking. I'd say best to return a 404.
-
Hi Cyrus,
Have not experienced a dip, but things have been a little static.
Can you do both... forward the page and give back a 404?
What would you do?
Thanks... Darcy
-
Yes, I would think that at the point Google crawls it and finds it forwarded it would drop it from the index and not waste resources crawling it again unless linked somewhere. I will keep an eye out for links, but don't believe that there are any.
Thanks, Dirk... Darcy
-
In that case, sounds like you should either:
- 404 them if you have evidence these have hurt your rankings/traffic (have you experienced a dip?)
- Ignore them and go about your day
-
Hi Cyrus,
Thanks for the info. These are forum pages where no one ever answered the question, so
there is no helpful info and very little content.
They were forwarded up to the main questions page (one / up the url structure).
The page they were forwarded to is like a questions category page, not specific to the subject of the
forwarded page. These forwarded pages don't get much/any traffic because they never ranked
and we didn't promote them.
If it doesn't hurt overall search on other pages, I'd rather not go to the substantial effort of finding subject-relevant pages to forward to, since no one will ever go to the original url and need to see something super relevant.
Your thoughts? Thanks! Best... Darcy
-
If Fetch like Google is also giving a 301 - I would mark them as solved in WMT & check if they re-appear.
If you click on the i next to the redirect message in Fetch like Google - it shows the type of redirect & the page it's redirecting to. I assume you checked that this is also a 301.I have a similar issue on one of my sites - if a user gets to a non-existing url - the server first tries to find out if the page exists - if it doesn't it's redirected to a 404 page. Although technically it is a 301 - WMT sees them as a soft 404 as the destination page is a "Page not found" type of page (called 404.php) - which (quite ironically) renders a 200 status.
On the destination page - do you mention somewhere a message like "page not found" or is it just a plain category page?
The SEO impact is difficult to assess - Google says these pages are mainly wasting the bot's time as it's indexing pages that do no longer exist, not sure if it is also affecting rankings. As you did the crawl with Screaming Frog, I guess you are also removing all internal links to these redirected pages? If these links disappear, and as the content was thin, I suspect you don't have many external links pointing to them, so the problem should disappear after a while.
rgds,
Dirk
-
If Google thinks the 301 leads to a page that isn't relevant enough, they may flag it as a "soft 404" even though it returns a 301. That's Google's way of saying they think you should 404 these pages instead.
How much will it hurt you? Probably not much, but it's hard to say.
Let's ask these questions:
- How much traffic goes to these pages? If not much, is it okay to 404 them?
- Are there more relevant pages you could redirect these to? (ideally, something with a similar title as the original page?)
- Have you seen much traffic loss overall? If not, it's likely this isn't hurting you.
Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.
-
Okay, that is extra weird. It could be that GWT hasn't update your information since you made the changes. Since everywhere else is telling it's correct -- especially the fetch tool -- then you should wait a few more days and see if it updates.
-
Hi Erica,
I'm saying that the only place it shows a soft 404 is in GWT errors. Screaming Frog, web-sniffer and now Fetch As Google In GWT, all show them as 301 re-directs. I can't re-direct them more than they are. So, is GWT just goofy?
Thanks... Darcy
-
Hi Darcy,
Yeah, if it's still showing as a soft 404, there's still something wrong. I'd try using fetch and render as Google bot and see what happens.
Best of luck!
-
Hi Dirk,
Thanks for the suggestion. As noted above, I put the whole list thru screaming frog and a few thru your suggestion of web-sniffer.net.
95% of the whole list is 301s and 100% of the few put one at a time thru web-sniffer come back as 301s.
My question remains "Is this a serious problem that may affect the site's overall organic results
and if so what should I do about it?"
Thanks... Darcy
-
Hi Erica,
I put the list through screaming frog and 95% of the urls are shown as 301s.
Do you think screaming frog has it right or is there something they wouldn't catch?
Thanks... Darcy
-
Maybe an obvious question but did you check that the url's are indeed properly redirected - checking them with 'Fetch like Google' in WMT or by using a tool like web-sniffer.net?
rgds,
Dirk
-
I'd check to make sure your 301s were done correctly. If they are showing up as soft 404s, they are probably implemented wrong.
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
-
Can a duplicate page referencing the original page on another domain in another country using the 'canonical link' still get indexed locally?
Hi I wonder if anyone could help me on a canonical link query/indexing issue. I have given an overview, intended solution and question below. Any advice on this query will be much appreciated. Overview: I have a client who has a .com domain that includes blog content intended for the US market using the correct lang tags. The client also has a .co.uk site without a blog but looking at creating one. As the target keywords and content are relevant across both UK and US markets and not to duplicate work the client has asked would it be worthwhile centralising the blog or provide any other efficient blog site structure recommendations. Suggested solution: As the domain authority (DA) on the .com/.co.uk sites are in the 60+ it would risky moving domains/subdomain at this stage and would be a waste not to utilise the DAs that have built up on both sites. I have suggested they keep both sites and share the same content between them using a content curated WP plugin and using the 'canonical link' to reference the original source (US or UK) - so not to get duplicate content issues. My question: Let's say I'm a potential customer in the UK and i'm searching using a keyword phrase that the content that answers my query is on both the UK and US site although the US content is the original source.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JonRayner
Will the US or UK version blog appear in UK SERPs? My gut is the UK blog will as Google will try and serve me the most appropriate version of the content and as I'm in the UK it will be this version, even though I have identified the US source using the canonical link?2 -
Directory with Duplicate content? what to do?
Moz keeps finding loads of pages with duplicate content on my website. The problem is its a directory page to different locations. E.g if we were a clothes shop we would be listing our locations: www.sitename.com/locations/london www.sitename.com/locations/rome www.sitename.com/locations/germany The content on these pages is all the same, except for an embedded google map that shows the location of the place. The problem is that google thinks all these pages are duplicated content. Should i set a canonical link on every single page saying that www.sitename.com/locations/london is the main page? I don't know if i can use canonical links because the page content isn't identical because of the embedded map. Help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nchlondon0 -
301's - Do we keep the old sitemap to assist google with this ?
Hello Mozzers, We have restructured our site and have done many 301 redirects to our new url structure. I have seen one of my competitors have done similar but they have kept the old sitemap to assist google I guess with their 301's as well. At present we only have our new site map active but am I missing a trick by not have the old one there as well to assist google with 301's. thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Scraped content ranking above the original source content in Google.
I need insights on how “scraped” content (exact copy-pasted version) rank above the original content in Google. 4 original, in-depth articles published by my client (an online publisher) are republished by another company (which happens to be briefly mentioned in all four of those articles). We reckon the articles were re-published at least a day or two after the original articles were published (exact gap is not known). We find that all four of the “copied” articles rank at the top of Google search results whereas the original content i.e. my client website does not show up in the even in the top 50 or 60 results. We have looked at numerous factors such as Domain authority, Page authority, in-bound links to both the original source as well as the URLs of the copied pages, social metrics etc. All of the metrics, as shown by tools like Moz, are better for the source website than for the re-publisher. We have also compared results in different geographies to see if any geographical bias was affecting results, reason being our client’s website is hosted in the UK and the ‘re-publisher’ is from another country--- but we found the same results. We are also not aware of any manual actions taken against our client website (at least based on messages on Search Console). Any other factors that can explain this serious anomaly--- which seems to be a disincentive for somebody creating highly relevant original content. We recognize that our client has the option to submit a ‘Scraper Content’ form to Google--- but we are less keen to go down that route and more keen to understand why this problem could arise in the first place. Please suggest.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ontarget-media0 -
301 or 404 Question for thin content Location Pages we want to remove
Hello All, I have a Hire Website with many categories and individual location pages for each of the 70 depots we operate. However, being dynamic pages, we have thousands of thin content pages. We have decided to only concentrate on our best performing locations and get rid of the rest as its physically impossible to write unique content for all our location pages for every categories. Therefore my question is. Would it cause me problems by having to many 301's for the location pages I am going to re-direct ( i was only going to send these back to the parent category page) or should I just 404 all those location pages and at some point in the future when we are in a position to concentrate on these locations then redo them with new content ? in terms of url numbers It would affect a few thousand 301's or 404's depending on people thoughts. Also , does anyone know what percentage of thin content on a site should be acceptable ?.. I know , none is best in an ideal world but it would be easier if there we could get away with a little percentage. We have been affected by Panda , so we are trying to tidy things up as best at possible, Any advice greatly appreciated? thanks Peter
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Will pages irrelevant to a site's core content dilute SEO value of core pages?
We have a website with around 40 product pages. We also have around 300 pages with individual ingredients used for the products and on top of that we have some 400 pages of individual retailers which stock the products. Ingredient pages have same basic short info about the ingredients and the retail pages just have the retailer name, adress and content details. Question is, should I add noindex to all the ingredient and or retailer pages so that the focus is entirely on the product pages? Thanks for you help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ArchMedia0 -
Is it ok to use both 301 redirect and rel="canonical' at the same time?
Hi everyone, I'm sorry if this has been asked before. I just wasn't able to find a response in previous questions. To fix the problems in our website regarding duplication I have the possibility to set up 301's and, at the same time, modify our CMS so that it automatically sets a rel="canonical" tag for every page that is generated. Would it be a problem to have both methods set up? Is it a problem to have a on a page that is redirecting to another one? Is it advisable to have a rel="canonical" tag on every single page? Thanks for reading!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SDLOnlineChannel0 -
There's a website I'm working with that has a .php extension. All the pages do. What's the best practice to remove the .php extension across all pages?
Client wishes to drop the .php extension on all their pages (they've got around 2k pages). I assured them that wasn't necessary. However, in the event that I do end up doing this what's the best practices way (and easiest way) to do this? This is also a WordPress site. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | digisavvy0