Is it bad practice to create pages that 404?
-
We have member pages on our site that are initially empty, until the member does some activity. Currently, since all of these pages are soft 404s, we return a 404 for all these pages and all internal links to them are js links (not links as far as bots are concerned). As soon as the page has content, we switch it to 200 and make the links into regular hrefs.
After doing some research, I started thinking that this is not the best way to handle this situation. A better idea would be to noindex/follow the pages (before they have content) and let the links to these pages be real links.
I'd love to hear input and feedback from fellow Mozzers. What are your thoughts?
-
Yair,
See the infographic on this page regarding rel nofollow tags in links, and when you may want to consider using them. Specifically, see the part about User Generated Content:
http://searchengineland.com/infographic-nofollow-tag-172157
However, Google can decide to crawl whatever they want to crawl, whether it is a nofollowed link, links on a page with a nofollow meta tag, or javascript links. If you really want to keep Google out of those portions of the site you should use the robots.txt disallow statement, as I mentioned in your other thread, or use the X-Robots-Tag as described here.
-
Thanks Everett,
As far as I know, nofollows don't conserve crawl budget. The bots will crawl the link, they just wont transfer any PR.
-
I'm sure Jane meant that it would block indexation of the page.
In my opinion you should probably noindex,follow (robots meta tag) the pages and make the internal links just normal links, possibly with a rel= nofollow link attribute, until the user fills out the profile.
I will go look into your other question as well.
PS: The drawback of this solution is that bots will still be spending crawl budget crawling those URLs if you are linking to them internally. [Edited]
-
Thanks for the clear and concise answer, Jane. You hit the nail right on the head! I appreciate your input.
One question, though. You say that noindex will block bot access to these pages. I'm pretty sure the bots will still crawl the pages (if they find them), just they won't be indexed and presumably they won't be "counted against us" like 404 pages. Is that what you meant?
If you have a minute, maybe you can help me out with this question next: http://moz.com/community/q/internal-nofollows
(Side note: Er_Maqul was referring to the original version of the question (before I edited it) where I had mistakenly written that we nofollow the links.)
-
Hi there,
A 404 certainly isn't the best way to handle a new URL / page before it is populated with content. It is good that Google isn't finding these pages yet (as you state in a later comment), but keep in mind that it could - the pages aren't linked to, but there is never any particular guarantee about what Google will and won't find. It's highly unlikely if you don't link to them, but still - it's not worth taking the risk. As you also say, there's no stopping anyone else from linking to the pages and / or for Google to go on a exploratory mission of its own.
As a note, internal 404s / 410s ("Gone") are perfectly okay if they're appropriate for the situation, i.e. a page has been removed. Not ever removed resource has to be 301ed elsewhere. This isn't the case here though.
To my mind, blocking bot access to these pages while they are empty is a better option, and noindex / follow would achieve this. I believe Er_Maqul has misunderstood what you were saying here - there is no "nofollow" in this situation.
-
Got it, I see.
Well, let's see here. I will state I am no expert in this realm. This is much more of a job for the likes of EGOL or RobertFischer. EGOL in particular with his intimate knowledge of NOINDEX
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-noindex-behavior/
(Scroll down and look at the first post on Matt Cutt's blog there.)
That being said, I still have a few thoughts.
I think you certainly could continue to do what you are doing, I also think that Er_Maquai brought up a point that I touched on as well. Obviously the best scenario is to avoid a 404, and to have original content. Now unfortunately if you don't have have any content to write, or the person doesn't in this case, that set's you up for thin content, and a lot of duplicate content.
It seems to me there is no way to avoid having the extra pages without some sort of script or coding which houses the profiles somewhere other than on a separate page or on a flux capacitor somewhere. So going off that you could create a generic "no profile page" that gets published and use the rel=canonical tag.
I take back my prior statement about "ANY" content. Thin, pointless content, is thin and pointless, and won't benefit you at all. I hope that wasn't interpreted that way.
Again, I think this one is somewhat out of my scope of help, and it might even be worth calling in an SEO professional who specializes in forums for a second opinion. It's like having surgery, gotta go to another Dr to verify your diagnosis.
Sorry I couldn't give a better answer!
-
Wow - thanks for the thorough response, HashtagHustler!
Let me explain a little better...
We get hundreds of signups a day. Each new member has a profile page, which is empty until they do something. Sometimes they never do. So we don't link to the empty pages and they return a 404. As soon as the page has some content, we do link to it and it returns a 200.
Google is not reporting 404s for these pages because they are not linked to. In the pat, when we did link to them, Google reported them as soft 404s.
The current system is working fine.
My question is simply if it makes more sense to allow Google to find these pages (link to them) but noindex them since they do not have content (and are considered soft 404s by Google) or if we should continue doing it the way we are today (which makes me a little uncomfortable since we are creating 1000's of pages - that theoretically may be linked to by other sites - that are 404s)?
-
Yes... all 404 can hurt your SEO campaign, because even if they doesn't count for points (i don't know these), at least the spider ignores a bit more or crawl your page more slowly. Because this, you need to get away all your possible 404 errors.
Think, a empty page can have something. You can use a default text, or use a noindex tag while the page are empty, or simply make a standard profile and link to them all empty pages with a rel=canonical (I think there's the best option). But having more pages, even with low quantity of text, that's better who i doesn't have the pages itself, and, very much better than have 404 errors.
Also, think one more thing. Even more changes have your page, more indexed you're get and low times between indexing. There's another reason to have the pages working, even when they doesn't have any custom info. Because the creation of the page are a change, and customization of them are another change too.
-
Good Morning Yair!
A 404 is a 404 plain and simple. And if Google was able to report it, then they were able to get to it. Which basically means, someone else could. I'm not sure what platform you are using currently using but there are plenty of easy options for a quick fix.
If you wanted a simple option you could just throw up a 302 if you are planning on putting content up SOON. Temporary redirects differ from 301 because they are temporary. Google has to evaluate if they should keep the old page, so in this case, when you are planning on launching the old one (well, technically new one) you might be able to use that to your advantage.
A better idea would be to noindex/follow the pages (before they have content) and let the links to these pages be follow links.
I was unsure exactly what you meant by this. The only difference between follow and no follow links is that you are telling Google not to let your linkjuice carry over to the page you are linking to. You are linking to the page without vetting them. My apologies if you already knew this, but I was slightly confused by your sentence. Google will still go to that page to check it out.
Another option: change your schedule and don't put up pages that far in advance that you aren't planning on publishing. I edit everything offline. Google likes new stuff, especially content. Of course they take longevity into account as well, but as far as making a big splash, putting a website up piecemeal is like having people show up at your birthday saying "Suprise!" when you answer the door when you were the one who invited them. The notion is nice, but it just doesn't have the same effect. Not only in the Google realm, but even more so in Social Media.
My favorite option, and my personal recommendation would be to play the cards you were dealt. Get rid of the 404 and the 200 and embrace that you have a new page! Go on and write a profile piece for the member. Write some sort of Biographical data that can act as a placeholder. At this point it doesn't even need to be stuffed with keywords and amazing seo phrases.
On Second Thought: I'm not sure exactly what your forum is for, and if this issue is specific to a few members or if you are referring to bulk membership, but I have a few ideas on how you might be able to extrapolate some of the signup data into even a simple post to avoid getting a 404! Even if you parsed some of the forms from signup and created a simple little one page that displayed, I think that could help.
At the end of the day, Google loves forums that are strong and authoritative. They also understand that every single person on a forum isn't going to post and isn't going to interact. So depending on what kind of forum you have, and what exactly you are doing, some of the forum issues will just have to be accepted. I think it would be more valuable to clean up negative linking and and analyze internal issues and build form recognition etc. than fix soft 404's coming from a handful of users. Again all of this depends on the size of your pool.
Also, you could just track their usage, if someone is logging in all the time and not posting then fine, I would deal with it because who knows what they are doing in the real world. If someone made an account in 1999, and then threw their computer out of the window in Y2K and never bought another one because they still believe that everything crashed, well then maybe its time to fix that 404.
Hope that helps!
Sorry if my train of thought is a little off this morning.... not enough coffee!
-
Thanks for your quick response, Er.
You are correct about the 404s and I realized that what I wrote in the question was a mistake. We don't have any internal links to these pages (not even nofollow). Until there is content on the page, we make all links to the page into js links. I corrected this in the question now.
Concerning what you said about the pages being useful for SEO even without content: I don't think this is correct. Before we started 404ing the empty profile pages, Webmaster was reporting them as soft 404s. Doesn't this mean that they were hurting us (especially since we have many of them)?
-
Any 404 is bad for SEO. Make a little page for the profile without data, and you can gain a lot of SEO even if your pages doesn't have content.
Even if the links have a nofollow, google follows them to see what is in the other side. For this reason, avoid ALWAYS you can to have a link to a 404 page.
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 will canonicalizing an https page affect the SERP-ranked http version of that page?
Hey guys, Until recently, my site has been serving traffic over both http and https depending on the user request. Because I only want to serve traffic over https, I've begun redirecting http traffic to https. Reviewing my SEO performance in Moz, I see that for some search terms, an http page shows up on the SERP, and for other search terms, an https page shows. (There aren't really any duplicate pages, just the same pages being served on either http or https.) My question is about canonical tags in this context. Suppose I canonicalize the https version of a page which is already ranked on the SERP as http. Will the link juice from the SERP-ranked http version of that page immediately flow to the now-canonical https version? Will the https version of the page immediately replace the http version on the SERP, with the same ranking? Thank you for your time!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JGRLLC0 -
Pages Disappearing from Search
Hi, We have had a strongly ranking site since 2004. Over the past couple of days, our Google traffic has dropped by around 20% and some of our strong pages are completely disappearing from the rankings. They are still indexed, but having ranked number 1 are nowhere to be found. A number of pages still remain intact, but it seems they are increasingly disappearing. Where should we start to try and find out what is happening? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | simonukss0 -
Possible to Improve Domain Authority By Improving Content on Low Page Rank Pages?
My sites domain authority is only 23. The home page has a page authority of 32. My site consists of about 400 pages. The topic of the site is commercial real estate (I am a real estate broker). A number of the sites we compete against have a domain authority of 30-40. Would our overall domain authority improved if we re-wrote the content for several hundred of pages that had the lowest page authority (say 12-15)? Is the overall domain authority derived by an average of the page authority of each page on a domain? Alternatively could we increase domain authority by setting the pages with the lowest page authority to "no index". By the way our domain is www.nyc-officespace-leader.com Thanks, Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
I have 2 keywords I want to target, should I make one page for both keywords or two separate pages?
My team sells sailboats and pontoon boats all over the country. So while they are both boats, the target market is two different types of people... I want to make a landing page for each state so if someone types in "Pontoon Boats for sale in Michigan" or "Pontoon boats for sale in Tennessee," my website will come up. But I also want to come up if someone is searching for sailboats for sale in Michigan or Tennessee (or any other state for that matter). So my question is, should I make 1 page for each state that targets both pontoon boats and sailboats (total of 50 landing pages), or should I make two pages for each state, one targeting pontoon boats and the other sailboats (total of 100 landing pages). My team has seen success targeting each state individually for a single keyword, but have not had a situation like this come up yet.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VanMaster0 -
Should we show(to google) different city pages on our website which look like home page as one page or different? If yes then how?
On our website, we show events from different cities. We have made different URL's for each city like www.townscript.com/mumbai, www.townscript.com/delhi. But the page of all the cities looks similar, only the events change on those different city pages. Even our home URL www.townscript.com, shows the visitor the city which he visited last time on our website(initially we show everyone Mumbai, visitor needs to choose his city then) For every page visit, we save the last visited page of a particular IP address and next time when he visits our website www.townscript.com, we show him that city only which he visited last time. Now, we feel as the content of home page, and city pages is similar. Should we show these pages as one page i.e. Townscript.com to Google? Can we do that by rel="canonical" ? Please help me! As I think all of these pages are competing with each other.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sanchitmalik0 -
Show parts of page A on page B & C?
Good afternoon,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rayvensoft
A quick question. I am working on a website which has a large page with different sections. Lets say: Page 1
SECTION A
SECTION B
SECTION C Now, they are adding a new area where they want to show only certain sections, so it would look like this: Page 2
SECTION A Page 3
SECTION C Page 4
SECTION D So my question is, would a rel='canonical' tag back to Page 1 be the correct way of preempting any duplicate content issues? I do not need Page 2-4 to even be indexed, it is just a matter of usability and giving the users what they are looking for without all the rest of the extra stuff. Gracias. Tesekürler. Salamat Ko. Thanks. (bonus thumbs up for anybody who knows which languages each of those are) 🙂0 -
Does an H1 have to be at the top of a page?
Because H1 "may" carry some weight with Google does it have to be placed at the top of the page? Can I place it towards the bottom of the page instead in normal body size? My goal is to keep the main keywords in the H1 but create a much friendlier title for the customer to read at the top of the page.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PottyScotty0 -
Static index page or not?
Are there any advantages of dis-advantages to running a static homepage as opposed to a blog style homepage. I have be running a static page on my site with the latest posts displayed as links after the homepage content. I would like to remove the static page and move to a more visually appealing homepage that includes graphics for each post and the posts droppping down the page like normal blogs do. How will this effect my site if I move from a static page to a more dynamic blog style page layout? Could I still hold the spot I currently rank for with the optimized index content if I turn to a more traditional blog format? cheers,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NoCoGuru0