Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

404s still showing in GWT

Technical SEO

682

ChannelDigital last edited by

Hi,

My client recently undertook a site migration. Since the new site's gone live GWT has highlighted over 2000 not found errors. These were fixed nearly 2 weeks ago and they're still being listed in GWT.

Do I have to wait for Google to re-crawl the page before they're removed from the list? Or do I need to go through the list, individually check them and mark them as fixed?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
MonicaOConnor last edited by

You definitely need to mark them as fixed in order to remove them. If anything wasn't fixed properly then Google will show them as a 404 again.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 1
DennisSeymour last edited by

Hi!

It probably shows up because other links are still pointing to those urls. If they are now properly redirected then you can just mark them as fixed.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 3

Got a burning SEO question?

Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.

Start my free trial

Browse Questions

View

From

Sorted by

With category

Explore more categories

Related Questions

SERP Review Features show on a non-product page?

When reviewing my campaign's SERP Features, I notice that one of my competitors is gaining a lot of Review Features that I'm missing. I'm ranking high for the keywords that are showing the review features, but not on my product page. I'm ranking for those keywords on blogs and other pages. Is there a way to show for those review features as I currently have it, or should I be trying to rank for those keywords on my product page? I appreciate any insight into this situation.
Technical SEO | | LearningStuff

0
URL Change, Old URLs Still In Index

Recently changed URLs on a website to remove dynamic parameters. We 301'd the old dynamic links (canonical version) to the cleaner parameter-free URLs. We then updated the canonical tags to reflect these changes. All pages dropped at least a few ranking positions and now Moz shows both the new page ranking slightly lower in results pages and the old page still in the index. I feel like I'm splitting value between the two page versions until the old one disappears... is there a way to consolidate this quickly?
Technical SEO | | ShawnW

0
Sitelinks only show when the URL is searched- Why don't they show when our company name is searched?

Why is is that when I search "protonmail.ch", sitelinks show for our company. However when you search for "ProtonMail", no sitelinks show, even though our homepage is now on the top result. We've been trying different things to improve the navigational structure of the homepage, such as using the <nav>tag. If you have any thoughts on why sitelinks might not be showing up, we'd really appreciate it! Thank you </nav>
Technical SEO | | kevinzh

0
Guys & Gals anyone know if urllist.txt is still used?

I'm using a tool which generates urllist.txt and looking on the SEO Forums it seems that Yahoo used to use this. What I'd like to know is is it still used anywhere and should we have it on the site?
Technical SEO | | danwebman

0
Why is Google's cache preview showing different version of webpage (i.e. not displaying content)

My URL is: http://www.fslocal.comRecently, we discovered Google's cached snapshots of our business listings look different from what's displayed to users. The main issue? Our content isn't displayed in cached results (although while the content isn't visible on the front-end of cached pages, the text can be found when you view the page source of that cached result).These listings are structured so everything is coded and contained within 1 page (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/). But even though the URL stays the same, we've created separate "pages" of content (e.g. "About," "Additional Info," "Contact," etc.) for each listing, and only 1 "page" of content will ever be displayed to the user at a time. This is controlled by JavaScript and using display:none in CSS. Why do our cached results look different? Why would our content not show up in Google's cache preview, even though the text can be found in the page source? Does it have to do with the way we're using display:none? Are there negative SEO effects with regards to how we're using it (i.e. we're employing it strictly for aesthetics, but is it possible Google thinks we're trying to hide text)? Google's Technical Guidelines recommends against using "fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash." If we were to separate those business listing "pages" into actual separate URLs (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/contact/ would be the "Contact" page), and employ static HTML code instead of complicated JavaScript, would that solve the problem? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.Thanks!
Technical SEO | | fslocal

0
Still ok to use

This is the flag to prevent google storing a copy of your webpage. I want to use it for good reasons but in 2013 is it still safe to use. My websites not spammy but it's still very fresh with little to no links. Each item I sell takes a lot of research to both buy and sell with the correct info. Once it's sold one I may just come across another and want to hold my advantage of having already done my research and my sold price to myself. Competitors will easily find my old page from a long tail search. Some off my old sold pages keep getting hits and high bounce rates from people using it as reasearch and price benchmark. I want to stop this. So, No archive first, then 301 to category page once sold. Will the two cause a problem in googles eyes?
Technical SEO | | Peter2468

0
Site links in the footer template – still good for SEO?

Hi there, When I did a redesign a few years ago, I had it in my mind that site links in 3 or 4 columns at the bottom of the home page, and every other page, would be good for SEO. Having links to interior pages using keywords and phrases from the home page and all that…. I think this might now be outdated thinking? As long as there are some links from the home page to important interior pages to pass link juice that is what matters? Google might not even looks at links in the footer? Is this correct? Thoughts? Thanks so much!
Technical SEO | | inhouseninja

0
My site is live 6 months but still has no PageRank?

I launched my site back in November and in the last 6 months have been pretty stoked about some of the links we've received from some .edu 's and some other big sites.... but I still don't register any PageRank. Is this normal or have I made some fatal flaw that is killing me in the eyes of google? Thanks Brian Clapp Founder, SportsTVJobs.com
Technical SEO | | sportstvjobs

0