What do you do about links to constantly moving pages?
-
One of the sites I work for is an employment site, they have a job database and the job pages tend to get links. The problem is that every time one of these jobs is filled, the job page goes away. What should I do to keep the value from these links?
-
I'd have to agree with this more! 301 to the category, that way once a new article/post/page/job etc appears under that article page, it will instantly have a boost from the PA/DA passed
-
Another thing you might want to consider is the use of rel="canonical". If you use the canonical tag on each job page to point back to the appropriate category it will help those category pages rank better rather than spreading the juice out among the individual job postings.
Matt Cutts recently did a video about this practice. He talks about product pages, but it should be the same in principle. You can find the video here: Canonical all product review pages as a single url.
You will still want to handle the missing pages with a 301 or 404, but there will be less concern about losing juice every time a job is filled. And as the video says, this is something to consider but it isn't a solution for everybody.
-
I would keep the pages but put a big red job taken accross the page, or if needed change the content completly.
this would give you more pages to play with when link sculpting also -
That's a good practice for small ads sites. As every of your jobs should be in a category, you should redirect the user to the category browsing page. Best page for the user and for googlebot too.
-
Hang on !
I would definitely avoid "301 back to the root page for jobs" or even a category page.
Over time, you are going to be creating a massive index of empty pages linking to a home page; that looks too spammy to me. If you want to be honest : 404 these pages- the job offer no longer exists, the page no longer exists --- you can personalise your 404 page to send the user to a relevant page
Honesty doesn't always pay though! To leverage the SEO benefits from these pages I would consider archiving the job listing, keeping the same url and just adding a message indicating that the post has been filled (an image will do)
That way, you’re keeping lots of unique content on your site and over time creating a log of pages.
To make these archived job pages useful to the user and to the search engines, dynamically add links to fresher job offers in the same category, company and town.
- Neil
PS Does this new SeoMoz feature now mean I'm now paying to give free advise ?
-
At some level they are user generated, but then they are put into the database and handled from there.
-
I was imagining that the vast majority of their pages would be user generated job listings. But I think I was incorrect.
-
It's actually surprising how many of the links are long term links, while they do sink off of front pages and whatnot, they are still there and even the mild value of them shouldn't go to waste.
-
Given the nature of Spencer's site, I wouldn't imagine that the incoming links to current job offers would have that long a life. So I wouldn't think that there'd be a mazzive pile up of incoming links getting 301'd.
-
Sure, I would 301 to .com/jobs/ or .com/[category]/ or whatever the main page is that will never go away. Depending on what you are doing, you may 301 to the root of your domain.
This really is a structural decision.
-
I definitely am not discounting your way of handling it... I think it's fantastic, especially because it's scalable. Where do you 301 the pages back to, the main category page?
-
Well I would hope that new data would be posted often so you would not have a bad ratio of old data to knew. Google is smart enough to know that some things date out such as products, events, job post, etc.
I have not noticed a penalty, but perhaps others can add comments to this.
-
Eventually, wouldn't a large ratio of your inbound links be pointed to pages that are 301'd to another page?
It just seems to me, that Google wouldn't think that is very 'natural', and perhaps would just feel that the majority of the content on the site is old/ outdated since most of the inbound links point to pages that don't exist anymore. (even if they are 301'd)
-
Yeah, I am starting to use this quite a bit with products moving off the site. No need to spill the juice
No because the 301 is dynamic. Not like adding to the .htaccess file. Also, make sure someone coding PHP does this as you need to make sure there are no white spaces before doing a header location or you will bomb the page.
Check your header to make sure you did the 301 correctly.
http://www.seoconsultants.com/tools/headers
Cheers
-
Hey Richard,
That's a useful script! Thanks!
Do you think in the case of running an employment site, those 301's would begin to rack-up frequently enough to get flagged?
[edit: I meant to add this below Richard Getz script]
-
Hey Spencer,
Is there a way you can dynamically pull the information (for the job) into the page.... so that once the job goes away, you can then change the informatino to be a new job?
The only catch to that, would be the URL structure, becuase obviously you would need to make the URL's generic, such as "/bay-county-seo-job" or something instead of mentioning the company.
On Distilled's recent conference call / webinar, Will discuess their project hiremarshall.com (I think that webinar would be of some help to you- and anyone else reading this).
Specifically, you could develop a model which keeps those pages live, so that the company uses that same page for all of their new job openings.
Donnie Cooper.
-
If these pages are database driven, you can check to see if the post is in the database, if not, then 301 back to the root page for jobs.
Run a PHP script that check the database TRUE = loads the page FALSE header redirect to root page (or whatever you want) and 301 the move.
if (!$_GET['post']) {
$location = "http://www.YourSite.com/jobs/";
header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently");
header("Location: {$location}");
exit;Your developer will be able to actually write a valid script testing the page and either returning the job post or redirecting the page.
I 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
-
Sitemap: Linking horizontal pages on a sitemap that has a vertical hierarchy structure
I'm currently in the process of revamping a website and creating a sitemap for it so that all pages get indexed by search engines. The site is divided into two websites that share the same root domain. The marketing site is on example.com and the application is on go.example.com. To get to go.example.com from example.com, you need to go through one of three “action pages”. The action pages are accessed from every page on example.com where we have a CTA button on the site (that’s pretty much every page). These action pages do not link back to any other page on the site though, nor are they a necessary step to navigate to other webpages. These action pages are only viewed when a user is ready to be taken to the application site. My question is, how should these pages be set up in a vertical sitemap since these three pages have a horizontal structure? Any insight would be much appreciated!
Technical SEO | | RallyUp0 -
Search Console Indexed Page Count vs Site:Search Operator page count
We launched a new site and Google Search Console is showing 39 pages have been indexed. When I perform a Site:myurl.com search I see over 100 pages that appear to be indexed. Which is correct and why is there a discrepancy? Also, Search Console Page Index count started at 39 pages on 5/21 and has not increased even though we have hundreds of pages to index. But I do see more results each week from Site:psglearning.com My site is https://wwww.psglearning.com
Technical SEO | | pdowling0 -
Can I redirect a link even if the link is still on the site
Hi Folks, I've got a client who has a duplicate content because they actually create duplicate content and store the same piece of content in 2 different places. When they generate this duplicate content, it creates a 2nd link on the site going to the duplicate content. Now they want the 2nd link to always redirect to the first link, but for architecture reasons, they can't remove the 2nd link from the site navigation. We can't use rel-canonical because they don't want visitors going to that 2nd page. Here is my question: Are there any adverse SEO implications to maintaining a link on a site that always redirects to a different page? I've already gone down the road of "don't deliberately create duplicate content" with the client. They've heard me, but won't change. So, what are your thoughts? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Rock330 -
Should I disavow links from pages that don't exist any more
Hi. Im doing a backlinks audit to two sites, one with 48k and the other with 2M backlinks. Both are very old sites and both have tons of backlinks from old pages and websites that don't exist any more, but these backlinks still exist in the Majestic Historic index. I cleaned up the obvious useless links and passed the rest through Screaming Frog to check if those old pages/sites even exist. There are tons of link sending pages that return a 0, 301, 302, 307, 404 etc errors. Should I consider all of these pages as being bad backlinks and add them to the disavow file? Just a clarification, Im not talking about l301-ing a backlink to a new target page. Im talking about the origin page generating an error at ping eg: originpage.com/page-gone sends me a link to mysite.com/product1. Screamingfrog pings originpage.com/page-gone, and returns a Status error. Do I add the originpage.com/page-gone in the disavow file or not? Hope Im making sense 🙂
Technical SEO | | IgorMateski0 -
Moving content from CMS pages to a blog - 301 or rel canonical?
Our site has some useful information buried in out-of-the-way CMS pages, and I feel like this content is more suited to our blog. What's my best method here? 1. Move the content to a blog post, delete the original page, and 301. 2. Move the content to a blog post, leave the original page up, and rel canonical. 3. Rewrite the content so it's not a duplicate, keep original page up, and post rewritten content on the blog. 4. Something else. Some of this content has inbound links and some does not. Quite a bit of it gets long-tail traffic already. It just looks kludgy because it's on pages that really aren't designed for articles. It would look much nicer and be much more readable/shareable/linkable on the blog.
Technical SEO | | CMC-SD0 -
132 pages reported as having Duplicate Page Content but I'm not sure where to go to fix the problems?
I am seeing “Duplicate Page Content” coming up in our
Technical SEO | | danatanseo
reports on SEOMOZ.org Here’s an example: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/williams-sound-ppa-r35-e http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/aphex-230-master-voice-channel-processor http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/AT-AE4100.prod These three pages are for completely unrelated products.
They are returning “200” status codes, but are being identified as having
duplicate page content. It appears these are all going to the home page, but it’s
an odd version of the home page because there’s no title. I would understand if these pages 301-redirected to the home page if they were obsolete products, but it's not a 301-redirect. The referring page is
listed as: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/cd-duplicators None of the 3 links in question appear anywhere on that page. It's puzzling. We have 132 of these. Can anyone help me figure out
why this is happening and how best to fix it? Thanks!0 -
Indexed pages and current pages - Big difference?
Our website shows ~22k pages in the sitemap but ~56k are showing indexed on Google through the "site:" command. Firstly, how much attention should we paying to the discrepancy? If we should be worried what's the best way to find the cause of the difference? The domain canonical is set so can't really figure out if we've got a problem or not?
Technical SEO | | Nathan.Smith0 -
What Are The Page Linking Options?
Okay, so I'm working with a site that has pretty good domain authority, but the interior pages are not well linked or optimized. So, it ranks for some terms, but everything goes to the home page. So, I'd like to increase the authority of the interior pages. The client is not wild about spreading targeted juice via something like a footer. They also don't like a "Popular Searches" style link list. The objection is that it's not attractive. They currently use cute euphemisms as the linking text, so like "cool stuff" instead of "sheepskin seat covers." In that made up example, they'd like to rank for the latter, but insist on using the former. What about a slide show with alt text/links? Would that increase the authority of those pages in a term-targeted kinda way? Are there other options? Does it matter how prominent those links are, like footers not as good as something higher up the page? They currently use a pull-down kind of thing that still results in some pages having no authority. Do bots use that equally well? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | 945010