301 Directs
-
We have found a lot of 404 error pages that we have transferred with 301 directs.
My questions is, should these 301 directs be marked as a NF (nofollow)?
-
Haa!
I love that infographic Greg! We have a printed version on our war room wall
-
- No you should not use NF (nofollow) on your 301 redirects. Make sure when redirecting your 404's that you are redirecting them to a relevant page.
- Never NoFollow 301s unless it an affiliate link if for instance you had the site that allowed someone to sign up and you are compensated financially for that person signing up on your website then you would use the nofollow tag. Here is it URL discussing what I'm talking about Example of affiliate links
- If you did add NoFollow on your code change it ASAP an instance of when you may see it used is when somebody puts a URL in the comment box of any major blogging platform for instance no follow is built into comments on WordPress but that's all automatic. Meaning you do not have to add the no follow I bring this up only if this involves you checking your code.
- You should never know follow a link that is internal you would destroy your ability to be found online. Outside of the affiliate link scenario I gave above.
Greg
-
Google will eventually get rid of them. If you have similar pages to the ones that are 404 errors, then you should redirect them. If you don't then best practice is to let them fall off.
However, if you had key terms ranking on page 1 or 2 on those pages I would definitely redirect them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp5Nf8ANfOw This is a video by Matt Cutts where he kind of tells you how to handle these errors effectively
-
No, you don't want to NoFollow 301s. The point of a 301 permanent redirect is for "everyone to be redirected" - users, search bots, & link juice - but adding NoFollow would prevent this.
-
We have had 404 errors for over a month now through Moz. These are of high priority to be taken care of as well, so leaving it for Google to get rid of sounds very discouraging. These links are not ones we use on our site anymore and that is why we've been re-directing.
-
I think 404's should be 404's as if someone is linking to pages that don't exist, a 404 is the best response. Google and bots will see a 404 and remove that url.
301's are more useful when reorganizing a site and traffic (inbound links, search traffic) come in to old urls. To just redirect all 404s as a 301 us not usefull I would say.
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
-
Selectively 301 redirects
Hi there: We are developing a pretty typical 301 redirection strategy. We basically are moving blog posts from a former sub-domain to the top level of our new designed site. We've pulled a site crawl of the old sub-domain and want to make sure we redirect any posts with a significant backlink profile to their current counterparts. Most other posts are just going to be redirected to the main 'front door' of our new blog. Is there a way to selectively redirect a certain number of posts and then 'globally' redirect everything else to a single URL? I would assume this would be a pretty common task, but can't find an easy way to do what we want to do.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Daaveey0 -
How to speed up transition towards new 301 redirected landing pages?
Hi SEO's, I have a question about moving local landing pages from many separate pages towards integrating them into a search results page. Currently we have many separate local pages (e.g. www.3dhubs.com/new-york). For both scalability and conversion reasons, we'll integrate our local pages into our search page (e.g. www.3dhubs.com/3d-print/Bangalore--India). **Implementation details: **To mitigate the risk of a sudden organic traffic drop, we're currently running a test on just 18 local pages (Bangalore) = 1 / 18). We applied a 301 redirect from the old URL's to the new URL's 3 weeks ago. Note: We didn't yet update the sitemap for this test (technical reasons) and will only do this once we 301 redirect all local pages. For the 18 test pages I manually told the crawlers to index them in webmaster tools. That should do I suppose. **Results so far: **The old url's of the 18 test cities are still generating > 99% of the traffic while the new pages are already indexed (see: https://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:www.3dhubs.com/3d-print/&start=0). Overall organic traffic on test cities hasn't changed. Questions: 1. Will updating the sitemap for this test have a big impact? Google has already picked up the new URL's so that's not the issue. Furthermore, the 301 redirect on the old pages should tell Google to show the new page instead, right? 2. Is it normal that search impressions will slowly shift from the old page towards the new page? How long should I expect it to take before the new pages are consistently shown over the old pages in the SERPS?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robdraaijer0 -
Clarity needed on 301 redirects
Looking to get a bit of clarity on redirects: We're getting ready to launch a new website with a simplified url structure (we're consolidating pages & content) & I already know that I'll have to employ 301 redirects from the old url structure to the new. What I'm not clear about is how specifc I should be. Here's an example of my file structure: Old website: www.website.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JSimmons17
New website: www.website.com Old website: www.website.com/vacations
New website: www.website.com/vacations Old website: www.website.com/vacations/costa-rica
New website: www.website.com/vacations/central-america Old website: www.website.com/vacations/costa-rica/guanacaste
New website: www.website.com/vacations/central-america Old website: www.website.com/vacations/mexico
New website: www.website.com/vacations/central-america Old website: www.website.com/vacations/mexico/cancun
New website: www.website.com/vacations/central-america Old website: www.website.com/vacations/bolivia
New website: www.website.com/vacations/south-america Old website: www.website.com/vacations/bolivia/la-paz
New website: www.website.com/vacations/south-america Do I need to redirect each and every page or would just redirecting just the folder be enough to keep my SEO juice? Many thanks in advance for any help!0 -
New domain purchase 301 and 404 issues. Please help!
We recently purchased www.carwow.com and 301 redirected the site to www.carwow.co.uk (our main domain). The problem is that carwow.com had URLs indexed like www.carwow.com/a-b-c the 301 sends them to carwow.co.uk/a-b-c which obviously doesn't exist so is a 404! What should be done in this situation? Should it be ignored and not re-directed at all, or is there a way to delete/disavow these dead pages? An SEO has advised we redirect all pages to the homepage, but won't that mess up the link profile? Any advice would be great!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JamesPursey0 -
Is it OK to Delete a Page and Move Content to a Another Page without 301 re-direct
I have a page "A" that I want to completely delete and move the written content from A" to page "B". Since I am deleting "A" (not keeping page) is it OK to upload the content from "A" to page "B" and search engines will give "B" credit for the unique content? Or, since the content has already once been indexed on "A", "B" may struggle to get full credit for this new unique content, even though page "A" is deleted?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Remove URLs that 301 Redirect from Google's Index
I'm working with a client who has 301 redirected thousands of URLs from their primary subdomain to a new subdomain (these are unimportant pages with regards to link equity). These URLs are still appearing in Google's results under the primary domain, rather than the new subdomain. This is problematic because it's creating an artificial index bloat issue. These URLs make up over 90% of the URLs indexed. My experience has been that URLs that have been 301 redirected are removed from the index over time and replaced by the new destination URL. But it has been several months, close to a year even, and they're still in the index. Any recommendations on how to speed up the process of removing the 301 redirected URLs from Google's index? Will Google, or any search engine for that matter, process a noindex meta tag if the URL's been redirected?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | trung.ngo0 -
What if a 301 redirect is removed?
Suppose the following scenarios after a 301 redirects from source URL to targent URL is removed. 1. If source URL raises a 404 error, will target URL retained the link juice previously passed from source URL? 2. If source URL starts to show different content than what is showing on target URL, will the previously passed link juice be credited back to the source URL?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bull1350 -
Restructuring/Removing 301 Redirects Due To Newly Optimized Keywords
Just to be clear, this is for one unique page on a website. Also, please see my diagram attached. Let's say that a page's URL was originally /original. So, you optimize the page for a new keyword (keyword 1), and therefore change the URL to /keyword-1. A 301 redirect would then be placed... /original > /keyword-1 However, let's say 6 months down the road you realize that the keyword you optimized the page for (keyword 1) just isn't working. You research for a new keyword, and come up with (keyword 2). So, you'd like to rename the page's URL to /keyword-2. After placing a redirect from the current page (keyword 1) to the 'now' new page (keyword 2), it would look like this... /original > /keyword-1 > /keyword-2 We know that making a server go through more than one redirect slows the server load time, and even more 'link-juice' is lost in translation. Because of this, would it make sense to remove the original redirect and instead place redirects like this? /original > /keyword-2 /keyword-1 > /keyword-2 To me, this would make the most sense for preserving SEO. However, I've read that removing 301 redirects can cause user issues due to browsers caching the now 'removed' redirect. Even if this is ideal for SEO, could it be more work than it's worth? Does anyone have any experience/input on this? If so, I greatly appreciate your time! oDvLl.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LogicalMediaGroup1