Is it bad practice to create pages that 404?
-
We have member pages on our site that are initially empty, until the member does some activity. Currently, since all of these pages are soft 404s, we return a 404 for all these pages and all internal links to them are js links (not links as far as bots are concerned). As soon as the page has content, we switch it to 200 and make the links into regular hrefs.
After doing some research, I started thinking that this is not the best way to handle this situation. A better idea would be to noindex/follow the pages (before they have content) and let the links to these pages be real links.
I'd love to hear input and feedback from fellow Mozzers. What are your thoughts?
-
Yair,
See the infographic on this page regarding rel nofollow tags in links, and when you may want to consider using them. Specifically, see the part about User Generated Content:
http://searchengineland.com/infographic-nofollow-tag-172157
However, Google can decide to crawl whatever they want to crawl, whether it is a nofollowed link, links on a page with a nofollow meta tag, or javascript links. If you really want to keep Google out of those portions of the site you should use the robots.txt disallow statement, as I mentioned in your other thread, or use the X-Robots-Tag as described here.
-
Thanks Everett,
As far as I know, nofollows don't conserve crawl budget. The bots will crawl the link, they just wont transfer any PR.
-
I'm sure Jane meant that it would block indexation of the page.
In my opinion you should probably noindex,follow (robots meta tag) the pages and make the internal links just normal links, possibly with a rel= nofollow link attribute, until the user fills out the profile.
I will go look into your other question as well.
PS: The drawback of this solution is that bots will still be spending crawl budget crawling those URLs if you are linking to them internally. [Edited]
-
Thanks for the clear and concise answer, Jane. You hit the nail right on the head! I appreciate your input.
One question, though. You say that noindex will block bot access to these pages. I'm pretty sure the bots will still crawl the pages (if they find them), just they won't be indexed and presumably they won't be "counted against us" like 404 pages. Is that what you meant?
If you have a minute, maybe you can help me out with this question next: http://moz.com/community/q/internal-nofollows
(Side note: Er_Maqul was referring to the original version of the question (before I edited it) where I had mistakenly written that we nofollow the links.)
-
Hi there,
A 404 certainly isn't the best way to handle a new URL / page before it is populated with content. It is good that Google isn't finding these pages yet (as you state in a later comment), but keep in mind that it could - the pages aren't linked to, but there is never any particular guarantee about what Google will and won't find. It's highly unlikely if you don't link to them, but still - it's not worth taking the risk. As you also say, there's no stopping anyone else from linking to the pages and / or for Google to go on a exploratory mission of its own.
As a note, internal 404s / 410s ("Gone") are perfectly okay if they're appropriate for the situation, i.e. a page has been removed. Not ever removed resource has to be 301ed elsewhere. This isn't the case here though.
To my mind, blocking bot access to these pages while they are empty is a better option, and noindex / follow would achieve this. I believe Er_Maqul has misunderstood what you were saying here - there is no "nofollow" in this situation.
-
Got it, I see.
Well, let's see here. I will state I am no expert in this realm. This is much more of a job for the likes of EGOL or RobertFischer. EGOL in particular with his intimate knowledge of NOINDEX
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-noindex-behavior/
(Scroll down and look at the first post on Matt Cutt's blog there.)
That being said, I still have a few thoughts.
I think you certainly could continue to do what you are doing, I also think that Er_Maquai brought up a point that I touched on as well. Obviously the best scenario is to avoid a 404, and to have original content. Now unfortunately if you don't have have any content to write, or the person doesn't in this case, that set's you up for thin content, and a lot of duplicate content.
It seems to me there is no way to avoid having the extra pages without some sort of script or coding which houses the profiles somewhere other than on a separate page or on a flux capacitor somewhere. So going off that you could create a generic "no profile page" that gets published and use the rel=canonical tag.
I take back my prior statement about "ANY" content. Thin, pointless content, is thin and pointless, and won't benefit you at all. I hope that wasn't interpreted that way.
Again, I think this one is somewhat out of my scope of help, and it might even be worth calling in an SEO professional who specializes in forums for a second opinion. It's like having surgery, gotta go to another Dr to verify your diagnosis.
Sorry I couldn't give a better answer!
-
Wow - thanks for the thorough response, HashtagHustler!
Let me explain a little better...
We get hundreds of signups a day. Each new member has a profile page, which is empty until they do something. Sometimes they never do. So we don't link to the empty pages and they return a 404. As soon as the page has some content, we do link to it and it returns a 200.
Google is not reporting 404s for these pages because they are not linked to. In the pat, when we did link to them, Google reported them as soft 404s.
The current system is working fine.
My question is simply if it makes more sense to allow Google to find these pages (link to them) but noindex them since they do not have content (and are considered soft 404s by Google) or if we should continue doing it the way we are today (which makes me a little uncomfortable since we are creating 1000's of pages - that theoretically may be linked to by other sites - that are 404s)?
-
Yes... all 404 can hurt your SEO campaign, because even if they doesn't count for points (i don't know these), at least the spider ignores a bit more or crawl your page more slowly. Because this, you need to get away all your possible 404 errors.
Think, a empty page can have something. You can use a default text, or use a noindex tag while the page are empty, or simply make a standard profile and link to them all empty pages with a rel=canonical (I think there's the best option). But having more pages, even with low quantity of text, that's better who i doesn't have the pages itself, and, very much better than have 404 errors.
Also, think one more thing. Even more changes have your page, more indexed you're get and low times between indexing. There's another reason to have the pages working, even when they doesn't have any custom info. Because the creation of the page are a change, and customization of them are another change too.
-
Good Morning Yair!
A 404 is a 404 plain and simple. And if Google was able to report it, then they were able to get to it. Which basically means, someone else could. I'm not sure what platform you are using currently using but there are plenty of easy options for a quick fix.
If you wanted a simple option you could just throw up a 302 if you are planning on putting content up SOON. Temporary redirects differ from 301 because they are temporary. Google has to evaluate if they should keep the old page, so in this case, when you are planning on launching the old one (well, technically new one) you might be able to use that to your advantage.
A better idea would be to noindex/follow the pages (before they have content) and let the links to these pages be follow links.
I was unsure exactly what you meant by this. The only difference between follow and no follow links is that you are telling Google not to let your linkjuice carry over to the page you are linking to. You are linking to the page without vetting them. My apologies if you already knew this, but I was slightly confused by your sentence. Google will still go to that page to check it out.
Another option: change your schedule and don't put up pages that far in advance that you aren't planning on publishing. I edit everything offline. Google likes new stuff, especially content. Of course they take longevity into account as well, but as far as making a big splash, putting a website up piecemeal is like having people show up at your birthday saying "Suprise!" when you answer the door when you were the one who invited them. The notion is nice, but it just doesn't have the same effect. Not only in the Google realm, but even more so in Social Media.
My favorite option, and my personal recommendation would be to play the cards you were dealt. Get rid of the 404 and the 200 and embrace that you have a new page! Go on and write a profile piece for the member. Write some sort of Biographical data that can act as a placeholder. At this point it doesn't even need to be stuffed with keywords and amazing seo phrases.
On Second Thought: I'm not sure exactly what your forum is for, and if this issue is specific to a few members or if you are referring to bulk membership, but I have a few ideas on how you might be able to extrapolate some of the signup data into even a simple post to avoid getting a 404! Even if you parsed some of the forms from signup and created a simple little one page that displayed, I think that could help.
At the end of the day, Google loves forums that are strong and authoritative. They also understand that every single person on a forum isn't going to post and isn't going to interact. So depending on what kind of forum you have, and what exactly you are doing, some of the forum issues will just have to be accepted. I think it would be more valuable to clean up negative linking and and analyze internal issues and build form recognition etc. than fix soft 404's coming from a handful of users. Again all of this depends on the size of your pool.
Also, you could just track their usage, if someone is logging in all the time and not posting then fine, I would deal with it because who knows what they are doing in the real world. If someone made an account in 1999, and then threw their computer out of the window in Y2K and never bought another one because they still believe that everything crashed, well then maybe its time to fix that 404.
Hope that helps!
Sorry if my train of thought is a little off this morning.... not enough coffee!
-
Thanks for your quick response, Er.
You are correct about the 404s and I realized that what I wrote in the question was a mistake. We don't have any internal links to these pages (not even nofollow). Until there is content on the page, we make all links to the page into js links. I corrected this in the question now.
Concerning what you said about the pages being useful for SEO even without content: I don't think this is correct. Before we started 404ing the empty profile pages, Webmaster was reporting them as soft 404s. Doesn't this mean that they were hurting us (especially since we have many of them)?
-
Any 404 is bad for SEO. Make a little page for the profile without data, and you can gain a lot of SEO even if your pages doesn't have content.
Even if the links have a nofollow, google follows them to see what is in the other side. For this reason, avoid ALWAYS you can to have a link to a 404 page.
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
-
Too many on page links
Hi I know previously it was recommended to stick to under 100 links on the page, but I've run a crawl and mine are over this now with 130+ How important is this now? I've read a few articles to say it's not as crucial as before. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey1 -
Splitting down pages
Hello everyone, I have a page on my directory for example:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SamBayPublishing
https://ose.directory/topics/breathing-apparatus The title on this page is small yet a bit unspecific:
Breathing Apparatus Companies, Suppliers and Manufacturers On webmaster tools these terms hold different values for each category so "topic name companies" sometimes has a lot more searches than "topic name suppliers". I was thinking if I could split the page into the following into three separate pages would that be better: https://ose.directory/topics/breathing-apparatus (main - Title: Breathing Apparatus)
https://ose.directory/topics/breathing-apparatus/companies (Title: Breathing Apparatus Companies)
https://ose.directory/topics/breathing-apparatus/manufacturers (Title: Breathing Apparatus Manufacturers)
https://ose.directory/topics/breathing-apparatus/suppliers (Title: Breathing Apparatus Suppliers) Two Questions: Would this be more beneficial from an SEO perspective? Would google penalise me for doing this, if so is there a way to do it properly. PS. The list of companies may be the same but the page content ever so slightly different. I know this would not effect my users much because the terms I am using all mean pretty much the same thing. The companies do all three.0 -
I've got duplicate pages. For example, blog/page/2 is the same as author/admin/page/2\. Is this something I should just ignore, or should I create the author/admin/page2 and then 301 redirect?
I'm going through the crawl report and it says I've got duplicate pages. For example, blog/page/2 is the same as author/admin/page/2/ Now, the author/admin/page/2 I can't even find in WordPress, but it is the same thing as blog/page/2 nonetheless. Is this something I should just ignore, or should I create the author/admin/page2 and then 301 redirect it to blog/page/2?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shift-inc0 -
Does it make sense to create new pages with friendlier URLs then redirect old pages to new?
Hi Moz! My client has messy URLs. does it make sense to write new clean URLs, then 301 redirect all old URLs to the new ones? Thanks for reading!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DA20130 -
A/B Testing - Should I add product descriptions on my category landing pages as well as on product pages and if so . how to do this to avoid duplicate content
Hi All, I recently relaunched a new design on my tool hire eCommerce website and now display my products in grid form on my category landing pages as opposed to just a list view which we previously had on the old design. My bounce rates are alot higher than they use to be and my gut instinct is telling me maybe this is wrong . I want to do some a/b testing using a list view. My question is , previously in our list views we just showed the images and pricing and had on page content on the bottom of the page. The user would click on the product image and they would then we taken to the product page which has the product description , t&c, etc etc.. If I was to do this in my a/b testing but change it so we also displayed the product descriptions as well on the category landing pages . Is there a special way to do this as in effect, we would have duplicate content as the product descriptions are also on the product page?. Does anyone have any thoughts on this as to whether its a No No from an SEO point of view ?... Heres a short url link to one of my category pages - http://goo.gl/QJv5gw Historically we use to rank well for the category landing pages and not for the product pages.Our Rankings are down , bounce rates are higher so I am trying to sort both. We have good content on pages etc. Any advice greatly appreciated as always thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Should my back links go to home page or internal pages
Right now we rank on page 2 for many KWs, so should i now focus my attention on getting links to my home page to build domain authority or continue to direct links to the internal pages for specific KWs? I am about to write some articles for several good ranking sites and want to know whether to link my company name (same as domain name) or KW to the home page or use individual KWs to the internal pages - I am only allowed one link per article to my site. Thanks Ash
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AshShep10 -
301 / 404 & Getting Rid of Keyword Pages
I had a feeling that my keyword focused pages were causing my site not to rank well. I do not have that many keywords. I have 2 main keyword phrases along with 6 city locations. For example (fake) "tea house tampa" "tea house clearwater" "tea house sarasota" and "tea room tampa" "tea room cleawater" "tea house sarasota". So, I don't feel that I need that many pages. I feel like I can optimize my home page and maybe 1 or 2 topic pages. Right now, I have a keyword for each of those phrases. These are all internal pages on 1 domain. Not multiple domains. Sooo... I tested it by 301ing a few of my "tea house" KW pages to the home page. And low and behold... my home page rose BIG TIME! Major improvement! I'm talking like 13th to 2nd! Here is my question... how should I proceed? My SEO has warned me against 301ing too many pages all pointing to the home page. He says that will negatively impact my ratings. Should I 404 some pages? Should I build a "tea room" topic page and 301 that set there? What is worse? 301 or 404? How many is too many? I'm really excited by these results, but I'm scare to move forward and hurt what has happened. Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CalicoKitty20000 -
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