Thoughts about stub pages - 200 & noindex ok, or 404?
-
With large database/template driven websites it is often possible to get a lot of pages with no content on them.
What are the current thoughts regarding these pages with no content, options;
-
Return a 200 header code with noindex meta tag
-
Return a 404 page & header code
-
Something else?
Thanks
-
-
I would agree with all the comments on how to technically deal with the random pages, but it is a losing battle until you get your website database/templates under control. I once had a similar issue and had to work months to get a solution in place as the website would create all kinds of issues like this.
We had to implement a system so that the creation of these pages would be minimized. I think the issue is that you need to make sure that any random page requests, make sure they get a 404 to start with so that the URL does not get indexed to start with.
That said, all the random URLs that are already indexed, I like the 200 options with the noindex meta tag. My reasons: This is because otherwise with the 404s you get all these error messages that are meaningless in GWT. The noindex also gets the page out of the index. I have seen Google retry 404s on one of our sites, crazy. Ever since Google started showing soft 404s for 301s that redirect many pages to a single URL, I only try to use 301s on more of a one to one basis.
Good luck.
-
Ok, a understand better. I have the same problem with a Site un Drupal, I think is better use a robot.txt to block the empty pages.
These because the link juice that the page transfere is minimum and use extra resources from the server.
If you can't block with robots.txt the noindex,follow meta es ok. But if you see in Analytics that some Landing Pages are www.example.com/product/ {} random_text_here es better use a 404 with redirect 301 to Site Map for user experience.
-
Thanks for the info.
For more information, let me try and explain the scenario a little better.
When using a template to generate all product page on a site, often these are designed in a way so that any URLs of the form "www.example.com/product/{something}" will map to a script called "GenerateProductPage.java" likely based on the rule that anything in the /product/ directory will map there (or .asp etc depending on the language being used).
On the site, there are only going to be links to the actual products that are stored in the DB, so for a user there are no issues there.
But Google manages to find all manor of strange URLs and since they are of the form "www.example.com/product/{random_text_here}" then this also will 'try' and generate a product page. Since there is no actual product in the database called 'random_text_here' then this will result in an empty product page with nothing there except the template navigation, footer links and menus etc.
We currently are doing as you mentioned, by "noindex, follow" the pages for the same reasons you listed.
So the question was; is this ok to do? is this bad to do? (if so why). Is there any harm in doing things the current way? Should we be 404'ig the pages (and what value does this have over the other methods?) etc.
Thanks for your input Carlo as it shows your thoughts are along the same lines as ours.
Has anyone else got anything to add to the information provided?
Thanks
-
Hi, mmm, I not really sure that understand why you have invalid pages, options:
- Products without stock
- Is build based in other database
If you have a product name without content is better a meta noindex, follow because transferred link juice.
But like I say I dont know why these products exist. If you have more info I could help more
-
Thanks for the response.
I guess what I was getting at with the question is when websites are built on flexible platforms and can easily create these pages automatically.
For example, if there was flexible URLs in place whereby URLs such as www.example.com/product/{product_name} all mapped to one script which generated a product page.
So www.example.com/product/{invalid_product_name} would also work and essentially show a blank product page.
The question being, how is the best way to handle these for Google and is there any benefit/harm from either of the methods outlined in the original question.
Has anyone else any thoughts on best ways to handle these scenarios?
Thanks
-
If you know that a Page doesn't have content I recomend:
- A page without content have to response 404.
- If the Page return a 404 make a 301 to Site map.
- In the Site Map use meta noindex, follow to transfer the link juice.
- Eventually you need clean these pages because is bad for users and SEO.
Regards
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
-
Is my page being indexed?
To put you all in context, here is the situation, I have pages that are only accessible via an intern search tool that shows the best results for the request. Let's say i want to see the result on page 2, the page 2 will have a request in the url like this: ?p=2&s=12&lang=1&seed=3688 The situation is that we've disallowed every URL's that contains a "?" in the robots.txt file which means that Google doesn't crawl the page 2,3,4 and so on. If a page is only accessible via page 2, do you think Google will be able to access it? The url of the page is included in the sitemap. Thank you in advance for the help!
Technical SEO | | alexrbrg0 -
How can a keyword placed on a page with the Moz page optimization score of 100 be ranked #51+?
Hi, Please help me figure out why this is happening and what goes wrong. This is the example of the poor ranked keyword - 'viking cooktop repair' with page optimization score of 100 (http://www.yourappliancerepairla.com/blog/viking-cooktop-repair/) Yet it's ranking is #51+. I've got many like these: Page Optimization Score for 'kitchenaid oven repair' is 100 (http://www.yourappliancerepairla.com/blog/kitchenaid-oven-repair/) yet its ranking is #51+ And so on. According to Google Search Console, I have 266 of links to my site with variety of root domains. While building backlinks, I paid attention to relevancy and DA.What else do I have to do to get those keywords ranked higher? And why don't they rank well if the pages are 100% optimized, not keywords stuffed and I have quality backlinks? What am I missing out on? Please help!
Technical SEO | | kirupa1 -
Contact Page
I'm currently designing a new website for my wife, who just started her own wedding/engagement photography business. I'm trying to build it as SEO friendly as possible, but she brought up an idea that she likes that I've never tried before. Typically on all the websites I've ever built, I've had a dedicated contact page that has the typical contact form. Because that contact form on a wedding photographers website is almost as important as selling a product on an e-commerce site, she brought up the possibility of putting the contact form in the footer site-wide (minus maybe the homepage) rather than having a dedicated contact page. And in the navigation, where you have links such as "Home", "Portfolio", "About", "Prices", "Contact", etc. the "Contact" navigation item would transfer the user to the bottom of the page they are on rather than a new page. Any thoughts on which way would be better for a case like this, and any positives/negatives for doing it each way? One thought I had is that if it's in the footer rather than it's own page, it would lose it's search-ability as it's technically duplicate content on each page. But then again, that's what a footer is. Thanks, Mickey
Technical SEO | | shannmg10 -
Medium sizes forum with 1000's of thin content gallery pages. Disallow or noindex?
I have a forum at http://www.onedirection.net/forums/ which contains a gallery with 1000's of very thin-content pages. We've currently got these photo pages disallowed from the main googlebot via robots.txt, but we do all the Google images crawler access. Now I've been reading that we shouldn't really use disallow, and instead should add a noindex tag on the page itself. It's a little awkward to edit the source of the gallery pages (and keeping any amends the next time the forum software gets updated). Whats the best way of handling this? Chris.
Technical SEO | | PixelKicks0 -
When we have 301 page is a Rel=Canonical needed or should we make 1 Noindex?
Hi, When we have a page as 301 (Permanent Redirect) is a Rel=Canonical needed or should we make 1 Noindex? Example http://www.Somename.com/blog/138760 when clicked goes to http://www.Somename.com/blogs/whenittyam Should i noindex the below pages http://www.Somename.com/blog/138760 and add Rel=Canonical Thanks
Technical SEO | | mtthompsons0 -
Splitting Page Authority with two URLs for the same page.
Hello guys, My website is currently holding two different URLs for the same page and I am under the impression such set up is dividing my Page Authority and Link Juice. We currently have the following page with both URLs below: www.wbresearch.com/soldiertechnologyusa/home.aspx
Technical SEO | | JoaoPdaCosta-WBR
www.wbresearch.com/soldiertechnologyusa/ Analysing the page authority and backlinks I identified that we are splitting the amount of backlinks (links from sites, social media and therefore authority). "/home.aspx"
PA: 67
Linking Root Domains: 52
Total Links: 272 "/"
PA: 64
Linking Root Domains: 29
Total Links: 128 I am under the impression that if the URLs were the same we would maximise our backlinks and therefore page authority. My Question: How can I fix this? Should I have a 301 redirect from the page "/" to the "/home.aspx" therefore passing the authority and link juice of “/” directly to “/homes.aspx”? Trying to gather thoughts and ideas on this, suggestions are much appreciated? Thanks!0 -
Is it bad to have your pages as .php pages?
Hello everyone, Is it bad to have your website pages indexed as .php? For example, the contact page is site.com/contact.php and not /contact. Does this affect your SEO rankings in any way? Is it better to have your pages without the extension? Also, if I'm working with a news site and the urls are dynamic for every article (ie site.com/articleid=2323.) Should I change all of those dynamic urls to static? Thank You.
Technical SEO | | BruLee0 -
Renaming of pages
About 2 months ago one of our clients renamed a section of his website. The worst part is that the URLs of the page also changed. New page: http://www.meresverige.dk/rejser/malmo Old page: http://www.meresverige.dk/rejser/malmoe The problem now is that the new page get absolutely no page-rank transfered from the old page. It also get no mozrank at all. Also if I try to find it in the Open Site Explorer it can not be found.The old page can, but not the new one. We have updated the sitemap.xml and also done proper 301 redirect for the pages since about 2 months. Any ideas here? This page was a very important page in terms of traffic so very much thankful for any input. Have a great day Fredrik
Technical SEO | | Resultify0