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
-
Can 'follow' rather than 'nofollow' links be damaging partner's SEO
Hey guys and happy Monday! We run a content rich website, 12+ years old, focused on travel in a specific region, and advertisers pay for banners/content etc alongside editorial. We have never used 'nofollow' website links as they're no explicitly paid for by clients, but a partner has asked us to make all links to them 'nofollow' as they have stated the way we currently link is damaging their SEO. Could this be true in any way? I'm only assuming it would adversely affect them if our website was peanalized by Google for 'selling links', which we're not. Perhaps they're just keen to follow best practice for fear of being seen to be buying links. FYI we now plan to change to more full use of 'nofollow', but I'm trying to work out what the client is refering to without seeming ill-informed on the subject! Thank you for any advice 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEO_Jim0 -
Can I have multiple 301's when switching to https version
Hello, our programmer recently updated our http version website to https. Does it matter if we have TWO 301 redirects? Here is an example: http://www.colocationamerica.com/dedicated_servers/linux-dedicated.htm 301 https://www.colocationamerica.com/dedicated_servers/linux-dedicated.htm 301 https://www.colocationamerica.com/linux-dedicated-server We're getting pulled in two different directions. I read https://moz.com/blog/301-redirection-rules-for-seo and don't know if 2 301's suffice. Please let me know. Greatly appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Shawn1240 -
Syndicated content with meta robots 'noindex, nofollow': safe?
Hello, I manage, with a dedicated team, the development of a big news portal, with thousands of unique articles. To expand our audiences, we syndicate content to a number of partner websites. They can publish some of our articles, as long as (1) they put a rel=canonical in their duplicated article, pointing to our original article OR (2) they put a meta robots 'noindex, follow' in their duplicated article + a dofollow link to our original article. A new prospect, to partner with with us, wants to follow a different path: republish the articles with a meta robots 'noindex, nofollow' in each duplicated article + a dofollow link to our original article. This is because he doesn't want to pass pagerank/link authority to our website (as it is not explicitly included in the contract). In terms of visibility we'd have some advantages with this partnership (even without link authority to our site) so I would accept. My question is: considering that the partner website is much authoritative than ours, could this approach damage in some way the ranking of our articles? I know that the duplicated articles published on the partner website wouldn't be indexed (because of the meta robots noindex, nofollow). But Google crawler could still reach them. And, since they have no rel=canonical and the link to our original article wouldn't be followed, I don't know if this may cause confusion about the original source of the articles. In your opinion, is this approach safe from an SEO point of view? Do we have to take some measures to protect our content? Hope I explained myself well, any help would be very appreciated, Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fabio80
Fab0 -
A few questions on Google's Structured Data Markup Helper...
I'm trying to go through my site and add microdata with the help of Google's Structured Data Markup Helper. I have a few questions that I have not been able to find an answer for. Here is the URL I am referring to: http://www.howlatthemoon.com/locations/location-chicago My company is a bar/club, with only 4 out of 13 locations serving food. Would you mark this up as a local business or a restaurant? It asks for "URL" above the ratings. Is this supposed to be the URL that ratings are on like Yelp or something? Or is it the URL for the page? Either way, neither of those URLs are on the page so I can't select them. If it is for Yelp should I link to it? How do I add reviews? Do they have to be on the page? If I make a group of days for Day of the Week for Opening hours, such as Mon-Thu, will that work out? I have events on this page. However, when I tried to do the markup for just the event it told me to use itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Event" on the body tag of the page. That is just a small part of the page, I'm not sure why I would put the event tag on the whole body? Any other tips would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | howlusa0 -
Can I, in Google's good graces, check for Googlebot to turn on/off tracking parameters in URLs?
Basically, we use a number of parameters in our URLs for event tracking. Google could be crawling an infinite number of these URLs. I'm already using the canonical tag to point at the non-tracking versions of those URLs....that doesn't stop the crawling tho. I want to know if I can do conditional 301s or just detect the user agent as a way to know when to NOT append those parameters. Just trying to follow their guidelines about allowing bots to crawl w/out things like sessionID...but they don't tell you HOW to do this. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KenShafer0 -
What's the news on sitwide nofollow links and anchor text penalties
Is it possible to be penalized for sitewide nofollow links because of anchor text penalties, even if you use branded anchor text?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW0 -
Could a HTML <select>with large numbers of <option value="<url>">'s affect my organic rankings</option></select>
Hi there, I'm currently redesigning my website, and one particular pages lists hotels in New York. Some functionality I'm thinking of adding in is to let the user find hotels close to specific concert venues in New York. My current thinking is to provide the following select element on the page - selecting any one of the options will automatically redirect to my page for that concert venue. The purpose of this isn't to affect the organic traffic - I'm simply introducing this as a tool to help customers find the right hotel, but I certainly don't want it to have an adverse effect on my organic traffic. I'd love to know your thoughts on this. I must add that in certain cities, such as New York, there could be up to 450 different options in this select element. | <select onchange="location=options[selectedIndex].value;"> <option value="">Show convenient hotels for:</option> <option value="http://url1..">1492 New York</option> <option value="http://url2..">Abrons Arts Center</option> <option value="http://url3..">Ace of Clubs New York</option> <option value="http://url4..">Affairs Afloat</option> <option value="http://url5..">Affirmation Arts New York</option> <option value="http://url6..">Al Hirschfeld Theatre</option> <option value="http://url7..">Alice Tully Hall</option> .. .. ..</select> Many thanks Mike |
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mjk260 -
Rel canonical element for different URL's
Hello, We have a new client that has several sites with the exact same content. They do this for tracking purposes. We are facing political objections to combine and track differently. Basically, we have no choice but to deal with the situation given. We want to avoid duplicate content issues, and want to SEO only one of the sites. The other sites don't really matter for SEO (they have off-line campaigns pointing to them) we just want one of the sites to get all the credit for the content. My questions: 1. Can we use the rel canonical element on the irrelevent pages/URL's to point to the site we care about? I think I remember Matt Cutts saying this can't be done across URL's. Am I right or wrong? 2. If we can't, what options do I have (without making the client change their entire tracking strategy) to make the site we are SEO'ing the relevant content? Thanks a million! Todd
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GravitateOnline0