"/blogroll" causing 404 error
-
I'm running a campaign, and the crawling report for my site returned a lot of 4xx errors. When I look at the URLs, they all have a "/blogroll" in the end, like:
mysite.com/post-number-1/blogroll
mysite.com/post-number-2/blogroll
And so on, for pretty much all the pages. The thing is, I removed the blogroll widget completely, so I really wouldn't know what can possibly point to links like that.
Is there anything to fix on the site?
Thanks
-
Hi Andrea
Are you all set with this? The transfer may have had to do with it, but the main importance now is to follow Adam's good advice - find the source of the 404 links and change them on your site. If they're indexed or backlinked to from elsewhere on the web, you need to 301 them to an existing page.
Let us know if you still need help!
-Dan
-
OK, so, I crawled my site with Screaming Frog and found the same errors. Actually I found out that the "privacy policy" page is causing the same 404 with the same type of URL "mysite.com/post-number-1/privacy-policy" (SEOmoz crawler had detected those as well, I just hadn't noticed).
The privacy policy page is actually published, but I cannot remove it, as I wouldn't be compliant with Google Adsense policy.
A couple of more things though:
-
I checked a couple of those 404 pages in Google with the "site:" command, and they're not indexed. I think those pages simply don't exist.
-
the blogroll was in the sidebar, and the privacy policy page is in the footer, which means, both of them are site-wide
-
I had a site before, then I deleted it and started my current one from scratch, importing all the content from Wordpress to Wordpress. Maybe this transfer has something to do with the issue?
-
-
Sorry Ben but I have to disagree with you here. That is very bad practice and also very poor advice. You shouldn't just ignore 404 pages from a site crawl.
Really the only time you should let pages just 404 is when Google has indexed them, there is no relevant page on your site to redirect them to, there are no high value links pointing to them and they are not being linked to from within your site.
However, in this case the 404 pages are being linked to from within the site. This means that value is being passed to these pages from within the site that could otherwise be passed to other pages.
Best practice in this situation is to fix the links that point to the 404 pages and 301 redirect the 404 pages to relevant pages on the site.
P.s. running a quick site crawl and fixing the 404s should only take minutes and not hours to do!
-
Check GA (Google Analytics)
- Are the 404d pages receiving search traffic?
- Are the 404d pages ruining your user experience? (Are they accessible via your site links)
If no to both, is this really worth a couple hours of your time?
-
Hi Andrea,
If the crawl is returning 404 errors then this means, although you have removed the widget, the pages are still being linked to somewhere on your site.
My advice would be to use the Screaming Frog crawler or if you have access to another crawler then use that. Once you have crawled the site using a crawler, you should be able to find out which pages are still linking to the 404 pages. Once you have found these, you will get a better idea of how to fix the issue.
Remember, a crawler will crawl your entire site, including all links, and if 404s are found then these are being linked to internally.
Hope that helps,
Adam.
-
Hei Don,
thanks for the quick help.
Yes, I'm running Wordpress, with the Catalyst framework.
I was using the blogroll widget in the sidebar, but when I started to see the crawling errors I removed it just in case. The crawl is now complete, but even more errors of the same type have come out.
-
Hi Andrea
I'm not sure about the issue, but it may help others if you mention what type of software you're running.
I would assume Wordpress since you said widget but could also be Joomla or another CMS.
Good Luck,
Don
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
-
Google Search Console Showing 404 errors for product pages not in sitemap?
We have some products with url changes over the past several months. Google is showing these as having 404 errors even though they are not in sitemap (sitemap shows the correct NEW url). Is this expected? Will these errors eventually go away/stop being monitored by Google?
Technical SEO | | woshea0 -
How handle pages with "read more" text query strings?
My site has hundreds of keyword content landing pages that contain one or two sections of "read more" text that work by calling the page and changing a ChangeReadMore variable. This causes the page to currently get indexed 5 times (see examples below plus two more with anchor tag set to #sectionReadMore2 This causes Google to include the first version of the page which is the canonical version and exclude the other 4 versions of the page. Google search console says my site has 4.93K valid pages and 13.8K excluded pages. My questions are: 1. Does having a lot of excluded pages which are all copies of included pages hurt my domain authority or otherwise hurt my SEO efforts? 2. Should I add a rel="nofollow" attribute to the read more link? If I do this will Google reduce the number of excluded pages? 3. Should I instead add logic so the canonical tag displays the exact URL each time the page re-displays in another readmore mode? I assume this would increase my "included pages" and decrease the number of "excluded pages". Would this somehow help my SEO efforts? EXAMPLE LINKS https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp?ChangeReadMore=More#sectionReadMore1 https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp?ChangeReadMore=Less#sectionReadMore1
Technical SEO | | DougHartline0 -
Quick Fix to "Duplicate page without canonical tag"?
When we pull up Google Search Console, in the Index Coverage section, under the category of Excluded, there is a sub-category called ‘Duplicate page without canonical tag’. The majority of the 665 pages in that section are from a test environment. If we were to include in the robots.txt file, a wildcard to cover every URL that started with the particular root URL ("www.domain.com/host/"), could we eliminate the majority of these errors? That solution is not one of the 5 or 6 recommended solutions that the Google Search Console Help section text suggests. It seems like a simple effective solution. Are we missing something?
Technical SEO | | CREW-MARKETING1 -
"Cookies are required to access this site" in Google Serp?
One of my clients is having an issue where their Google search result title and description are just showing "Cookies are required to access this site." instead of the actual meta values. The problem is only in Google as Yahoo and Bing seem to be fine. You can see in the image below or by running a search your self for "be well bodyworks longmont" I've never seen anything like it and couldn't find any reference to anyone else having this issue... I would very much appreciate any insight as to what is going on. Thanks! c5PGL
Technical SEO | | CampfireDigital0 -
Does rel="canonical" support protocol relative URL?
I need to switch a site from http to https. We gonna add 301 redirect all over the board. I also use rel="canonical" to strip some queries parameter from the index (parameter uses to identify which navigation elements were use.) rel="canonical" can be used with relative or absolute links, but Google recommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or difficulties. So here my question, did you see any issue using relative protocol in rel="canonical"? Instead of:
Technical SEO | | EquipeWeb0 -
Rel="canonical" What if there is no header??
Hi Everyone! Thanks to moz.com, I just found out that we have a duplicate content issue: mywebsite.com and mywebsite.com/index.php have the same content. I would like to make mywebsite.com the main one because it already has a few links and a better page rank. I know how to do a 301 redirect (already have one for www.mywebsite.com) but I am aware that a 301 redirect for my index file would create a loop issue. I have read the article about redirecting without creating a loop (http://moz.com/blog/apache-redirect-an-index-file-to-your-domain-without-looping) but quite frankly I don't even have a clue what he's trying to tell me (e.g. "Create an apache DirectoryIndex directive for your document root." What????!)… So I figured a rel="canonical" tag for my index file would be easier and fix the problem, too (right??) In every "How to" description they always say you have to put the rel="canonical" tag in the header of your duplicate content file. But: My index.php has no header (or nothing that looks like a header to me)! This is what it looks like: foreach($_GET as $key => $value)
Technical SEO | | momof4
{
$$key = $value;
}
foreach($_POST as $key => $value)
{
$$key = $value;
}
$page_title="my title";
$page_description="my description";
$page_keywords="keywords";
//echo $link;
//exit;
if (!isset($link)):
$page_content="homepage.php";
else:
if ($link=="services"):
$page_content="services.php";
$page_title=" my title for services page";
$page_description="description for services.";
endif;
… ect. for the other pages So where do I put the rel=canonical tag? Or is there another solution for the whole problem? Like delete the whole index file (lol) Thanks in advance for any answers!0 -
I have a ton of "duplicated content", "duplicated titles" in my website, solutions?
hi and thanks in advance, I have a Jomsocial site with 1000 users it is highly customized and as a result of the customization we did some of the pages have 5 or more different types of URLS pointing to the same page. Google has indexed 16.000 links already and the cowling report show a lot of duplicated content. this links are important for some of the functionality and are dynamically created and will continue growing, my developers offered my to create rules in robots file so a big part of this links don't get indexed but Google webmaster tools post says the following: "Google no longer recommends blocking crawler access to duplicate content on your website, whether with a robots.txt file or other methods. If search engines can't crawl pages with duplicate content, they can't automatically detect that these URLs point to the same content and will therefore effectively have to treat them as separate, unique pages. A better solution is to allow search engines to crawl these URLs, but mark them as duplicates by using the rel="canonical" link element, the URL parameter handling tool, or 301 redirects. In cases where duplicate content leads to us crawling too much of your website, you can also adjust the crawl rate setting in Webmaster Tools." here is an example of the links: | | http://anxietysocialnet.com/profile/edit-profile/salocharly http://anxietysocialnet.com/salocharly/profile http://anxietysocialnet.com/profile/preferences/salocharly http://anxietysocialnet.com/profile/salocharly http://anxietysocialnet.com/profile/privacy/salocharly http://anxietysocialnet.com/profile/edit-details/salocharly http://anxietysocialnet.com/profile/change-profile-picture/salocharly | | so the question is, is this really that bad?? what are my options? it is really a good solution to set rules in robots so big chunks of the site don't get indexed? is there any other way i can resolve this? Thanks again! Salo
Technical SEO | | Salocharly0 -
302 vs. a href="nofollow"
we came across one thing the we did not asked to programm by our intention. we have a magento shop and on the produktpage we have those "compare" buttons. these link have a session id and the follow a 302 back onto the same page. so i beleive the idea is that google will just not follow 302s and thats it. so my questions is: is this right what we beleive if so why is a 302 better compared to a a href="nofollow" ???
Technical SEO | | kynop0