Site architecture change - +30,000 404's in GWT
-
So recently we decided to change the URL structure of our online e-commerce catalogue - to make it easier to maintain in the future.
But since the change, we have (partially expected) +30K 404's in GWT - when we did the change, I was doing 301 redirects from our Apache server logs but it's just escalated.
Should I be concerned of "plugging" these 404's, by either removing them via URL removal tool or carry on doing 301 redirections? It's quite labour intensive - no incoming links to most of these URL's, so is there any point?
Thanks,
Ben
-
Hi Ben,
The answer to your question boils down to usability and link equity:
- Usability: Did the old URLs get lots of Direct and Referring traffic? E.g., do people have them bookmarked, type them directly into the address bar, or follow links from other sites? If so, there's an argument to be made for 301 redirecting the old URLs to their equivalent, new URLs. That makes for a much more seamless user experience, and increases the odds that visitors from these traffic sources will become customers, continue to be customers, etc.
- Link equity: When you look at a Top Pages report (in Google Webmaster Tools, Open Site Explorer, or ahrefs), how many of those most-linked and / or best-ranking pages are old product URLs? If product URLs are showing up in these reports, they definitely require a 301 redirect to an equivalent, new URL so that link equity isn't lost.
However, if (as is common with a large number of ecommerce sites), your old product URLs got virtually zero Direct or Referring traffic, and had virtually zero deep links, then letting the URLs go 404 is just fine. I think I remember a link churn report in the early days of LinkScape when they reported that something on the order of 80% of the URLs they had discovered would be 404 within a year. URL churn is a part of the web.
If you decide not to 301 those old URLs, then you simply want to serve a really consistent signal to engines that they're gone, and not coming back. Recently, JohnMu from Google suggested recently that there's a tiny difference in how Google treats 404 versus 410 response codes - 404s are often re-crawled (which leads to those 404 error reports in GWT), whereas 410 is treated as a more "permanent" indicator that the URL is gone for good, so 410s are removed from the index a tiny bit faster. Read more: http://www.seroundtable.com/google-content-removal-16851.html
Hope that helps!
-
Hi,
Are you sure these old urls are not being linked from somewhere (probably internally)? Maybe the sitemap.xml was forgotten and is pointing to all the old urls still? I think that for 404's to show in GWT there needs to be a link to them from somewhere, so in the first instance in GWT go to the 404s and have a look at where they are linked from (you can do this with moz reports also). If it is an internal page like a sitemap, or some forgotten menu/footer feature or similar that is still linking to old pages then yes you certainly want to clear this up! If this is the case, once you have fixed the internal linking issues you should have significantly reduced list of 404s and can then concentrate on these on a more case by case basis (assuming they are being triggered by external links).
Hope that helps!
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
-
Why isn't Moz recognizing meta description tags using SLIM?
Hey All, I keep getting reports from Moz that many of my pages are missing meta description tags. We use SLIM for our website, and I'm wondering if anyone else has had the same issue getting Moz to recognize that the meta descriptions exist. We have a default layout that we incorporate into every page on our site. In the head of that layout, we've included our meta description parameters: meta description ='#{current_page.data.description}' Then each page has its own description, which is recognized by the source code http://fast.customer.io/s/viewsourcelocalhost4567_20140519_154013_20140519_154149.png Any ideas why Moz still isn't recognizing that we have meta descriptions? -Nora, Customer.io
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | sudonim0 -
International web site - duplicate content?
I am looking at a site offering different language options via a javascript drop down chooser. Will google flag this as duplicate content? Should I recommend the purchase of individual domains for each country? i.e. .uk
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | bakergraphix_yahoo.com1 -
Removing/ Redirecting bad URL's from main domain
Our users create content for which we host on a seperate URL for a web version. Originally this was hosted on our main domain. This was causing problems because Google was seeing all these different types of content on our main domain. The page content was all over the place and (we think) may have harmed our main domain reputation. About a month ago, we added a robots.txt to block those URL's in that particular folder, so that Google doesn't crawl those pages and ignores it in the SERP. We now went a step further and are now redirecting (301 redirect) all those user created URL's to a totally brand new domain (not affiliated with our brand or main domain). This should have been done from the beginning, but it wasn't. Any suggestions on how can we remove all those original URL's and make Google see them as not affiliated with main domain?? or should we just give it the good ol' time recipe for it to fix itself??
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | redcappi0 -
Are multiple domains spammy if they're similar but different
A client currently has a domain of johnsmith.com (not actual site name, of course). I’m considering splitting this site into multiple domains, which will include brand name plus keyword, such as: Johnsmithlandclearing.com Johnsmithdirtwork.com Johnsmithdemolition.com Johnsmithtimercompany.com Johnsmithhydroseeding.com johnsmithtreeservice.com Each business is unique enough and will cross-link to the other. My questions are: 1) will Google consider cross-linking spammy? 2) what happens to johnsmith.com? Should it redirect to new site with the largest market share, or should it become an umbrella for all? 3) Any pitfalls foreseen? I've done a fair amount of due diligence and feel these separate domains are legit, but am paranoid that Google will not see it that way, or may change direction in the future.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SteveMauldin0 -
How many times should one submit the same article to various websites? 1 time? 10 times? What is okay to do with the most recent Panda update?'
For link-building purposes, seemingly it was okay to post the same article to multiple sites for links in the past. However, after the most recent Panda update our thought is that this may not be a good practice. So the question is, how many times is okay to submit an article for link building purposes. Should you always only submit to one site? Is it okay to do more than once? What is the right way to submit for link-building in Google's eyes? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Robertnweil10 -
750,000 pv/month due to webspam. What to do?
Let's say your user-generated content strategy is wildly successful, in a slightly twisted sense: webspammers fill it with online streaming sports teasers and the promise of "Weeds season 7 episode 11." As a result of hard SEO work done to build the profile of the domain, these webspam pages seem to rank well in Google, and deliver nearly 750k pageviews, and many many unique visitors, to the site every month. The ad-sales team loves the traffic boost. Overall traffic, uniques, and search numbers look rosy. What do you do? a) let it ride b) throw away roughly half your search traffic overnight by deleting all the spam and tightening the controls to prevent spammers from continuing to abuse the site There are middle-ground solutions, like using NOINDEX more liberally on UGC pages, but the end result is the same as option (b) even if it takes longer to get there.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mcglynn0 -
Competitors have local "mirror" sites
I have noticed that some of my competitors have set up "mirror" homepages set up for different counties, towns, or suburbs. In one case the mirror homepages are virtually identical escept for the title and in the other case about half of the content id duplicate and the other half is different. both of these competors have excellent rankings and traffic. I am surprised about these results, does anyone care to comment about it and is this a grey hat technique that is likely to be penalized eventually. thx Diogenes
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | diogenes0