Cleaning up user generated nofollow broken links in content.
-
We have a question/answer section on our website, so it's user generated content. We've programmed all user generated links to be nofollow. Over time... we now have many broken links and some are even structurally invalid. Ex. 'http:///.'. I'm wanting to go in and clean up the links to improve user experience, but how do I justify it from an SEO standpoint and is it worth it?
-
Applying Broken Windows Theory to SEO is such an underrated tactic. It's totally worth the time. Will you be able to directly attribute revenue to the cleanup? Probably not. Will it improve the overall quality and user experience of the site? Absolutely, 100%, and that's where it becomes an SEO play - because that better quality and better UX exactly what Google is aiming to reward in the long run. And because your site no longer looks like an easy mark for spammers, it should attract less spam in the long run.
Also, adding to MattAntonino's comment, Paul Haahr said a few weeks ago that the quality rater guidelines are basically Google's ideal algorithm, so you can count on Google working to incorporate as much of that as they can into the algorthm over time as they figure out how to automate it instead of relying on human maintenance. So even if it's not there now, count on it being there in the future. Future-proofing is always a good idea.
-
I would definitely argue in favor of this. Cleaning up broken links, changing the copyright date on websites, adding new content - it all sends signals to Google that the site is maintained regularly and has active management. A site that is regularly updated is more valuable than one that is created and then left to rot.
While Matt Cutts said in 2013 (eons ago in SEO) that broken links weren't a ranking factor, the Google Search Quality Raters Handbook says they are a factor for manual review.
They actually say:
Webmasters need to make sure their websites function well for users as web browsers change. How can you tell that a website is being maintained and cared for? Poke around: Links should work, images should load, content should be added and updated over time, etc. Exercise caution relying on dates: Some webpages automatically display the current date. Rather than just looking for a recent date, search for evidence that effort is being made to keep the website up to date and running smoothly.
When the Raters Handbook says that, I fix broken links.
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
-
Does MOZ Have a Tool to Find a Competitors Broken Links?
I would like to use MOZ to identify a competitors broken links. Does MOZ have such a tool? Where is it? My SEO consultant suggests that we have bloggers write contend and then link it to our site. I am concerned about the quality of the links that will be generated. He is confident that they will be of high quality and the process will be relatively quick and easy. My concern is future spam penalty or low quality links. Another consultant suggested replacing a competitors broken links. How effective is this? Is it more labor intensive than other link building techniques? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
Alan Rosinsky1 -
Content suggestions
Hi, In moz pro you get content suggestions. I was wondering if you can still rank if the topics you cover for a specific keyword on your page are not listed there ? I guess the key is that all the topics covered are related to each other, correct ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
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 -
Should I remove all vendor links (link farm concerns)?
I have a web site that has been around for a long time. The industry we serve includes many, many small vendors and - back in the day - we decided to allow those vendors to submit their details, including a link to their own web site, for inclusion on our pages. These vendor listings were presented in location (state) pages as well as more granular pages within our industry (we called them "topics). I don't think it's important any more but 100% of the vendors listed were submitted by the vendors themselves, rather than us "hunting down" links for inclusion or automating this in any way. Some of the vendors (I'd guess maybe 10-15%) link back to us but many of these sites are mom-and-pop sites and would have extremely low authority. Today the list of vendors is in the thousands (US only). But the database is old and not maintained in any meaningful way. We have many broken links and I believe, rightly or wrongly, we are considered a link farm by the search engines. The pages on which these vendors are listed use dynamic URLs of the form: \vendors<state>-<topic>. The combination of states and topics means we have hundreds of these pages and they thus form a significant percentage of our pages. And they are garbage 🙂 So, not good.</topic></state> We understand that this model is broken. Our plan is to simply remove these pages (with the list of vendors) from our site. That's a simple fix but I want to be sure we're not doing anything wring here, from an SEO perspective. Is this as simple as that - just removing these page? How much effort should I put into redirecting (301) these removed URLs? For example, I could spend effort making sure that \vendors\California- <topic>(and for all states) goes to a general "topic" page (which still has relevance, but won't have any vendors listed)</topic> I know there is no distinct answer to this, but what expectation should I have about the impact of removing these pages? Would the removal of a large percentage of garbage pages (leaving much better content) be expected to be a major factor in SEO? Anyway, before I go down this path I thought I'd check here in case I miss something. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarkWill0 -
How hard would it be to take a well-linked site, completely change the subject matter & still retain link authority?
So, this would be taking a domain with a domain authority of 50 (200 root domains, 3500 total links) and, for fictitious example, going from a subject matter like "Online Deals" to "The History Of Dentistry"... just totally unrelated new subject for the old/re-purposed domain. The old content goes away entirely. The domain name itself is a super vague .com name and has no exact match to anything either way. I'm wondering, if the DNS changed to different servers, it went from 1000 pages to a blog, ownership/contacts stayed the same, the missing pages were 301'd to the homepage, how would that fare in Google for the new homepage focus and over what time frame? Assume the new terms are a reasonable match to the old domain authority and compete U.S.-wide... not local or international. Bonus points for answers from folks who have actually done this. Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Blog content - what to do, and what to avoid in terms of links, when you're paying for blog content
Hi, I've just been looking at a restaurant site which is paying food writers to put food news and blogs on their website. I checked the backlink profile of the site and the various bloggers in question usually link from their blogs / company websites to the said restaurant to help promote any new blogs that appear on the restaurant site. That got me wondering about whether this might cause problems with Google. I guess they've been putting about one blog live per month for 2 years, from 12/13 bloggers who have been linking to their website. What would you advise?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Removing Canonical Links
We implemented rel=canonical as we decided to paginate our pages. We then ran some testing and on the whole pagination did not work out so we removed all on-page pagination. Now, internally when I click for example a link for Widgets I get the /widgets.php but searching through Google I get to /widgets.php?page=all . There are not redirects in place at the moment. The '?page=all' page has been rated 'A' by the SEOmoz tool under On Page Optimization reports and performs much better than the exact same page without the '?page=all' (the score dips to a 'D' grade) so need to tread carefully so we don't lose the link value. Can anyone advise us on the best way forward? Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jannkuzel0 -
Can I reduce number of on page links by just adding "no follow" tags to duplicate links
Our site works on templates and we essentially have a link pointing to the same place 3 times on most pages. The links are images not text. We are over 100 links on our on page attributes, and ranking fairly well for key SERPS our core pages are optimized for. I am thinking I should engage in some on-page link juice sculpting and add some "no follow" tags to 2 of the 3 repeated links. Although that being said the Moz's on page optimizer is not saying I have link cannibalization. Any thoughts guys? Hope this scenario makes sense.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robertrRSwalters0