Hundreds of thousands of 404's on expired listings - issue.
-
Hey guys,
We have a conundrum, with a large E-Commerce site we operate. Classified listings older than 45 days are throwing up 404's - hundreds of thousands, maybe millions. Note that Webmaster Tools peaks at 100,000.
Many of these listings receive links.
Classified listings that are less than 45 days show other possible products to buy based on an algorithm.
It is not possible for Google to crawl expired listings pages from within our site. They are indexed because they were crawled before they expired, which means that many of them show in search results.
-> My thought at this stage, for usability reasons, is to replace the 404's with content - other product suggestions, and add a meta noindex in order to help our crawl equity, and get the pages we really want to be indexed prioritised.
-> Another consideration is to 301 from each expired listing to the category heirarchy to pass possible link juice. But we feel that as many of these listings are findable in Google, it is not a great user experience.
-> Or, shall we just leave them as 404's? : google sort of says it's ok
Very curious on your opinions, and how you would handle this.
Cheers,
Croozie.
P.S I have read other Q & A's regarding this, but given our large volumes and situation, thought it was worth asking as I'm not satisfied that solutions offered would match our needs.
-
Wow! Thanks Ryan.
I'm sure it won't surprise you to know that I'm always reading eagerly when I see you respond to a question as well.
-
Thanks Ian, good to know Again, good confirmation.
-
Hi Sha,
Spot on. Yes that was my original thinking, then I switched to the school of 200's with meta index's. But having you guys confirming this, makes me realise that doing 301's to the parent category is most certainly the way to go.
Permanently redirecting will have the added benefit of effectively 'de-indexing' the original classified's and of course throwing a ton of link juice over to the category levels.
What a wonderful, helpful community!
Many thanks,
Croozie.
-
Sha, your responses continuously offer outstanding actionable items which offer so much value. I love them so much as they offer such great ideas and demonstrate a lot of experience.
-
Hi Croozie,
Awesome work once again from Ryan!
Since your question feels like a request for suggestions on "how" to create a solution, just wanted to add the following.
When you say "classified listings" I hear "once off, here for a while, gone in 45 days content".
If that is the case, then no individual expired listing will ever be matched identically with another (unless it happens to be a complete duplicate of the original listing).
This would mean that it would certainly be relevant to send any expired listing to a higher order category page. If your site structure is such that you have a clear heirarchy, then this is very easy to do.
For example:
If your listing URL were something like http://www.mysite.com/listings/home/furniture/couches/couch-i-hate.php, then you can use URL rewrites to strip out the file name and 301 the listing to http://www.mysite.com/listings/home/furniture/couches/, which in most cases will offer a perfectly suitable alternative for the user.
There is another alternative you could consider if you have a search program built in - you could send the traffic to a relevant search. In the above example, mysite.com/search.php?s=couch.
Hope that helps,
Sha
-
We are now doing something similar with our site. We have several thousand products that have been discontinued and didn't think about how much link juice we were throwing away until we got Panda pounded. It's amazing how many things you find to fix when times get tough.
We started with our most popular discontinued products and are 301 redirecting them to either a new equivalent or the main category if no exact match can be found.
We are also going to be reusing the same product pages for annual products instead of creating new pages each year. Why waste all that link juice from past years?
-
If you perform a redirect, I recommend you offer a 301 header response, not a 200. The 301 response will let Google and others know the URL should be updated in their database. Google would then offer the new URL in search results. Additionally any link value can be properly forwarded to the new page.
-
Thanks Ryan,
Massive response! Awesome!
It's interesting that you talk a lot about the 301's.
Are you suggesting this would be far more preferable than simply producing a 200 status code page, listing product choices based on an algorithm - which we currently offer our customers for listings expired less than 45 days?
I suppose, to clarify, I'm worried that if we were to do that (produce 200 status code pages), then crawl equity would be reduced for Google, that we would be wasting a lot of their bandwidth on 200 status pages, when they could be better off crawling and indexing more recent pages.
Whereas with 301's to relevant products as you suggest, we solve that issue.
BTW, our 404 pages offer the usual navigation and search options.
Cheers,
Croozie.
-
Hi Croozie.
The challenge with your site is the volume of pages. Most large sites with 100k+ pages have huge SEO opportunities. Ideally you need a team which can manually review every page of your site to ensure it is optimized correctly. Such a team would be a large expense which many site owners choose to avoid. The problem is your site quality and SEO are negatively impacted.
Whenever a page is removed from your site or otherwise becomes unavailable, a plan should be in place PRIOR to removing the page. The plan should address the simple question: how will we handle traffic to the page whether it is from a search engine or a person who bookmarked the page or a link. The suggested answer is the same whether your site has 10 pages or a million pages:
- if the product is being replaced with a very similar product, or you have a very similar product, then you can choose to 301 the page to the new product. If the product is truly similar, then the 301 redirect is a win for everyone.
Example A: You offer a Casio watch model X1000. You stop carrying this watch and replace it with Casio watch model X1001. It is the same watch design but the new model has a slight variation such as a larger dial. Most users who were interested in the old page would be interested in the new page.
Example B: You offered the 2011 version of the Miami Dolphins T-shirt. It is now 2012 and you have the 2012 version of the shirt which is a different design. You can use a 301 to direct users to the latest design. Some users may be unhappy and want the old design, but it is still probably the right call for most users.
Example You discontinue the Casio X1000 and do not have a very close replacement. You could 301 the page to the Casio category page, or you could let it 404.
The best thing to do in each case is to put on your user hat and ask yourself what would be the most helpful thing you can do to assist a person seeking the old content. There is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing a page to 404. It is a natural part of the internet.
One last point. Be sure your 404 page is optimized, especially considering how many 404s you present. The page should have the normal site navigation along with a search function. Help users find the content they seek.
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
-
Pages excluded from Google's index due to "different canonicalization than user"
Hi MOZ community, A few weeks ago we noticed a complete collapse in traffic on some of our pages (7 out of around 150 blog posts in question). We were able to confirm that those pages disappeared for good from Google's index at the end of January '18, they were still findable via all other major search engines. Using Google's Search Console (previously Webmastertools) we found the unindexed URLs in the list of pages being excluded because "Google chose different canonical than user". Content-wise, the page that Google falsely determines as canonical instead has little to no similarity to the pages it thereby excludes from the index. False canonicalization About our setup: We are a SPA, delivering our pages pre-rendered, each with an (empty) rel=canonical tag in the HTTP header that's then dynamically filled with a self-referential link to the pages own URL via Javascript. This seemed and seems to work fine for 99% of our pages but happens to fail for one of our top performing ones (which is why the hassle 😉 ). What we tried so far: going through every step of this handy guide: https://moz.com/blog/panic-stations-how-to-handle-an-important-page-disappearing-from-google-case-study --> inconclusive (healthy pages, no penalties etc.) manually requesting re-indexation via Search Console --> immediately brought back some pages, others shortly re-appeared in the index then got kicked again for the aforementioned reasons checking other search engines --> pages are only gone from Google, can still be found via Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search engines Questions to you: How does the Googlebot operate with Javascript and does anybody know if their setup has changed in that respect around the end of January? Could you think of any other reason to cause the behavior described above? Eternally thankful for any help! ldWB9
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SvenRi1 -
Removing content from Google's Indexes
Hello Mozers My client asked a very good question today. I didn't know the answer, hence this question. When you submit a 'Removing content for legal reasons report': https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_legalother?product=websearch will the person(s) owning the website containing this inflammatory content recieve any communication from Google? My clients have already had the offending URL removed by a court order which was sent to the offending company. However now the site has been relocated and the same content is glaring out at them (and their potential clients) with the title "Solicitors from Hell + Brand name" immediately under their SERPs entry. **I'm going to follow the advice of the forum and try to get the url removed via Googles report system as well as the reargard action of increasing my clients SERPs entries via Social + Content. ** However, I need to be able to firmly tell my clients the implications of submitting a report. They are worried that if they rock the boat this URL (with open access for reporting of complaints) will simply get more inflammatory)! By rocking the boat, I mean, Google informing the owners of this "Solicitors from Hell" site that they have been reported for "hosting defamatory" content. I'm hoping that Google wouldn't inform such a site, and that the only indicator would be an absence of visits. Is this the case or am I being too optimistic?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | catherine-2793880 -
Pipe ("|") in my website's title is being replaced with ":" in Google results
Hi , One of the websites I'm promoting and working on is www.pau-brasil.co.il.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kadel
It's wordpress-based website and as you can see the html's Title is "PauBrasil | some hebrew slogan".
(Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/2f80EEY.gif)
When I'm searching for "PauBrasil" (Which is the brand's name) , one of the results google shows is "PauBrasil: Some Hebrew Slogan" (Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/eJxNHrO.gif ) Why does the pipe is being replaced with ":" ?
And not just that , as you can see there's a "blank space" missing between the the ":" to the slogan.
(note: the websites has been indexed by google crawler at least 4 times so I find it hard to believe it can be the reason) I've keep on looking and found out that there's another page in that website with the exact same title
but when I'm looking for it in google , it shows the title as it really is , with pipe. ("|").
(Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/dtsbZV2.gif) Have you ever encountered something like that?
Can it be that the duplicated title cause that weird "replacement"? Thanks in advance,
Kadel0 -
Where's all the text?
Hi, We recently (yesterday) had a developer make a new site for us on Wix http://www.appointeddhq.com/ as the one we were planning to put up had a few teething issues (the beackend booking system wasn't ready and we needed something up immediately for a TV show we were being featured in). Having now had the chance to look through it, I'm not quite sure what's going on. None of the text appears to be there on any page, I can't find any of the descriptions we gave the developer, the alt tags behind pictures (and even the pics themselves) don't appear to be there, the URLs are messed up, titles are incorrect and there are no title tags to be found. Am I misunderstanding or is the whole site built in java? Obviously, this is quite a huge issue and I'll want to get it sorted immediately, but I thought it best to see what the good folks here though. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LeahHutcheon0 -
Google's Exact Match Algorithm Reduced Our Traffic!
Google's first Panda de-valued our Web store, www.audiobooksonline.com, and our traffic went from 2500 - 3000 (mostly organic referrals) per month to 800 - 1000. Google's under-valuing of our Web store continued to reduce our traffic to 400-500 for the past few months. From 4/5/2013 to 4/6/2013 our traffic dropped 50% more, because (I believe) of Google's "exact domain match" algorithm implementation. We were, even after Panda and up to 4/5/2013 getting a significant amount of organic traffic for search terms such as "audiobooks online," "audio books online," and "online audiobooks." We no longer get traffic for these generic keywords. What I don't understand is why a UK company, www.audiobooksonline.co.uk/, with a very similar domain name, ranks #5 for "audio books online" and #4 for "audiobooks online" while we've almost disappeared from Google rankings. By any measurement I am aware of, our site should rank higher than audiobooksonline.co.uk. Market Samurai reports for "audio books online" and "audiobooks online" shows that our Web store is significantly "stronger" than audiobooksonline.co.uk but they show up on Google's first page and we are down several pages. I also checked a few titles on audiobooksonline.co.uk and confirmed they are using the same publisher descriptions we and many other online book / audiobook merchants do = duplicate content. We have never received notice that our Web store was being penalized. Why would audiobooksonline.co.uk rank so much higher than audiobooksonline.com? Does Google treat non-USA sites different than USA sites?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lbohen0 -
Report card shows many F's. How do I specify keywords for pages?
I have been doing general optimization for on-page, but still have many F's because SEOMoz considers the pages to be weak for keywords that are anyway not relevant. Is there a way to tease out keywords for specific pages so I can get a more accurate report card?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ocularis1 -
Is it possible for a multi doctor practice to have the practice's picture displayed in Google's SERP?
Google now includes pictures of authors in the results of the pages. Therefore, a single practice doctor can include her picture into Google's SERP (http://markup.io/v/dqpyajgz7jkd). How can a multi doctor practice display the practice's picture as opposed to a single doctor? A search for Plastic Surgery Chicago displayed this (query: plastic surgery Chicago) http://markup.io/v/bx3f28ynh4w5. I found one example of a search result showing a picture of both doctors for a multi doctor practice (query: houston texas plastic surgeon). http://markup.io/v/t20gfazxfa6h
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CakeWebsites0 -
Is 404'ing a page enough to remove it from Google's index?
We set some pages to 404 status about 7 months ago, but they are still showing in Google's index (as 404's). Is there anything else I need to do to remove these?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0