100K Webmaster Central Not Found Links?
-
http://screencast.com/t/KLPVGTzM I just logged into our Webmaster Central account to find that it shows 100k links that are not found? After searching through all of them they all appear to be from our search bar, with no results? Are we doing something wrong here?
-
Ya, I read through that article yesterday & see that they recommend the same setting as the Yoast plugin should be doing? Although I didn't ever get a response from me to see if there is something missing?
For now, I plan on adding this to the robots.txt file & see what results I get?
Do you know the time frame that it takes to get the updates in GWT? Will this update within a few weeks or would it take longer than that?
Thanks for all the help!
BJ
-
Hello BJ.
The robots.txt file must be on your server, in the document root.
Here is information about how to configure robots.txt
Note that is does have a warning at the end, about how you could possibly lose some link juice, but that is probably a much smaller problem than the problem you are trying to fix.
Nothing is perfect, and with the rate that google changes its mind, who knows what is the right thing to do this month.
Once you have edited robots.txt, you don't need to do anything.
- except I just had a thought - how to get google to remove those items from your webmaster tools. I think you should be able to tell them to purge those entries from GWT. Set it so you can see 500 to a page and then just cycle through and mark them fixed.
-
Sorry to open this back up after a month, in adding this to the robot.txt file is there something that needs to be done within the code of the site? Or can I simply update the robots.txt file within Google Webmaster Tools?
I was hoping to get a response from Yoast on his blog post, it seems there were a number of questions similar to mine, but he didn't ever address them.
Thanks,
BJ
-
We all know nothing lasts forever.
A code change can do all kinds of things.
Things that were important are sometimes less important, or not important at all.
Sometimes yesterdays advice no longer is true.
If you make a change, or even if you make no change, but the crawler or the indexer changes, then we can be surprised at the results.
While working on this other thread:
http://www.seomoz.org/q/is-no-follow-ing-a-folder-influences-also-its-subfolders#post-74287
I did a test and checked my logs. A nofollow meta tag and a nofollow link do not stop the crawlers from following. What it does (we think) is to not pass pagerank. That is all it does.
That is why the robots.txt file is the only way to tell the crawlers to stop following down a tree. (until there is another way)
-
Ok, I've posted a question on Yoast.com blog to see what other options we might have? Thanks for the help!
-
It is because Roger ignores those META tags.
Also, google often ignores them too.
The robots.txt file is a much better option for those crawlers.
There are some crawlers that ignore the robots file too, but you have no control over them unless you can put their IPs in the firewall or add code to ignore all of their requests.
-
Ok, I just did a little more research into this, to see how Yoast was handling this within the plugin & came across this article: http://yoast.com/example-robots-txt-wordpress/
In the article he stats that this is already included within the plugin on search pages:
I just confirmed this, by doing this search on my site & looking at the code: http://www.discountqueens.com/?s=candy
So this has always been in place. Why would I still have the 100K not found links still showing up?
-
We didn't have these errors showing up previously, so that's why I was really suspicious? Also we have Joost De Valk's SEO plugin installed on our site & I thought there was an option to turn off the searches from being indexed?
-
Just to support Alan Gray's response, I'll say it's very important to block crawlers from your site search, because it not only throws errors (bots try to guess what to put in a search box), but also because any search results that get into the index will cause content conflicts, dilute ranking values, and worst case scenario, potentially create the false impression that you have a lot of very thin content / near duplicate content pages.
-
the search bar results are good for searchers but not for search engines. You can stop all search engines and Roger (the seomoz crawler) from going into those pages by adding an entry to your robots.txt file. Roger only responds to his own section of the robots file, so anything you make global will not work for him.
User-agent: rogerbot Disallow: /search/*
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
-
Rel=canonical and internal links
Hi Mozzers, I was musing about rel=canonical this morning and it occurred to me that I didnt have a good answer to the following question: How does applying a rel=canonical on page A referencing page B as the canonical version affect the treatment of the links on page A? I am thinking of whether those links would get counted twice, or in the case of ver-near-duplicates which may have an extra sentence which includes an extra link, whther that extra link would count towards the internal link graph or not. I suspect that google would basically ignore all the content on page A and only look to page B taking into account only page Bs links. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | unirmk0 -
Viewing search results for 'We possibly have internal links that link to 404 pages. What is the most efficient way to check our sites internal links?
We possibly have internal links on our site that point to 404 pages as well as links that point to old pages. I need to tidy this up as efficiently as possible and would like some advice on the best way to go about this.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andyheath0 -
Linking to URLs With Hash (#) in Them
How does link juice flow when linking to URLs with the hash tag in them? If I link to this page, which generates a pop-over on my homepage that gives info about my special offer, where will the link juice go to? homepage.com/#specialoffer Will the link juice go to the homepage? Will it go nowhere? Will it go to the hash URL above? I'd like to publish an annual/evergreen sort of offer that will generate lots of links. And instead of driving those links to homepage.com/offer, I was hoping to get that link juice to flow to the homepage, or maybe even a product page, instead. And just updating the pop over information each year as the offer changes. I've seen competitors do it this way but wanted to see what the community here things in terms of linking to URLs with the hash tag in them. Can also be a use case for using hash tags in URLs for tracking purposes maybe?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MiguelSalcido0 -
Thousands of Links from mrwhatis.net
Google WMT shows that there are thousands of links pointing to the pages of my website from mrwhatis.net. Among the links, hundreds of them have the same anchor text. Here are some examples. http://mrwhatis.net/a-canon-in-music-for-kid.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pianomother
http://mrwhatis.net/canon-chords-piano-in-c.html
http://mrwhatis.net/canon-d-major-piano-chord.html
http://mrwhatis.net/canon-d-major-piano-mp3-free-downloa.html
http://mrwhatis.net/canon-d-major-piano-sheet-fre.html and more.... The links pointing to my site on the above pages share the same link title "Canon In D Sheet Music | Canon In D Music Score". My question is - are these links considered unnatural links by Google based on your experience? Why and why not? I want to get some ideas before I ask Google to disavow these links. Thanks. John0 -
How to build links to landing pages?
I have been using link baits like infographics to get quality links to my site and I have observed that these tactics are great to get links to the home page or that particular post page where infographic was originally posted. But we have various other important landing pages and we want to transfer some link equity to those pages. Whenever we publish an infographic we post it on out blog with an embed code carrying anchor text pointed to our site’s home page. People who share our infographic, normally links to the home page or to the post page where they find that particular item. So, what are the possible ways to get links to any other landing page? Can we post some bait on other landing pages as well. I need to know some more techniques to attract deep links. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shaz_lhr1 -
One Way Links vs Two Way Links
Hi, Was speaking to a client today and got asked how damaging two way links are. i.e. domaina.com links to domainb.com and domainb.com links back to domaina.com. I need a nice simple layman's explanation of if/how damaging they are compared to one way links. And please don't answer with you lose link juice as I have a job explaining link juice.... I am explaining things to a non techie! Thank you!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnW-UK0 -
Link Age as SEO factor?
Hi Guys
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VividLime
I have a client who ranks well within a competitive sector of the travel industry. They are planning CMS move which will involve changing from .cfm to .aspx We will be doing the standard redirects etc However Matt's statement here on 301 redirects got me thinking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5UL3lzBOA&t=0m24s He says that basically you loose a bit of page rank when you do a 301 redirect. Now, we will be potentially redirecting 1000s of links and my thinking is 'a lot of a little, adds up to a lot' In other words, 1000s of redirects may have a big enough impact to loose some rankings in a very competitive and aggressive space. So recommended that we contact the sites who has the link highest value and ask them to manually change the links from cfm to aspx. This will then mean that there are no loss value as with a 301 redirect. -But now I have another dilemma which I'm unsure about. So the main question:
Is link age factor in rankings ? If I update any links, this will make said link new to Google, so if link age is a factor, would this also lessen the value passed initially?0 -
Google, Links and Javascript
So today I was taking a look at http://www.seomoz.org/top500 page and saw that the AddThis page is currently at the position 19. I think the main reason for that is because their plugin create, through javascript, linkbacks to their page where their share buttons reside. So any page with AddThis installed would easily have 4/5 linbacks to their site, creating that huge amount of linkbacks they have. Ok, that pretty much shows that Google doesn´t care if the link is created in the HTML (on the backend) or through Javascript (frontend). But heres the catch. If someones create a free plugin for wordpress/drupal or any other huge cms platform out there with a feature that linkbacks to the page of the creator of the plugin (thats pretty common, I know) but instead of inserting the link in the plugin source code they put it somewhere else, wich then is loaded with a javascript code (exactly how AddThis works). This would allow the owner of the plugin to change the link showed at anytime he wants. The main reason for that would be, dont know, an URL address update for his blog or businness or something. However that could easily be used to link to whatever tha hell the owner of the plugin wants to. What your thoughts about this, I think this could be easily classified as White or Black hat depending on what the owners do. However, would google think the same way about it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bemcapaz0