Do I need a canonical tag on the 404 error page?
-
Per definition, a 404 is displayed for different url (any not existing url ...).
As I try to clean my website following SEOmoz pro advices, SEOmoz notify me of duplicate content on urls leading to a 404
This is I guess not that important, but just curious: should we add a cononical tag to the template returning the 404, with a canonical url such as www.mysite.com/404
?
-
You will see that in GWT. Go to GWT > Crawler Access > Remove URL. It'll de-index that 404.
-
Stephen is right; there's no need for that. It's a little odd it's telling you that, I would check that these URLs that are 404ing are returning a status code of 404.
-
no need for that ^^
I assume you no longer link to those 404 pages from your website? So on the next crawl SEOmoz wont pick up those 404s
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
-
Home page vs inner page?
do you believe that the advantage of targeting a search term on the home page is now worse off than before? as I understand it ctr is a big factor now And as far as i can see if two pages are equal on page etc the better ctr will win out, the issue with the home page is the serp stars cannot be used hence the ctr on a product page will be higher? I feel if you where able to get a home page up quicker (1 year instead of two) you still lost out in the end due to the product page winning on ctr? do you think this is correct?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
Why are these pages showing up as 404 in Search Console?
This page is showing up as a 404 in Google Search console- https://www.wolfautomation.com/blog/autonics/ It shows it has been linked from these pages- https://www.wolfautomation.com/blog/raffel/ https://www.wolfautomation.com/blog/new-temperature-controllers-from-autonics/ https://www.wolfautomation.com/blog/ge-industrial/ https://www.wolfautomation.com/blog/temp-controller/ https://www.wolfautomation.com/blog/tx4s/ I never created this page, I don't want this page but it keeps showing up. The problem is the link isn't found on those pages anywhere so I can't delete it. What am I missing? How can I get rid of it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Tylerj0 -
What is the impact of an off-topic page to other pages on the site?
We are working with a client who has one irrelevant, off-topic post ranking incredibly well and driving a lot of traffic. However, none of the other pages on the site, that are relevant to this client's business, are ranking. Links are good and in-line with competitors for the various terms. Oddly, very few external links reference this off-topic post, most are to the home page. Local profile is also in-line with competitors, including reviews, categorization, geo-targeting, pictures, etc. No spam issues exist and no warnings in Google Search Console. The only thing that seems weird is this off-topic post but that could affect rankings on other pages of the site? Would removing that off-topic post potentially help increase traffic and rankings for the other more relevant pages of the site? Appreciate any and all help or ideas of where to go from here. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Matthew_Edgar0 -
Site's pages has GA codes based on Tag Manager but in Screaming Frog, it is not recognized
Using Tag Assistant (Google Chrome add-on), we have found that the site's pages has GA codes. (also see screenshot 1) However, when we used Screaming Frog's filter feature -- Configuration > Custom > Search > Contain/Does Not Contain, (see screenshot 2) SF is displaying several URLs (maybe all) of the site under 'Does Not Contain' which means that in SF's crawl, the site's pages has no GA code. (see screenshot 3) What could be the problem why SF states that there is no GA code in the site's pages when in fact, there are codes based on Tag Assistant/Manager? Please give us steps/ways on how to fix this issue. Thanks! SgTovPf VQNOJMF RCtBibP
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jayoliverwright0 -
Why isn't the canonical tag on my client's Magento site working?
The reason for this mights be obvious to the right observer, but somehow I'm not able to spot the reason why. The situation:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Inevo
I'm doing an SEO-audit for a client. When I'm checking if the rel=canonical tag is in place correctly, it seems like it: view-source:http://quickplay.no/fotball-mal.html?limit=15) (line nr 15) Anyone seing something wrong with this canonical? When I perform a site:http://quickplay.no/ search, I find that there's many url's indexed that ought to have been picked up by the canonical-tag: (see picture) ..this for example view-source:http://quickplay.no/fotball-mal.html?limit=15 I really can't see why this page is getting indexed, when the canonical-tag is in place. Anybody who can? Sincerely 🙂 GMdWg0K0 -
Appropriate Use of Canonical Tag
Hello, I am creating study guides for books with tabbed elements for each study guide. For example, for Othello, I'd have 3 tabs like so: 1. Overview page = xyz.com/othello 2. Context = xyz.com/othello/context 3. Characters = xyz.com/othello/characters I noticed that YouTube channels have tabbed elements and use the canonical. For example, all of the tabbed sections on https://www.youtube.com/user/Nerdist/channels have this canonical http://www.youtube.com/user/Nerdist"> In my case, would it be a correct use of the canonical tag to include rel="canonical" href = http://xyz.com/othello on each of the tabbed pages? Also, where exactly in the header should the canonical be placed? Before or after open graph / twitter cards?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stageagent0 -
Wikipedia page need suggestions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Academy Recently created this page but giving two errors at the moment. Need your advice with how to fix these two point mentioned by wikipedia. | This article has no links to other Wikipedia articles. (July 2013) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. (July 2013) |
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | csfarnsworth0 -
Do 404 pages pass link juice? And best practices...
Last year Google said bad links to 404 pages wouldn't hurt your site. Could that still be the case in light of recent Google updates to try and combat spammy links and negative SEO? Can links to 404 pages benefit a website and pass link juice? I'd assume at the very least that any link juice will pass through links FROM the 404 page? Many websites have great 404 pages that get linked to: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links?site=http%3A%2F%2Fretardzone.com%2F404 - that was the first of four I checked from the "60 Really Cool...404 Pages" that actually returned the 404 HTTP Status! So apologies if you find the word 'retard' offensive. According to Open Site Explorer it has a decent Page Authority and number of backlinks - but it doesn't show in Google's SERPs. I'd never do it, but if you have a particularly well-linked to 404 page, is there an argument for giving it 200 OK Status? Finally, what are the best practices regarding 404s and address bar links? For example, if
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford
www.examplesite.com/3rwdfs returns a 404 error, should I make that redirect to
www.examplesite.com/404 or leave it as is? Redirecting to www.examplesite.com/404 might not be user-friendly as people won't be able to correct the URL in the address bar. But if I have a great 404 page that people link to, I don't want links going to loads of random pages do I? Is either way considered best practice? If I did a 301 redirect I guess it would send the wrong signal to the crawlers? Should I use a 302 redirect, or even a 304 Not Modified redirect?1