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
-
Server and multiple sites
We have multiple sites selling similar products in different ways but have always kept them separate on the off chance that google does not like it or they penalize one site. We have always put them on different servers but now thinking for performance as they are on shared hosting to put them on a single server which would be our own but we do not know the SEO considerations. We can assign multiple IPs to a server but I am not 100% sure whether there is still a negative impact of running multiple sites on the same server even if from a different IP. Any help would be appreciated, what I am really asking is could if they are on the same server with different IP's be still linked together by google?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
Two sites, heavily cross linking, targeting the same keyword - is this a battle worth fighting?
Hi Mozzers, Would appreciate your input on this, as many people have differing views on this when asked... We manage 2 websites for the same company (very different domains) - both sites are targeting the same primary keyword phrase, however, the user journey should incorporate both websites, and therefore the sites are very heavily cross linked - so we can easily pass a user from one site to another. Whilst site 1 is performing well for the target keyword phrase, site 2 isn't. Site 1 is always around 2 to 3 rank, however we've only seen site 2 reach the top of page 2 in SERPs at best, despite a great deal of white hat optimisation, and is now on the decline. There's also a trend (all be it minimal) of when site 1 improves in rank, site 2 drops. Because the 2 sites are so heavily inter-linked could Google be treating them as one site, and therefore dropping site 2 in the SERPs, as it is in Google's interests to show different, relevant sites?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | A_Q0 -
Pleasing the Google Gods & Not DeIndexing my site.
Hey Mozzers, So plenty of you who follow these threads have come across my posts and have read bits and pieces of the strange dark dark gray hat webspace that I have found myself in. So I'm currently doing some research and I wanted all of your opinion too. Will Google always notify you before they stop indexing your website? Will Google always allow you back if you do get pulled? Does Google give a grace period where they say "fix in 30 days?"? What is every bodies experience with all of this?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | HashtagHustler0 -
301, 302, 404 or 410
Hello, We have an ecommerce site and it's very normal for products to be discontinued by the manufacturer. We used to leave the pages up to keep the content and link equity. Now we feel this is misleading for the customer and we have started to remove pages for discontinued items. Customers trying to reach these pages get a nice Product Not Found page with an explanation and links to categories. The shopping cart sends a 302 code. Google Webmaster Tools was complaining about "soft 404's" and apparently didn't like this. We tried changing to a 404 return code but couldn't get the nice Product Not Found page to display. Plus, GWT and SEOmoz started to complain about 404 errors. I think we've reached a solution where we can send a 301 and still display the desired Product Not Found page. This might be the best solution. We'll see if we get errors from SEOmoz or GWT. However, a 410 return code would probably be most correct but we'd like to salvage any link equity we can but we really want to be "good citizens" and do things right. Should we really be sending a 410 in this case even if we lose seo equity or are we OK with the 301 and the nice information page? Thanks, Tom
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | tomcox0 -
Same template site same products but different content?
for the sake of this post I am selling lighters. I have 3 domains small-lighters.com medium-lighter.com large-lighters.com On all of the websites I have the same template same images etc and same products. The only difference is the way the content is worded described etc different bullet points. My domains are all strong keyword domains not spammy and bring in type in traffic. Is it ok to continue in this manner in your opinion?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dynamic080 -
Hi, I found that one of my competitors have zero backlings in google, zero in yahoo but about 50.000 in Bing. How is that possible?
Hi, I found that one of my competitors have zero backlings in google, zero in yahoo but about 50.000 in Bing. How is that possible? I assumed that all search engines would finde the backlinks. Besides that he ranks fair well and better than I do with only a single site and with only one article of content while I have a lot of content and sites. I do not undersdtand why he is ranking better in google, while google assumingly does not see any backlinks of the 50.000 bing is finding. Thx, Dan
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | docschmitti0 -
Somebody hacked many sites and put links to my sites in hidden div
I had 300 good natural links to my site from different sites and site ranked great for my keywords. Somebody (I suppose my competitor) has hacked other sites 2 days ago (checked Google cache) and now Yahoo Site Explorer shows 600 backlinks. I've checked new links - they all are in the same hidden div block - top:-100px; position:absolute;. I'm afraid that Google may penalize my site for these links. I'm contacting webmasters of these sites and their hosting so they remove these links. Is it possible to give Google a notice that these links are not mine so it could just skip them not penalizing me? Is it safe to make "Spam report" regarding links to my own site?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | zarades0 -
Is it possible that since the Google Farmer's Update, that people practicing Google Bowling can negatively affect your site?
We have hundreds of random bad links that have been added to our sites across the board that nobody in our company paid for. Two of our domains have been penalized and three of our sites have pages that have been penalized. Our sites are established with quality content. One was built in 2007, the other in 2008. We pay writers to contribute quality and unique content. We just can't figure out a) Why the sites were pulled out of Google indexing suddenly after operating well for years b) Where the spike in links came from. Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dahnyogaworks0