Dealing with 404 pages
-
I built a blog on my root domain while I worked on another part of the site at .....co.uk/alpha I was really careful not to have any links go to alpha - but it seems google found and indexed it. The problem is that part of alpha was a copy of the blog - so now soon we have a lot of duplicate content. The /alpha part is now ready to be taken over to the root domain, the initial plan was to then delete /alpha. But now that its indexed I'm worried that Ill have all these 404 pages. I'm not sure what to do.. I know I can just do a 301 redirect for all those pages to go to the other ones in case a link comes on but I need to delete those pages as the server is already very slow. Or does a 301 redirect mean that I don't need those pages anymore? Will those pages still get indexed by google as separate pages? Please assist.
-
after a 301 redirect can I delete the pages and the databases/folders associated with them?
Yes. Think of a 301 redirect like mail forwarding. If you have an address, 1000 main street and then move to a new address you would leave a forward order (e.g. 301 redirect) with the post office. Once that is done, you can bulldozer the house (e.g.. delete the webpage/database) and the mail should still be forwarded properly.
How does one create a 301 redirect?
The method of creating a 301 redirect varies based on your server setup. If you have a LAMP setup with cPanel, there is a Redirect tool. Otherwise I would suggest contacting your host and ask how to create a redirect based on your particular setup.
-
Ryan,
Two things.
First - after a 301 redirect can I delete the pages and the databases/folders associated with them?
Second - How does one create a 301 redirect?
-
Hi Ryan,
Agree with you, but I thought to provide alternate solution to the problem. I know it is difficult and not chosen one.
But as I said that if he can't get any traffic from it then and then only it can delete the pages for index. Plus as he told earlier in question that mistakenly alpha folder was indexed so lines as per you said in the comment "That tool was designed to remove content which is damaging to businesses such as when confidential or personal information is indexed by mistake." and Its contradictory statement too "The indexed content are pages you want in the index but simply have the wrong URL - The wrong URL means the different page.
Anyways will definitely go with your solution but sometimes two options helps you to choose better one.
Thanks
-
Semil, your answer is a working solution but I would like to share why it is not a best practice.
Once the /alpha pages were indexed you could have traffic on them. You cannot possibly know who has linked to those pages, e-mailed links, bookmarked them, etc. By providing a simple 301 the change will be completely seamless to users. All their links and bookmarks will still work. Additionally if any website did link to your /alpha pages, you will retain the link.
The site will also benefit because it is already indexed by Google. You will not have to wait for Google to index your pages. This means more traffic for the site.
The 301 is very quick and easy to implement. If you are simply moving from the /alpha directory to your main site then a single 301 redirect can cover your entire site.
I will offer a simple best practice of SEO (my belief which not everyone agrees with) which I do my best to follow. NEVER EVER EVER use the robots.txt file unless you have exhausted every other possibility. The robots.txt file is an inferior solution that many people latch on to because it is quick and easy. In your case, there is no need to adjust your robots.txt file at all. The original poster stated an intention to delete the /alpha pages. Those pages will no longer exist. Why block URLs which don't exist? It doesn't offer any benefit.
Also, it makes no sense to use the Google removal tool. That tool was designed to remove content which is damaging to businesses such as when confidential or personal information is indexed by mistake. The indexed content are pages you want in the index but simply have the wrong URL. The 301 redirect will allow your pages to remain in the index and for the URL to be properly updated. In order for the 301 to work correctly, you would need to NOT block the /alpha pages with robots.txt.
The solution you shared would work, but it is not as friendly all around.
-
Whoops! Thanks for correcting my answer...
-
The reason behind not using 301 is alpha is not a page or folder you want to create for your users so I don't want to put 301. Its indexed that's it. Are you getting any traffic from it ?
No, then why you need to redirect. Remove the page and ask search engine to remove that page from index. That is all.
-
Thanks Dan,
Is there a way of blocking an entire folder or do I have to add each link?
-
How can I ask them to remove it from webmaster? How can I ask everything on the /alpha folder not to be indexed - or do I have to write each link out?
Why do you think my case isn't good for 301 redirects?
-
You have to be very careful from the start, but now Google indexed your alpha. So dont worry about the thing.
Using 301 is something which I dont like to do on your case. Ask google to remove that urls from indexing from GWT, and put robots.txt to prevent alpha to be indexed.
Thanks,
-
You can perform the 301 redirect and you will not need those pages anymore. Using the redirect would be a superior SEO solution over using the robots.txt file. Since the content is already indexed, it will stay indexed and Google will update each page over the next 30 days as it crawls your site.
If you block /alpha with robots.txt, Google will still retain the pages in their index, users will experience 404s and your new pages wont start to be properly indexed until Google drops the existing pages which takes a while. The redirect is better for everyone.
-
Hi
If you do not want them in the index you should block them in your robots.txt file like so:
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
User-agent: *
Allow: /
Disallow: /alpha
-Dan
PS - Some documentation on robots.txt
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
EDIT: I left my answer, but don't listen to it. Do what Ryan says
-
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
-
How to find orphan pages
Hi all, I've been checking these forums for an answer on how to find orphaned pages on my site and I can see a lot of people are saying that I should cross check the my XML sitemap against a Screaming Frog crawl of my site. However, the sitemap is created using Screaming Frog in the first place... (I'm sure this is the case for a lot of people too). Are there any other ways to get a full list of orphaned pages? I assume it would be a developer request but where can I ask them to look / extract? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | KJH-HAC1 -
Why google does not remove my page?
Hi everyone, last week i add "Noindex" tag into my page, but that site still appear in the organic search. what other things i can do for remove from google?
Technical SEO | | Jorge_HDI0 -
Rel Canonical for the Same Page
Hi, I was looking in my one of my moz accounts and under analyz page under notices is a message that says: Rel Canonical Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical. I checked an notice that I do have a rel='canonical' href='http://www.example.com' /> from the home page of http://www.example.com. I guess my question is. Does having a Rel Canonical going to the same page hurt my SEO? I'm not sure why it is there but wanted to make sure I address this correctly. I was under the impression you use Rel Canonical for duplicate or similar pages and you want to let Google know what page to show. But since I've made this mistake to where I am saying to show the home page if you find a similar home page, should I just delete the Rel Canonical. Thanks,
Technical SEO | | ErrickG
Errick0 -
Duplicate Page Content but where?
Hi All Moz is telling me I have duplicate page content and sure enough the PA MR mT are all 0 but it doesnt give me a link to this content! This is the page: http://www.orsgroup.com/index.php?page=Scanning-services But I cant find where the duplicate content is other than on our own youtube page which I will get removed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnjh9jkAWuA Can anyone help please? Andy
Technical SEO | | ORS-Group0 -
How do I fix issue regarding near duplicate pages on website associated to city OR local pages?
I am working on one e-commerce website where we have added 300+ pages to target different local cities in USA. We have added quite different paragraphs on 100+ pages to remove internal duplicate issue and save our website from Panda penalty. You can visit following page to know more about it. And, We have added unique paragraphs on few pages. But, I have big concerns with other elements which are available on page like Banner Gallery, Front Banner, Tool and few other attributes which are commonly available on each pages exclude 4 to 5 sentence paragraph. I have compiled one XML sitemap with all local pages and submitted to Google webmaster tools since 1st June 2013. But, I can see only 1 indexed page by Google on Google webmaster tools. http://www.bannerbuzz.com/local http://www.bannerbuzz.com/local/US/Alabama/Vinyl-Banners http://www.bannerbuzz.com/local/MO/Kansas-City/Vinyl-Banners and so on... Can anyone suggest me best solution for it?
Technical SEO | | CommercePundit0 -
Pages extensions
Hi guys, We're in the process of moving one of our sites to a newer version of the CMS. The new version doesn't support page extensions (.aspx) but we'll keep them for all existing pages (about 8,000) to avoid redirects. The technical team is wondering about the new pages - does it make any difference if the new pages are without extensions, except for usability? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | lgrozeva0 -
Consolidate page strength
Hi, Our site has a fair amount of related/similiar content that has been historically placed on seperate pages. Unfortuantely this spreads out our page strength across multiple pages. We are looking to combine this content onto one page so that our page strength will be focused in one location (optimized for search). The content is extensive so placing it all on one page isn't ideal from a user experience (better to separate it out). We are looking into different approaches one main "tabbed" page with query string params to seperate the seperate pages. We'll use an AJAX driven design, but for non js browsers, we'll gracefully degrade to separate pages with querystring params. www.xxx.com/content/?pg=1 www.xxx.com/content/?pg=2 www.xxx.com/content/?pg=3 We'd then rel canonical all three pages to just be www.xxx.com/content/ Same concept but useAJAX crawlable hash tag design (!#). Load everything onto one page, but the page could get quite large so latency will increase. I don't think from an SEO perspective there is much difference between options 1 & 2. We'll mostly be relying on Google using the rel canonical tag. Have others dealt with this issue were you have lots of similiar content. From a UX perspective you want to separate/classifiy it, but from an SEO perspective want to consolidate? It really is very similiar content so using a rel canonical makes sense. What have others done? Thoughts?
Technical SEO | | NicB10 -
On-Page Question
Im trying to increase value to specific pages by putting history, and additional images. Will copying snippets from other sites negatively affect me? Should the content be re-written completely?
Technical SEO | | Anest0