OSE link report showing links to 404 pages on my site
-
I did a link analysis on this site mormonwiki.com. And many of the pages shown to be linked to were pages like these http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Planning_a_trip_to_Rome_By_using_Movie_theatre_-_Your_five_Fun_Shows2052752
There happens to be thousands of them and these pages actually no longer exist but the links to them obviously still do. I am planning to proceed by disavowing these links to the pages that don't exist. Does anyone see any reason to not do this, or that doing this would be unnecessary?
Another issue is that Google is not really crawling this site, in WMT they are reporting to have not crawled a single URL on the site. Does anyone think the above issue would have something to do with this? And/or would you have any insight on how to remedy it?
-
The site does have and has had ranking issues since the first Penguin and has really had problems the last few months. And other than some minor things low quality links are really the only problem with the site.
-
Hi,
Adam is correct that the disavow tool should only be used if you think the links are causing you significant ranking problems. It's become quite common for people to disavow links without either a confirmed penalty or ranking issues, but those two factors were originally how Google recommended the tool be used.
What it sounds like has happened to your site with these bad pages is that spammers have created spam pages on the wiki then pointed links to those pages from elsewhere. It's a very common and old spam tactic, used on sites that allow UGC.
Those pages are now returning 404s, so technically the inbound links pointing to them should not hurt your website or cause a penalty. It's generally assumed the links to 404 pages (good or bad links) don't hurt or help. I disagree that they'll cause a "bad user experience" as it sounds like they have been built for spam purposes only - no one is going to try and visit these links.
If you believe these links are causing a ranking issue, the disavowal tool is certainly an option - I take it there's no chance you can negotiate these links' removal with the folks who built them? Removing links is always preferable to using disavowal also.
-
If you are seeing zero pages indexed and zero traffic from search then I would assume you have perhaps verified and subsequently are looking at data for the non-www version of the domain.
Double check that the site listed in WMT is www.mormonwiki.com and not mormonwiki.com. If you are looking at indexation and traffic data for the www version then there may be something else going on and unfortunately I wouldn't be able to diagnose the issue without looking at the WMT account.
Have your rankings been significantly affected? You would need to perform a fair amount of analysis before you can conclude that the site has been affected algorithmically. You would also need to be sure that any negative impact to rankings is a result of poor quality links and not something else, such as on-page factors.
Using the disavow should really be a last resort and only if it has been impossible to get troublesome links removed. As the warning from Google states, the disavow feature 'can potentially harm your site's performance' so I would not recommend using it until you have performed more in-depth analysis.
-
Right so if the pages no longer exist they need to be gotten rid of right? Most of these won't be removed by the webmasters and so they'll need to be disavowed right?
These pages were UGC and are essentially spam, and entirely irrelevant to anything on the site itself. So 301 redirects would not be wise or useful I don't think.
-
It hasn't received a manual action no. But that doesn't mean algorthimically the site isn't being affected.
So you're saying to not worry at all about these links?
They offer nothing in terms of value. If going to live pages they would be considered very spammy and completely irrelevant. But since these pages don't even exist you're saying it's unnecessary to bother with them at all?
I'm seeing the crawlability issue in WMT itself. The strange thing is that I know some pages have been indexed, we get most of our traffic organically from Google. But WMT shows zero pages indexed, zero traffic from search etc. The site has been verified as well.
-
I agree with Adam, if the links are natural then there is no need to disavow them.
However, if the links go to pages that no longer exist then it provides a poor user experience that can harm your rankings. Think of it like having dead links on your website. Have you set up 301 redirects for the pages that have become inactive? If not, set them up and make sure to redirect the pages to relevant areas of the website (no all to the homepage). Do this and the links should pass more juice and your website's performance should improve.
-
Are you performing a link analysis because the site received a manual action notification in WMT? If the site hasn't received a penalty then there is no need to use the disavow feature. As Google states:
'This is an advanced feature and should only be used with caution. If used incorrectly, this feature can potentially harm your site’s performance in Google’s search results. We recommend that you disavow backlinks only if you believe you have a considerable number of spammy, artificial, or low-quality links pointing to your site, and if you are confident that the links are causing issues for you. In most cases, Google can assess which links to trust without additional guidance, so most normal or typical sites will not need to use this tool.'
In terms of the crawlability of the site, where are you seeing WMT reporting to have not crawled a single page? A simple site: search of the mormonwiki.com domain returns about 65,600 results and I can't see any major issues that would prevent search engines from crawling the site. However, I would probably fix the issue with the robots.txt file. Currently, www.mormonwiki.com/robots.txt 301 redirects to www.mormonwiki.com/Robots.txt, which returns a 404 error.
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
-
Should remove 404 page
Hello, I upload a new website with new web addresses and my current addresses don't work anymore. I don't want to do redirects. Should I just remove the old address from google index using their tool or let google do it on its own. Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics1 -
Same page Anchor Links vs Internal Link (Cannibalisation)
Hey Mozzers, I have a very long article page that supports several of my sub-category pages. It has sub-headings that link out to the relevant pages. However the article is very long and to make it easier to find the relevant section I was debating adding inpage anchor links in a bullet list at the top of the page for quick navigation. PAGE TITLE Keyword 1 Keyword 2 etc <a name="'Keyword1"></a> Keyword 1 Content
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ATP
<a name="'Keyword2"></a> Keyword 2 Content Because of the way my predecessor wrote this article, its section headings are the same as the sub-categories they link out to and boost (not ideal but an issue I will address later). What I wondered is if having the inpage achor would confuse the SERPS because they would be linking with the same keyword. My worry is that by increasing userbility of the article by doing this I also confuse them SERPS First I tell them that this section on my page talk about keyword 1. Then from in that article i tell them that a different page entirely is about the same keyword. Would linking like this confuse SERPS or are inpage anchor links looked upon and dealt with differently?0 -
Google de-indexed a page on my site
I have a site which is around 9 months old. For most search terms we rank fine (including top 3 rankings for competitive terms). Recently one of our pages has been fluctuating wildly in the rankings and has now disappeared altogether from the rankings for over 1 week. As a test I added a similar page to one of my other sites and it ranks fine. I've checked webmaster tools and there is nothing of note there. I'm not really sure what to do at this stage. Any advice would me much appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | deelo5550 -
Site wide internal links in footer
I have had a long discussion with a client and their external SEO partner about their current footer. They have added all their product categories, both main and sub, to the footer. From a pure SEO perspective is it still advisable, after all the pandas and penguines, to stay away from keyword important site wide footer linking to internal pages? As the links will become a repeatable element and also containing the most important keywords, isn't the links actually hurting more than helping? With 5000 index pages, it will risk "marking" the most important keywords as repeatable, lowering ranking, instead of increasing as their external part say.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Macaper1 -
Can Linking Between Your Own Sites Excessively Be a Penguin No-No?
I have a bunch of travel-related sites that for a long time dominated google.com.au without any intensive SEO whatsoever. Aside from solid on-page content and meta tag, I did no link building. However, all of my sites are heavily interlinked, and I think they are linked with do follow links and lots of anchor texts. Here are a few of them: www.beautifulpacific.com www.beautifulfiji.com www.beautifulcooklands.com My idea in inter-linking them was to create a kind of branded "Beautiful" nexus of sites. However, when Penguin hit -- which I believe was on April 27th -- search traffic crashed, and has crashed over and over again. I've read that Penguin penalized over-optimization vis a vis anchor text links. I don't have a lot of inbound links like these, but they are everywhere among my sites. Is it possible that all of my text links have hurt me with Penguin? Thanks to everyone in advance for your time and attention. I really appreciate it. -Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RCNOnlineMarketing0 -
Linking to bad sites
Hi, I just have a quick question. Is it very negative to link to "bad" sites, such as online pharmacies, dating, adult sites, that sort of stuff? How much does linking to a "bad" site negatively affect a "good" site? Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | salvyy0 -
"site" operator and pages
Hi folks, We are having trouble in indexing, We have certain pages which are not coming in results when I am using the site operator in Google. for e.g. : sitename.com/widgets/red They are not showing any link results in Google webmaster tools too. But the pages which only linked through them are displaying in results when I am using site operator. for e.g: sitename.com/widgets/red/large We are redirecting some of the search which are close or exact match to the respective pages for e.g: sitename.com/search/red --> sitename.com/widgets/red We are fluctuating on rankings too in google serps form top ppositions to no where, for sitename.com/widgets/red and most of the times when google shows sitename.com/search/red instead of itename.com/widgets/red. Can you please put a light on this issues.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | semshah1430
