Do orphan pages take away link juice?
-
Hi,
Just wondering about this whether the orphan pages take away any link juice? We been creating lot of them these days only to link from external sites as landing pages on our site. So, not linking from any part of our website; just linking from other websites.
Also, will they get any link juice if they are linked from our own blog-post?
Thanks
-
In my opinion - no, as Ifa as I understand Gooogle doesn't look too favourably at the, maybe it assumes that a page with no links from inside its own website has little or no importance.
-
Orphaned pages stand a very, extremely low chance of ranking well in SEO terms. If you don't really want your users to find these pages and don't want to link to them prominently, you are telling Google that the pages are unimportant and (likely) unworthy of indexation. The best content on the web (which Google wants to rank) is celebrated, internally and externally (internal links, backlinks from other sites). It's displayed prominently, because webmasters and editors are proud of that content
Why should Google display a result proudly, if the creator scorns their own content? It sends definite mixed messages to Google. The lack of link-juice flowing to these pages, is but one aspect of a larger problem - which is that the mindset for creating the content was probably wrong
That's not to say that orphaned pages are a terrible scourge on the internet. They have their place, for example they make great landing URLs for specific ad campaigns (Pinterest Ads, LinkedIn Ads, Google Ads, FaceBook Ads etc). But organically, in terms of SEO - they are extremely unlikely to rank well
You can take a fantastically aerodynamic, well optimised automobile to the race track. But if you don't fuel it, and you fuel speculation that it's unreliable by refusing to sit in the seat and drive it... don't expect it to win, don't expect people to get excited over it
-
Hi there! What's the purpose of these landing pages? Are they designed to be findable on Google? Or are they just separate landing pages? It's not uncommon for sites to have landing pages developed for PPC, for example, that aren't indexed because they don't serve a purpose in search.
**If you want people to find these pages on Google - **why are they orphaned? The fact that they aren't getting internal links will be harming them at the very least.
If people finding these pages on Google is not part of the strategy - how many quality links are these pages getting? If not many pages are getting quality links why are they indexed? Adding a noindex tag to these pages could be a clean way to solve this problem.
-
... Yes, would be my best answer. Right now I can't think of a scenario where having an orphaned landing page is a good idea in any case. In most cases, you always want to have a page that is useful for everybody and that can be easily found by a search engine as well. So the worst thing to do, to ensure that the page isn't orphaned would be to create an XML sitemap to still help a search engine to find the actual 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
-
If I have an https page with an http img that redirects to an https img, is it still considered by google to be a mixed content page?
With Google starting to crack down on mixed content I was wondering, if I have an https page with an http img that redirects to an https img, is it still considered by Google to be a mixed content page? e.g. In an old blog article, there are images that weren't updated when the blog migrated to https, but just 301ed to new https images. is it still considered a mixed content page?
Algorithm Updates | | David-Stern0 -
Sizable decrease in amount of pages indexed, however no drop in clicks, impressions, or ranking.
Hi everyone, I've run into a worrying phenomenon in GSC and im wondering if anyone has come across something similar. Since August, I have seen a steady decline in the number of pages that are indexed from my site, from 1.3 million down to about 800,000 in two months. Interestingly, my clicks/impressions continue to increase gradually (on the same pace they have been for months) and I see no other negative side affects resulting from this drop in coverage. In total I have 1.2 million urls that fall into one of three categories, "Crawled - currently not indexed", "Crawl anomaly", and "Discovered - currently not indexed" Some other notes - all of my valid, error, and excluded pages are https://www. , so I don't believe there is an issue with different versions of the same site being submitted. Also, my rankings have not changed so I tentatively believe that this is unrelated to the Medic Update. If anyone else has experienced this or has any insight to the problem I would love to know. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | Jason-Reid0 -
Seeing some really bad sites that ranked in my niche years ago reaching 1st page
It started after the update about 4 websites form the 1st page dropped to the 2nd and 4 of the other sites just popped back to the 1st page and the bad part is that the Da and inbound links of these sites are really bad, so my question is must we just wait this out till Google realises how bad these site are and some of them haven't been updated in years links broken i can go on and on. what these sites have is just the age of the domains, but can this really be the main focus of these results?
Algorithm Updates | | johan80 -
Dofollow Links on Press Releases: Good or Bad?
Hello, I know that Google says that you are supposed to make anchored text links nofollow on press releases, but what about just putting the site url itself (example.com) and making it dofollow? Is that okay?
Algorithm Updates | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Does Google or Bing use words in the page title beyond the displayed limit for ranking purposes?
Standard good practice for on-page SEO includes keeping page title length below the maximum that Google displays in the SERPs. But words in the title beyond that maximum can be indexed, even if they don't show in the SERPs for end users. For ranking purposes, is there any value in words beyond the character limit in page titles that are truncated in the SERPs?
Algorithm Updates | | KyleJB0 -
Having issues claiming a Google+ Business page (phone number not associated with business address)
When attempting to claim my Google+ account, it asks for the phone number. When I enter the number listed on my business listing, it says that number cannot be found... It then tells me to re-enter all my business info. If I do this, will I lose all my existing photos, videos etc.? Has anyone found this?
Algorithm Updates | | DCochrane0 -
Today all of our internal pages all but completely disappeared from google search results. Many of them, which had been optimized for specific keywords, had high rankings. Did google change something?
We had optimized internal pages, targeting specific geographic markets. The pages used the keywords in the url title, the h1 tag, and within the content. They scored well using the SEOmoz tool and were increasing in rank every week. Then all of a sudden today, they disappeared. We had added a few links from textlink.com to test them out, but that's about the only change we made. The pages had a dynamic url, "?page=" that we were about to redirect to a static url but hadn't done it yet. The static url was redirecting to the dynamic url. Does anyone have any idea what happened? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | h3counsel0