Webmaster Tools Displaying urls that Don't Exist.

[watto]

I have a question for which I am hoping someone can shed some light on for me.

In my webmaster tools, in the overview section, it is telling me I have 2 urls ‘not found’. See below:

http://www.business-trader.com.au/addvertise.php
http://www.business-trader.com.au/bu...sesforsale.php

The thing is, these urls do not even exist, so why are they displaying here as 404’s?

Regards

watto

[TechBlog]

maybe ur link were wrong and it indexed them it would disappear after some time i guess so

[crankydave]

Where are they saying they found them? If it's your site and if you have any redirects (301's) in place, check your htaccess file to make sure you have the correct destination URL.

Dave

[davidweb]

It could be possible that these pages were active before and were removed due to some reasons.

You can also send a request to remove these urls from the google index. Google webmaster offers you this feature where you can submit links which are dead and should be removed from your website.

I hope it will help.

[deepsand]

Presumably they did at one time exist.

The 1st, for example, if grammatically corrected so that it ends with "advertise.php," now re-directs to "member_login.php."

Did you perhaps make site changes without submitting a new site map?

[Rick Glaser]

These pages are probably dead links from other sites..or somewhere on your site, it will show up on Analytics, just 404 for the user.

[adacprogramming]

If someone links to your site with a URL that doesn't exist (maybe they misspelled it), it will show up as a 404 in the webmaster tools because Google tried to find the page and got a 404.

Best thing to do is to create the page and do a 301 permanent redirect to a good page. That way you retain the link to your site.

[watto]

I have just created these files and 301 redirected them to my homepage.

Thanks for all of the advise and help.

Regards

Watto

[office7]

Originally Posted by watto

I have just created these files and 301 redirected them to my homepage.
Watto

You don't need to create the missing files to do a 301 redirect. Just add the redirect to .htaccess

incorrect url >> redirect to Home page

Les Allan
<please add your link to your signature>

[SnerdeyWebs]

If you have this kind of issue, might want to look over the whole site and test everything

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by watto

I have a question for which I am hoping someone can shed some light on for me.

In my webmaster tools, in the overview section, it is telling me I have 2 urls ‘not found’. See below:

Businesses for Sale - Buy or Sell Australian Business for Sale
Businesses for Sale - Buy or Sell Australian Business for Sale

The thing is, these urls do not even exist, so why are they displaying here as 404’s?

Regards

watto

This is another area of the G WMT that is "broken". It's been happening for years, since day one and there's nothing you can do about it. G refuses to fix it. I too have dozens of strange URL's that have never existed, and the really idiotic thing about them is when you click the (useless) 'from where' link to see from where they are linked, G lists the page itself!! How in the hell can the never existing link, link from the page itself when the page itself has never existed???

Also, the dates are all screwed up. It lists dates discovered from 2005 & 2006!! Plus dates only a few days old! Both in themselves make absolutely no sense. How could their broken G-bot discover the links FOUR YEARS ago and just now be mentioning them!?? Then the fact it may also list a date as 4-18-2009, proves they are still broken.

[Webnauts]

Peter the links are posted here: Spanish URLs - Special Characters

[Ace]

did you check your website for dead links if not try this - Free Online Broken Link Checker: Site Wide! no more 1 by 1 pages

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Ace

did you check your website for dead links

What would dead links have to do with nonexistent internal URLS?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Ace

did you check your website for dead links if not try this - Free Online Broken Link Checker: Site Wide! no more 1 by 1 pages

Hey, did you read my post above yours? The broken link is coming from an external web site. Geeesh...

[wige]

Originally Posted by Clint1

This is another area of the G WMT that is "broken". It's been happening for years, since day one and there's nothing you can do about it. G refuses to fix it. I too have dozens of strange URL's that have never existed, and the really idiotic thing about them is when you click the (useless) 'from where' link to see from where they are linked, G lists the page itself!! How in the hell can the never existing link, link from the page itself when the page itself has never existed???

In what way is this broken? The page is designed to list pages that don't (and potentially, never did) exist - that is the entire point of the report, to show you a list of URLs that the spider has discovered which do not actually exist. There are a few different ways URLs can be found - typos in links (which the URLs in the OP appear to be), Googlebot misreading an AJAX or Javascript function, a bad reference, or even an error on the server or in a script. But isn't this the entire point of the system, so that you can see URLs that Google thinks are there and try to correct them? Remember, search engines don't send a referer tag when requesting documents (since they crawl asynchronously) so the only way to see where the spider discovered a bad URL is through this report.

As far as the sources, I will agree that they don't appear to be 100% accurate. However, self-referring pages can happen when Google indexes the error message if any part of the error document contains a reference to the URL it is being displayed for. So, for example, if someone links to page.htm instead of linking to page.html, Google will record the bad URL of page.htm, along with the source page that contained the bad link. Once the bad link is corrected, that source will be removed, but Google remembers that it had been told the URL exists, and may continue checking for up to six months. If the error message contains a link to the missing page (for example, in the breadcrumbs or even in the text of the error message) Google will continue to see a link to the page, and will keep looking for it, reporting the source of the link as being the page itself.

Also, it is important to remember with these errors that syntactically, an error 404 indicates a temporary problem (Not found but keep checking). To indicate that a file does not exist, a 410 error (Gone and stop asking) should be sent instead. Of course, from an SEO perspective, and often from a user perspective as well, a 301 redirect either manually configured or generated through content negotiation should be served instead.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by wige

In what way is this broken?

I thought I already answered that: It's been happening for years, since day one and there's nothing you can do about it. G refuses to fix it. I too have dozens of strange URL's that have never existed, and the really idiotic thing about them is when you click the (useless) 'from where' link to see from where they are linked, G lists the page itself!! How in the hell can the never existing link, link from the page itself when the page itself has never existed???
That sounds rather "broken" to me, or at least it just simply doesn't work....same thing.

The page is designed to list pages that don't (and potentially, never did) exist - that is the entire point of the report, to show you a list of URLs that the spider has discovered which do not actually exist.

How can a spider report pages that don't actually exist, when they never existed? That's my point, a spider of course doesn't make up page names, it finds them, or so allegedly finds them, and what I'm saying is how can it find these URL's when these specific URL's have never existed anywhere? I never created them.

There are a few different ways URLs can be found - typos in links (which the URLs in the OP appear to be), Googlebot misreading an AJAX or Javascript function, a bad reference, or even an error on the server or in a script. But isn't this the entire point of the system, so that you can see URLs that Google thinks are there and try to correct them?

Sure, I realize all that, but what's the point of "correcting them" when: 1. You don't know from where the erroneous URL's orginated therefore, 2. You don't know if it's worth creating 100's of 301 redirects to the closest page match. Or, you'd have to actually create the page that never existed just to stop the 404's.

As far as the sources, I will agree that they don't appear to be 100% accurate. However, self-referring pages can happen when Google indexes the error message if any part of the error document contains a reference to the URL it is being displayed for. So, for example, if someone links to page.htm instead of linking to page.html, Google will record the bad URL of page.htm, along with the source page that contained the bad link.

Sure I understand all that, but that's not the issue.

It makes sense, and does work, when you click the "Linked from" link and you find someone else's webpage with one of your (erroneous) URL's on the page. That makes perfect sense, and of course is helpful. You either contact the (ignorant) site owner and tell them they should check links they put at their site to see if they work, and then if/when they never reply you have to create a 301 (if it's important enough).

However, I'll see things like MyDomain.com/this-specific-page-name.html showing up as a 404, and I click "Linked from" to see from where the Gbot found the link, and, what they show is the page itself! So what I'm saying, why it's "broken" or doesn't work, is how can MyDomain.com/this-specific-page-name.html be showing as the source, when that page was never even created therefore never existed in the first place? And the fact that in these cases they never show the correct origin of where the Gbot found the link, leads me to believe more so that something is "broken" or not working properly. One cannot exist without the other.

[crankydave]

clint... when the referring page of the link gets listed, and especially no page at all, it's almost always a redirect mistake in the htaccess. Server side mistakes/errors also happen that can cause this.

A page does not have to ever exist. Only a link for the spider to find... anywhere on the web. Doesn't matter if you've created them or not. Doesn't matter how they got created.

On a side note...

FYI... You've made it perfectly clear you don't like Google... repeatedly. Literally every single thread you start, post you make, blames Google for every single thing you find that you believe is wrong or don't like. Quite frankly, I've taken to ignoring your posts and threads because of it.

Dave

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by crankydave

FYI... You've made it perfectly clear you don't like Google... repeatedly.

And you've made it quite clear you can't stand me, and apparently love G....repeatedly. As your posts also point out. If you have a problem with me, you should take it up in a PM, not on a thread. But you love to publicly harass me, for years now. Everyone is free to post anything they choose at these forums as long as they abide by forum rules, and, I do. Obviously, I'm different and singled out.

Literally every single thread you start, post you make, blames Google for every single thing you find that you believe is wrong or don't like.

Ohhh, really?? That's an all out lie:
Difference between alt="" and title="" image tags, which is better?
1 single account at G\Y\MSN for multiple sites; or different accounts for each site?
How do you redirect a URL with "%0A" splitting up the .html extension? (.htm%0Al)
What happened to www.expresspoll.com, and are there any similar replacements?
What is the code for SUBdomain.com to go to the www.SUBdomain.com version?
New webhosts are not using RAID 1 mirroring, is that bad, or common?
Can a TXT sitemap URL be placed in the robots.txt file?
Evil bot at 216.240.151.* masquerading as Googlebot
Is it a security issue for web servers to be pingable down to the last hop? And RAID
How do you 301 redirect a dynamic URL (URL with a question mark in it)?
On Bido, how do I know what to ask for my domains?

That's many of my last 24 threads. Most of which I might add, showed up in the WPW newsletter. I could go on, but I think we all get the picture now. Oh yeah, here's one:
Is this a hack attempt? (Bizarre URL's appearing in the G WMT area...not enough room) "...As always, G doesn't have the SENSE to TELL me "Linked from" where, all those areas are "Unavailable". So I have no idea as to their origin....". Yeah, that's really "Literally every single thread" I start isn't it. More proof of your prejudice towards me. I rest my point.

Quite frankly, I've taken to ignoring your posts and threads because of it.

That's fantastic, and best for all, since you're always trying to start things with me (as you just proved again). Too bad you couldn't have continued with that with this post.

As a mod, you should be setting a positive example and learn how to engage in diplomacy. It's a pity you don't do that, and always see only your very own views and standpoints in everything you post. You believe that when someone points out negative facts about G, that somehow makes them an evil and bad person. You believe I'm some horrible monster. That belief is flawed.

I've done absolutely everything I possibly can to befriend you, be kind and polite to you, even be friendly. But it's obvious to all you despise me with malice and prejudice, so yes, please, just ignore my posts. That would be far better conducive to a positive forum experience for all. Thank you. (Why doesn't this forum have a link to click to "ignore posts from this user" like so many other forums?)

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Clint1

And you've made it quite clear you can't stand me, and apparently love G....repeatedly. As your posts also point out. If you have a problem with me, you should take it up in a PM, not on a thread. But you love to publicly harass me, for years now. Everyone is free to post anything they choose at these forums as long as they abide by forum rules, and, I do. Obviously, I'm different and singled out.

clint... I have pointed out repeatedly, to you specifically, that I am not a "Google lover" despite that fact you repeatedly accuse me of that. You have repeatedly accused me of having a "dislike" for you personally despite the fact I have repeatedly told you that is simply not the case. Wouldn't matter in the least to me who makes the posts or start the threads. I'd react the same way.

Speaking of posts and threads...

From the second one you linked...

I was thinking, knowing how "evil" G is, that if one may put all of their sites under one account G will think "Ohhh, he's already got one website in the index, he doesn't need anymore, so let's delete the others".

However, I know people that are totally white-hat, do absolutely nothing wrong, etc., yet get trashed by G.

Is that a valid concern? Off and on, off and on, I've had EACH of my legit, unique, totally white-hat sites trashed from the G index for absolutely no reason other than yet another one of their algo f-ups. So that was my main reason for starting this thread.

Now if you take a look at 3rd and 5th links you posted, it's all about how you have your redirects in your htaccess all messed up. The 7th is about a text sitemap that you have screwed up. These are places where spiders get URL's. Which pertains to the question you asked and are blaming Google for.

Of the last 25 threads you started, you take the "opportunity" to blame/complain about Google in 7 of them And several of the other (I'm not taking the time to count) you ask for help in correcting problems of your own doing you blame Google for.

"Literally all" was too strong I'll admit.

Originally Posted by Clint1

That's fantastic, and best for all, since you're always trying to start things with me (as you just proved again). Too bad you couldn't have continued with that with this post. As a mod, you should be setting a positive example and learn how to engage in diplomacy. It's a pity you don't do that, and always see only your very own views and standpoints in everything you post. You believe that when someone points out negative facts about G, that somehow makes them an evil and bad person. You believe I'm some horrible monster. That belief is flawed.

I've done absolutely everything I possibly can to befriend you, be kind and polite to you, even be friendly. But it's obvious to all you despise me with malice and prejudice, so yes, please, just ignore my posts. That would be far better conducive to a positive forum experience for all. Thank you. (Why doesn't this forum have a link to click to "ignore posts from this user" like so many other forums?)

You lecturing me about diplomacy? lol

You state that I believe that someone who posts negatively abpout Google makes them evil? rofl

You categorically state that you believe I think you a "horrible monster"? lmao

You claim to have done absolutely everything possible to befriend me? roflmao

Yet again, you level all sorts of accusations and all sorts of wild claims at me. For what? Simply pointing out that I have started ignoring your posts because of your popensity to consistently blame Google for your problems. You can take that as friendly advice or not.

Now... again... so far as the non-existant URL's are concerned... and as you pointed out... spiders don't make them up. They find them somewhere. Your htaccess is a real good place to look. Screwed up redirects can cause all sorts of problems. Not only indexing but handling server side as well.

Dave

[wige]

Originally Posted by Clint1

However, I'll see things like MyDomain.com/this-specific-page-name.html showing up as a 404, and I click "Linked from" to see from where the Gbot found the link, and, what they show is the page itself! So what I'm saying, why it's "broken" or doesn't work, is how can MyDomain.com/this-specific-page-name.html be showing as the source, when that page was never even created therefore never existed in the first place? And the fact that in these cases they never show the correct origin of where the Gbot found the link, leads me to believe more so that something is "broken" or not working properly. One cannot exist without the other.

Well, as I tried to explain (possibly not very effectively), when an error occurs and a link is created to a non-existent file (and Google sees that link), a couple things happen. First, your server may cause the problem to get worse by creating references to that non-existent file. For example, the 404 error message may contain the URL somewhere in the document in such a way that Google sees it as a link to itself. This is one reason a non-existent file's URL can show up in it's own list of referrers.

Additionally, as has been mentioned before, a 404 error does not indicate a permanent situation. Traditionally, when pages were removed admins would actually mark the file as deleted and serve a different code (410). A search engine has no way of knowing if a 404 error is permanent or not, so as long as there are links to the URL (and even for several months after the last link goes away) the search engine will continue to look for the file. When this is the case, Google won't show a referrer in their system. The links are gone (problem fixed) but Google is still checking to see if the file becomes available.

As far as pro-Google or anti-Google, like any major search engine or other large scale network system, Google's systems and services, especially as they relate to search, are constantly evolving. Problems can and will occur. There is nothing wrong with noting problems - no system will be perfect, but if you don't mention the errors they can't get fixed. And Google isn't the only one that has problems; Bing recently stopped obeying robots.txt directives for example due to a major glitch. However, letting biases about a system flavor your analysis or response to a problem can blind you to other causes, or an effective solution. It reminds me of my friend, who hates Microsoft, and how he spent an hour cursing about Windows last week when his computer "wouldn't boot". I simply walked into the room, looked at it for a moment, and plugged it in.

Again, I am not saying that the error reporting here is error free. This is still a new and evolving utility. I am simply saying that there are other factors involved, and at least some of the concerns you mention may be attributed to other factors, which should be considered/discussed/debated before writing it off as the system being broken.