301 Directs
-
We have found a lot of 404 error pages that we have transferred with 301 directs.
My questions is, should these 301 directs be marked as a NF (nofollow)?
-
Haa!
I love that infographic Greg! We have a printed version on our war room wall
-
- No you should not use NF (nofollow) on your 301 redirects. Make sure when redirecting your 404's that you are redirecting them to a relevant page.
- Never NoFollow 301s unless it an affiliate link if for instance you had the site that allowed someone to sign up and you are compensated financially for that person signing up on your website then you would use the nofollow tag. Here is it URL discussing what I'm talking about Example of affiliate links
- If you did add NoFollow on your code change it ASAP an instance of when you may see it used is when somebody puts a URL in the comment box of any major blogging platform for instance no follow is built into comments on WordPress but that's all automatic. Meaning you do not have to add the no follow I bring this up only if this involves you checking your code.
- You should never know follow a link that is internal you would destroy your ability to be found online. Outside of the affiliate link scenario I gave above.
Greg
-
Google will eventually get rid of them. If you have similar pages to the ones that are 404 errors, then you should redirect them. If you don't then best practice is to let them fall off.
However, if you had key terms ranking on page 1 or 2 on those pages I would definitely redirect them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp5Nf8ANfOw This is a video by Matt Cutts where he kind of tells you how to handle these errors effectively
-
No, you don't want to NoFollow 301s. The point of a 301 permanent redirect is for "everyone to be redirected" - users, search bots, & link juice - but adding NoFollow would prevent this.
-
We have had 404 errors for over a month now through Moz. These are of high priority to be taken care of as well, so leaving it for Google to get rid of sounds very discouraging. These links are not ones we use on our site anymore and that is why we've been re-directing.
-
I think 404's should be 404's as if someone is linking to pages that don't exist, a 404 is the best response. Google and bots will see a 404 and remove that url.
301's are more useful when reorganizing a site and traffic (inbound links, search traffic) come in to old urls. To just redirect all 404s as a 301 us not usefull I would say.
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
-
After 301 redirect
hello i do after 301 redirect from old domain to new since 3 month ago my qa : should i replace the backlinks links to new doamin Or the he backlinks in the old link will works
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cristophare790 -
Soft 404 error for a big, longstanding 301-redirected page
Hi everyone, Years ago, we acquired a website that had essentially 2 prominent homepages - one was like example.com and the other like example.com/htm... They served the same purpose basically, and were both very powerful, like PR7 and often had double listings for important search phrases in Google. Both pages had amassed considerable powerful links to them. About 4 years ago, we decided to 301 redirect the example.com/htm page to our homepage to clean up the user experience on our site and also, we hoped, to make one even stronger page in serps, rather than two less strong pages. Suddenly, in the past couple weeks, this example.com/htm 301-ed page started appearing in our Google Search Console as a soft 404 error. We've never had a soft 404 error before now. I tried marking this as resolved, to see if the error would return or if it was just some kind of temporary blip. The error did return. So my questions are:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_R
1. Why would this be happening after all this time?
2. Is this soft 404 error a signal from Google that we are no longer getting any benefit from link juice funneled to our existing homepage through the example.com/htm 301 redirect? The example.com/htm page still has considerable (albeit old) links pointing to it across the web. We're trying to make sense of this soft 404 observation and any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Eric0 -
301 redirects Ruby on Rails
Can anyone point me to the best way to implement 301 redirects on a Ruby on Rails website?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brianvest0 -
Canonical vs 301 - Web Development
So I'm having a conversation with the development team at my work and I'm a little tired today so I thought I would ask for other opinions. The currently the site duplicates it's full site by having a 200 show with or without a trailing slash. I have asked for a 301 redirect to with the trailing slash. They countered with having all the rel=canonical be the trailing slash, which I know is acceptable. My issue is that while a rel=canonical is acceptable, since my site has a very high level of competition and a very aggressive link building strategy, I believe that it may be beneficial to have the 301 redirect. BUT, I may be wrong. When we're talking hundreds of thousands of links, I would love to have them directly linked instead of possibly splitting them up between a duplicate page that has a correct canonical. I'm curious to what everyone thinks though....
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mattdinbrooklyn1 -
Is it possible to avoid redirect of penalties for 301 forwards?
We have been doing a good amount of competitive research lately and have noticed sites that have been changing their TTLD quite often to escape manual penalties / DCMA filings. An example evolution: brandterm.com -> brandterm.bz -> brandterm.me These competitors are able to quickly rank for money keywords in the top 3 soon after another domain switch. What we have noticed is that while its obvious they received Google penalties they continue to 301 redirect the old domains to the new ones. We have experienced first hand that penalties travel along domains with 301 redirects. Does anyone have an explanation how these companies are able to achieve quickly high volume of organic search while 301-redirecting from burnt domains? The only option I see is to disavow all previous domains in GWT to be able to employ 301 redirects without risking carrying over the penalty. Are there other theories ppl can think of? T
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | petersocapro0 -
301 Redirect from unused domain
Hi All First question here so go easy.. I have a property site which is working well so far considering it;s early days, unfortunately some of my earlier efforts did not go so well and one in particular I pretty much destroyed in my attempts to improve the site SEO. Lucky enough my SEO skills have improved quite a bit lately, largely thanks to the great tools, tutorials and experts here at Moz 🙂 My question is whether I can use a 301 redirect to pass the domain authority and any link equity from an unused site to the one that ive done a better job on? it would seem a little sketchy to me and I would prefer not to get slapped and penalized "again" for doing something dodgy... Thanks everyone and thanks for all the help over the last 6 months or so.. Wes Dunn
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wesdunn19771 -
Redirect 301 or Canonical.
Hello all, I have a page with a long post title and url path name (more than 70 caracters and 115). This page has many visits but I am changing the SEO website structure according to SEOMOz and forums guidelines so: I WILL CREATE A DUPLICATE PAGE WITH THE SAME INFO. This issue has been marked as an issue in the SEO tools, for long names>70 and url path names>115 My question is which option should I use and you would recommend me? 1. OPTION 1: Ideally I would like to keep the old post, so I should use the canonical tag, but my main concern is if the search engines in terms of SEO, even the canonical has been done, will penalise my SEO as there is still a post with bad SEO optimising, or if this is not the case because I already used the canonical. 2. OPTION 2: Eliminate the post and redirection 301 to the new page to keep the juice. I would prefer option 1, as I keep both post and page, but only if searchengines do not penalise my SEO as they detect a long post name and url path name. Thank you verty much, Antonio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | aalcocer20030 -
Does 301 Redirect solve many problems?
Hi, there are many problems with my site. I have a lot of duplicate page titles and a lot of missing meta tags. However, I think most of them are BECAUSE i have a lot of duplicate pages. So I have read some articles and I will 301 redirect all the duplicated pages. Will this solve the problem with duplicate titles and missing meta tags as well? For example, my homepage has like 10 duplicated pages. Since they are duplicated, they have the same titles and they are all missing meta tags. I am planning to fill in meta tags JUST for the canonical page and redirect all duplicated pages to that page. Is this a good practice? Also, just curious, do different title tags and different meta tag description make the pages "not duplicated?" I assume it will still appear as duplicated.... Sorry if this was confusing...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | waltergah0