Worried About Broken Links
-
In Wordpress, I'm using a plugin called Broken Link Checker to check for broken links.
Should I be worried about/spend time fixing outbound links that result in:
- 403 Forbidden
-Server Not Found
-Timeout
-500 Internal Server Error
-etc.
Thanks for your help!
- Mike
-
Thanks for the responses guys! I did specify numerous statuses because not all of them actually lead to broken links. For example, a lot of the links appearing as 'server not found' actually work.
This link for example works, but is rendering the 'server not found' status by Broken Link Checker. (Actually, ever link from this source comes up with a 'server not found' status, but they all work.)
Any insight?
-
Yes it is best practice to fix or replace those broken links on your website. Having broken links can cause you to lose trust with a user, seem dated, and possibly lose some authority with Google.
-
I would recommend cleaning them up. You can also try https://brokenlinkcheck.com/, which is free to use and crawls your whole website. Having broken links is bad for users and also is a bad signal for Google for your website's helpfulness.
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
-
Internal link structure for my loan website
Hi folks. I own a Norwegian consumer loan/financing website, which has been monetized with links. I've created various silos for my content, according to what I believe is most relevant to the user.
Technical SEO | | llevy
However, as a result each article now has a sidebar list, which in turn links to all other articles within the same category (silo). As you can see here, it has about 30 links in the sidebar: forbrukslån.no/beste-lån. With 30 articles in a silo, that corresponds to over 900 internal links, in just one silo alone. I wonder if this could be hurting me SEO wise? I know G cares a lot about relevance and user experience. So I have a feeling it could be interpreted as spammy. Reason I did this in the first place, is that the header links are also being repeated on all pages, without any issue. T4FHxHw0 -
Do you still loose 15% of value of inbound links when you redirect your site from http to https (so all inbound links to http are being redirected to https version)?
I know when you redesign your on website, you loose about 15% internally due to the 301 redirects (see moz article: https://moz.com/blog/accidental-seo-tests-how-301-redirects-are-likely-impacting-your-brand), but I'm wondering if that also applies to value of inbound links when you redirect your http://www.sitename.com to https://www.sitename.com. I appreciate your help!
Technical SEO | | JBMediaGroup0 -
Thousands of links coming from an iframe
We have an iframed calculator on one website (www.renewablesguide.co.uk) which has a text link to another of our websites (www.solarguide.co.uk) which is where the calculator originates. We allow other sites to embed the calculator which gives us the benefit of a followed link back to our site. However in the case of renewablesguide (which we own) we've added a tab to the calculator on every page which GWT shows up as 24 000 links from this site hitting the Solar Guide homepage. As the link is held within an iframe would this amount of links be seen as spammy?
Technical SEO | | holmesmedia0 -
Any need to worry about spammy links in Webmaster Tools from sites that no longer exist?
I own an ecommerce website that had some spammy stuff done on it by an SEO firm through SEOLinkVine a few years ago. I'm working on removing all those links, but some of the sites no longer exist. I'm assuming I don't have to worry about disavowing those in Webmaster Tools? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | CobraJones950 -
Persistent Unnatural Links in Webmaster tools
We recently were notified about unnatural links from two websites (totalling a few thousands links each). We went to the websites and asked them to remove the links, which they apparently did. After this we applied for reconsideration to Google, explaining the situation, however they came back and said we still have links. We noticed there were still links, however there were less than before, and so we once again asked the sites to remove all the links. Now we are sure all the links are gone as when we click a random link and view the page source there is no reference to our site, however WebMaster tools is not updating the link list, claiming we still have thousands of links. Do we have to apply for another reconsideration request to get them to re-crawl the sites to get rid of the links, or should it happen automatically?
Technical SEO | | eXia0 -
If I get a natural link for a great site and I have my keyword with anchor text in this link, how should I proceed?
If I get a natural link for a great site and I have my keyword with anchor text in this link, how should I proceed? I need to contact the site and ask to remove the link or request the removal of the anchor text and leave only the site URL? Or yet do not I need to worry about this issue?
Technical SEO | | soulmktpro0 -
Inter-link Optimization for Pages
Hi Guys, How much interlinking is okay for between pages? Can i start link my internal pages like Wikipedia does? 20,30 interlink per page? OR is it all depends on Page Authority? Can i go inter-link crazy on 1 year old legitimate site? Big Thanks?
Technical SEO | | DigitalJungle0 -
Value of Twitter Links
Let's ignore the "social metric" value of Twitter links and mentions and look at it from the pure link juice point of view. Twitter accounts such as http://twitter.com/randfish used to have their own PageRank and were treated as separate URLs. Twitter changed that to http://twitter.com/#!/randfish consolidating all their content to a single URL. When I search for "randfish" in Google, however, the result is the first URL version. Some clarification on this matter would be much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | Dan-Petrovic0