OSE link report showing links to 404 pages on my site
-
I did a link analysis on this site mormonwiki.com. And many of the pages shown to be linked to were pages like these http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Planning_a_trip_to_Rome_By_using_Movie_theatre_-_Your_five_Fun_Shows2052752
There happens to be thousands of them and these pages actually no longer exist but the links to them obviously still do. I am planning to proceed by disavowing these links to the pages that don't exist. Does anyone see any reason to not do this, or that doing this would be unnecessary?
Another issue is that Google is not really crawling this site, in WMT they are reporting to have not crawled a single URL on the site. Does anyone think the above issue would have something to do with this? And/or would you have any insight on how to remedy it?
-
The site does have and has had ranking issues since the first Penguin and has really had problems the last few months. And other than some minor things low quality links are really the only problem with the site.
-
Hi,
Adam is correct that the disavow tool should only be used if you think the links are causing you significant ranking problems. It's become quite common for people to disavow links without either a confirmed penalty or ranking issues, but those two factors were originally how Google recommended the tool be used.
What it sounds like has happened to your site with these bad pages is that spammers have created spam pages on the wiki then pointed links to those pages from elsewhere. It's a very common and old spam tactic, used on sites that allow UGC.
Those pages are now returning 404s, so technically the inbound links pointing to them should not hurt your website or cause a penalty. It's generally assumed the links to 404 pages (good or bad links) don't hurt or help. I disagree that they'll cause a "bad user experience" as it sounds like they have been built for spam purposes only - no one is going to try and visit these links.
If you believe these links are causing a ranking issue, the disavowal tool is certainly an option - I take it there's no chance you can negotiate these links' removal with the folks who built them? Removing links is always preferable to using disavowal also.
-
If you are seeing zero pages indexed and zero traffic from search then I would assume you have perhaps verified and subsequently are looking at data for the non-www version of the domain.
Double check that the site listed in WMT is www.mormonwiki.com and not mormonwiki.com. If you are looking at indexation and traffic data for the www version then there may be something else going on and unfortunately I wouldn't be able to diagnose the issue without looking at the WMT account.
Have your rankings been significantly affected? You would need to perform a fair amount of analysis before you can conclude that the site has been affected algorithmically. You would also need to be sure that any negative impact to rankings is a result of poor quality links and not something else, such as on-page factors.
Using the disavow should really be a last resort and only if it has been impossible to get troublesome links removed. As the warning from Google states, the disavow feature 'can potentially harm your site's performance' so I would not recommend using it until you have performed more in-depth analysis.
-
Right so if the pages no longer exist they need to be gotten rid of right? Most of these won't be removed by the webmasters and so they'll need to be disavowed right?
These pages were UGC and are essentially spam, and entirely irrelevant to anything on the site itself. So 301 redirects would not be wise or useful I don't think.
-
It hasn't received a manual action no. But that doesn't mean algorthimically the site isn't being affected.
So you're saying to not worry at all about these links?
They offer nothing in terms of value. If going to live pages they would be considered very spammy and completely irrelevant. But since these pages don't even exist you're saying it's unnecessary to bother with them at all?
I'm seeing the crawlability issue in WMT itself. The strange thing is that I know some pages have been indexed, we get most of our traffic organically from Google. But WMT shows zero pages indexed, zero traffic from search etc. The site has been verified as well.
-
I agree with Adam, if the links are natural then there is no need to disavow them.
However, if the links go to pages that no longer exist then it provides a poor user experience that can harm your rankings. Think of it like having dead links on your website. Have you set up 301 redirects for the pages that have become inactive? If not, set them up and make sure to redirect the pages to relevant areas of the website (no all to the homepage). Do this and the links should pass more juice and your website's performance should improve.
-
Are you performing a link analysis because the site received a manual action notification in WMT? If the site hasn't received a penalty then there is no need to use the disavow feature. As Google states:
'This is an advanced feature and should only be used with caution. If used incorrectly, this feature can potentially harm your site’s performance in Google’s search results. We recommend that you disavow backlinks only if you believe you have a considerable number of spammy, artificial, or low-quality links pointing to your site, and if you are confident that the links are causing issues for you. In most cases, Google can assess which links to trust without additional guidance, so most normal or typical sites will not need to use this tool.'
In terms of the crawlability of the site, where are you seeing WMT reporting to have not crawled a single page? A simple site: search of the mormonwiki.com domain returns about 65,600 results and I can't see any major issues that would prevent search engines from crawling the site. However, I would probably fix the issue with the robots.txt file. Currently, www.mormonwiki.com/robots.txt 301 redirects to www.mormonwiki.com/Robots.txt, which returns a 404 error.
Hope that helps.
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
-
Should I apply Canonical Links from my Landing Pages to Core Website Pages?
I am working on an SEO project for the website: https://wave.com.au/ There are some core website pages, which we want to target for organic traffic, like this one: https://wave.com.au/doctors/medical-specialties/anaesthetist-jobs/ Then we have basically have another version that is set up as a landing page and used for CPC campaigns. https://wave.com.au/anaesthetists/ Essentially, my question is should I apply canonical links from the landing page versions to the core website pages (especially if I know they are only utilising them for CPC campaigns) so as to push link equity/juice across? Here is the GA data from January 1 - April 30, 2019 (Behavior > Site Content > All Pages😞
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Wavelength_International0 -
Print pages returning 404's
Print pages on one of our sister sites are returning 404's in our crawl but are visible when clicked on. Here is one example: https://www.theelementsofliving.com/recipe/citrus-energy-boosting-smoothie/print Any ideas as to why these are returning errors? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FirstService0 -
Is it bad for SEO to have a page that is not linked to anywhere on your site?
Hi, We had a content manager request to delete a page from our site. Looking at the traffic to the page, I noticed there were a lot of inbound links from credible sites. Rather than deleting the page, we simply removed it from the navigation, so that a user could still access the page by clicking on a link to it from an external site. Questions: Is it bad for SEO to have a page that is not directly accessible from your site? If no: do we keep this page in our Sitemap, or remove it? If yes: what is a better strategy to ensure the inbound links aren't considered "broken links" and also to minimize any negative impact to our SEO? Should we delete the page and 301 redirect users to the parent page for the page we had previously hidden?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jnew9290 -
Part of my site does not show the correct Meta title
Hi our website meta title on the directory section is showing the same title, it does not show the page title. We have tried turning off all plugins, reinstalling the theme, creating a new htacces file. installing Yoast, and testing with All in one seo but still the same thing happens. Tried different themes with the same results But when we test with Twenty Thirteen it is ok Completely lost and would love some help Thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Taiger0 -
Duplicate Page Content Errors on Moz Crawl Report
Hi All, I seem to be losing a 'firefighting' battle with regards to various errors being reported on the Moz crawl report relating to; Duplicate Page Content Missing Page Title Missing Meta Duplicate Page Title While I acknowledge that some of the errors are valid (and we are working through them), I find some of them difficult to understand... Here is an example of a 'duplicate page content' error being reported; http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com (which is obviously our homepage) Is reported to have 'duplicate page content' compared with the following pages; http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com/guides/gratuities http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com/cruise-deals/cruise-line-deals/holland-america-2014-offers/?order_by=brochure_lead_difference http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com/about-us/meet-the-team/craig All 3 of those pages are completely different hence my confusion... This is just a solitary example, there are many more! I would be most interested to hear what people's opinions are... Many thanks Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomKing0 -
Rich snippets showing on some pages but not others
Hi, I have rich snippet mark up showing in serps for some pages but not others. All pages test fine using Googles structured data testing tool. Whats really annoying is that they seem to appear for some pages but not others within the same directory / page format. None of googles troubleshooting suggestions on the issue are a problem i.e. Does your markup follow our usage guidelines? Is your marked-up content hidden from users? Is your markup incorrect or misleading? Is your marked-up content representative of the main content of the page? Have you supplied enough information? Have you only recently updated your content? Does your markup include incorrect nesting? Reviews: Does your review use count instead of vote? There are alot of instances when the same mark up is used twice e.g. on product x page in one directory and on product x page in a different directory (theres no dupe content). I wondered if that could be a reason but there are alot of instances when product x in directory a has the snippet when it doesnt in directory b. There doesnt seem to be an identifiable pattern as to why one page whould show the snippet and not another. Any feedback appreciated. Happy to pm example pages. Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyMacLean0 -
Internal Links not being Identified on OSE
Greetings Mozzers, When ever I check my home page on OSE it says I have a total of 5 internal links. Obviously this is WAY off. I've used all relative links, if I were to removed all relative and make them absolute, would there be a better chance of OSE identifying them instead of losing that juice? I think this is huge to resolve as when I compare my site to competitors, almost all factors are in our favor except this huge gap of only 5 internal links. I'm using Drupal CMS. For example, Drupal normally outputs internal links as "/about" and "/about/team" in the menus. If we changed it to "https://monsterweb.net/about", and "https://monsterweb.net/about/team", would that make a difference? Thanks for all the advice and clarification on this matter.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MonsterWeb280 -
Dynamically creating unique page titles on enterprise site
Hi, I want to dynamically create unique page titles (possible meta descriptions too) on a 10k page site. Many of the page titles are either duplicates or are missing. I heard about the option of grabbing the page titles from a database or possibly using the h1 as the page title. solmelia.com (the website consist of mostly static pages) Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Best Regards,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Melia0