Should there be a canonical tag on my 404 error page?
-
In my crawl diagnostics, I notice some 4xx client errors. They are appearing for pages that no longer exist, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Shouldn't they just be dealt as 404's?
Anyway, on closer inspection I noticed that my 404 error page contains a canonical tag which points to the missing page. Could this be the issue? Is it a good idea to remove the canonical tag from this error page?
Thanks.
-
I repeated this elsewhere, but I think canonical on 404 page does make sense, especially if you consider the following two statements true:
- There is a reason for 404s, don't 301 everything
- There is no reason to lose the value of someone linking to your page.
If those 2 statements are true then you should create an individual error page, and then everytime you serve a 404 you should include canonical to that error page. That page should have useful content (explanation of page missing and where you could go), probably a search box, and links to the most valuable content on your site. This satisfies both points.
-
1 there is no point having canonical on a 404 page. I would say its a very confusing signal to bots
2 don't always 301. 404 exists for a reason. In most cases I will 301 old pages but there are cases where letting pages 404 is the correct way forward
-
If the old pages are NOINDEX, are the old inbound links still passed on to the new page via the 301's. and is the google juice passed? I've wanted to do exactly what you suggest, but was afraid of severing the Linking credit from those old inbounds.
-
The canonical tag on errorpages make no sense! For gone webpages just setup a 301 redirect in the .htaccess. And make use of the Google webmaster tools to identify waht Google sees.
-
Discovering 404s can be useful.
Is the old page deleted? Why not 301 redirect the URL to an appropriate page elsewhere on your site? Tools such as Screaming Frog's SEO Spider can crawl your website and help you discover 404s. By redirecting the page with a permanent redirect search engines will to pass any link juice the previous page had to the new page. Redirecting will also cleanup your pages in the SERPs and help with any broken internal links on your site (though it'd be better to fix those).
There's no need to having a rel=canonical tag on a 404 page (but if you do, ensure the tag is for the page itself and not actual content on your site).
There's also no need for search engines to index your 404 page, so I suggest adding the meta NOINDEX tag to the 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
-
Canonical Tags for Legacy Duplicate Content
I've got a lot of duplicate pages, especially products, and some are new but most have been like this for a long time; up to several years. Does it makes sense to use a canonical tag pointing to one master page for each product. Each page is slightly different with a different feature and includes maybe a sentence or two that is unique but everything else is the same.
Technical SEO | | AmberHanson0 -
Question about spammy links to 404 Pages we never created ...
FYI I'm a beginner within the company, so this might be a basic question, but ...I was going through open site explorer and checking www.partnermd.com for opportunities to reclaim links and I found a bunch of 404 pages that we never created that had nothing to do with the business. Out of curiousity, I plugged in one of the weird links like this one:http://www.partnermd.com/images/2015-best-space-heater-best-wers.html into open site explorer and found several bad spammy links pointing to it. When I clicked on one of them I got a notice that the site might have been hacked.I did some research and it looks like Google doesn't penalize you for spammy links to 404 pages, but how do we prevent this from occurring in the first place if possible?
Technical SEO | | WhittingtonConsulting1 -
Meta tags in Single Page Apps
Since the deprecation of the AJAX Crawling Scheme back last October I am curious as to when Googlebot actually reads meta tag information from a page. We have a website at whichledlight.com that is implemented using emberjs. Part of the site is our results pages (i.e. gu10-led-bulbs). This page updates the meta and link tags in the head of the document for things like canonicalisation and robots, but can only do so after the page finishes loading and the JavaScript has been run.When the AJAX crawling scheme was still in place we were able to prerender these pages (including the modified meta and link tags) and serve these to Googlebot. Now Googlebot no longer uses these prerendered snapshots and instead is sophisticated enough load and run our site.So the question I have is does Googlebot read the meta and links tags downloaded from the original response or does it wait until the page finishes rendering before reading them (including any modifications that have been performed on them)
Technical SEO | | TrueluxGroup1 -
Search pages showing up as soft 404 in WMT
Hi ....we are getting allot of "site search" pages showing up in wmt as soft 404's and wanted to know what the best would be to stop this. All search pages are already noindex follow but maybe we should block them in robots txt as well. Would the below help to solve this ? User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | nomad-202323
Disallow: /?s=
Disallow: /search/ Any other suggestions or direction would be appreciated to prevent these pages showing up as soft 404's tks0 -
Can Title Tag be seen in the page source, but not seen by search engines?
This is a follow up question derived from a previous question I posted - http://moz.com/community/q/does-title-tag-location-in-a-page-s-source-code-matter There have been several reputable crawl tools used on our (including Moz) site that state we are missing title tags on may pages. One such page is http://www.paintball-online.com/Paintball-Guns-And-Markers-0Y.aspx I can see the title tag on line 238 of the page source. I find it unlikely that there is an issue with the crawl tools. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Nick
Technical SEO | | Istoresinc0 -
Is the seomoz on-page factor :Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical working properly?
I have a word press site with a rel canonical plug in. The rel="canonical" href= is there and the url in there works and goes to the actual page.So why does the seomoz keep giving the warning: Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
Technical SEO | | CurtCarroll0 -
Two different canonical tags on one page
Due to an error, some of my pages now have two canonical tags on them. One is correct and the other goes to a nonsense URL (404 page). I know I should ideally remove the incorrect ones, but it's a big manual job. Are they doing any harm? Can I just leave them there and let Google figure it out? The correct ones are higher up in the code. Will this make a difference? Any help appreciated.
Technical SEO | | ShearingsGroup0 -
On-Page Report Card & Rel Canonical
Hello, I ran one of our pages through the On-Page Report Card. Among the results we are getting a lower grade due to the following "critical factor" : Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Explanation If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL. Recommendation We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply. This is for an e-commerce site, and the canonical links are inserted automatically by the cart software. The cart is also creating the canonical url as a relative link, not an absolute URL. In this particular case it's a self-referential link. I've read a ton on this and it seems that this should be okay (I also read that Bing might have an issue with this). Is this really an issue? If so, what is the best practice to pass this critical factor? Thanks, Paul
Technical SEO | | rwilson-seo0