What To Do With Broken Links?

[ArthJones]

Hi

Can anyone suggest what is the best thing to do with incoming broken links? E.g. Backlinks created by the previous domain name owner that no longer exist on my site.

I am getting crawl errors where Google have arrived at my site via a link for it not to be there..!!

My initial thought is to identify each incoming link and its intended url and actually creating a page so that it does exist!! A little feeling in my stomach says maybe there is an easier way?

Any suggestions would be appreciated..

Thanks


Arth

[Optic]

What they are doing if the page does not exist is creating a 404 page not found error. To fix this, and whenever moving a page, use a 301 Permanent Redirect.

There are a number of ways to do this. The easiest way for a single link on an apache server is a single line .htaccess redirect. This is added to the .htaccess file in the root of your domain. If it does not exist you can add it.


redirect 301 /old-page.html http://domain.com/new-page/

[davidweb]

creating a 404 error page is your best option. It would be best to put a sitemap on 404 error page or you can simply show content from your homepage on 404 error page.

Other than 404 there isnt any other best option.

[mydearvalentine]

yeah..its better option to redirect them but i hav question that the ranking will remain? and PR would be same?

[mjtaylor]

creating a 404 error page is your best option. It would be best to put a sitemap on 404 error page or you can simply show content from your homepage on 404 error page.

Other than 404 there isnt any other best option.

What about 301 redirects, Optic clearly outlined? That is a standard SEO "best practice" when file names are changed.
yeah..its better option to redirect them but i hav question that the ranking will remain? and PR would be same?

Well, if you know it's the better option, then it follows that you know that PR is passed by a 301 redirect, though Matt Cutts has suggested that there may be some loss. As to ranking, that would depend, in fair part, on the content and optimization of the new page.

[dburdon]

I'd agree with the 301ers. However, sometimes it is not possible to get access to the htaccess file. In these cases I've also tried a meta refresh.

[NJ]

I'd agree with the 301ers. However, sometimes it is not possible to get access to the htaccess file. In these cases I've also tried a meta refresh.

Is it the webhost or the client not giving access to the .htaccess file? If a webhosting company won't give my client access to the file, I'd suggest that they go to another webhost. Of course, proprietary template sites are another animal altogether.

[ArthJones]

Ok , some differences of opinion here..

If a 404 page is created, say with content, site map etc, basically giving 'options' where visitor can go next... is this scenario seen as a negative by Google and affect ranking?

Is the 301 redirect better? In terms of ranking the page by Google? If taking the 301 route however.... I would need to identify the page url that the incoming link is expecting to see right?

[NJ]

I personally like 301 redirects best because it gives you the option of sending the visitor directly to the most closely matching page on your site without the visitor having to do anything. It's the "Don't Make Me Think" factor. By the way, Don't Make Me Think is a great book.

[weegillis]

@OP:

First: Examine the link closely. Is it only a typo? Does the referred resource actually exist? Has the name changed?

Take the time to carefully match broken links to existing pages and list these pairs. Make a separate list of all others, for redirection to either a 404 page or the Home page.

Second: As advised, create 301 redirects to all the pages in your pair list.

Third: Create a custom 404 page displaying links to key sections of your site. Be sure to include this redirect in .htaccess

[ArthJones]

Great... thanks very much guys. Sounds like great advice, I'll get to work.

I'll ask the 'Googly' question in the appropriate forum section :wink:

[microtekblue]

You need a 301. A 404 is just an error page, doesnt redirect or tell robots where to look for your file.

[JaredDetroit]

Be careful when redirecting links built by a previous owner. Make sure you thoroughly analyze the pages these links are coming from to ensure that they're not in bad neighborhoods, they're not spammy links, not hidden links or anything else that could be seen bad by Google.

I had a site penalized because I redirected links to /home.html to my home page. After removing the redirect and requesting a reconsideration explaining the situation, the penalty was lifted. The previous owner had built links from bad neighborhoods to the domain.

[CotswoldD]

This is what I do, would be interested in others opinions on this.

I go into my google wemaster account and remove that url from google that gives the 404 error

[coolguy27]

301 redirect is the usual answer for that buddy. Edit your .htaccess put the 301 redirect code. :D

You can read this article on how to fix broken link (http://www.seobook.com/how-fix-broken-link-graph)

[Clint1]

Hi

Can anyone suggest what is the best thing to do with incoming broken links? E.g. Backlinks created by the previous domain name owner that no longer exist on my site.

I am getting crawl errors where Google have arrived at my site via a link for it not to be there..!!

My initial thought is to identify each incoming link and its intended url and actually creating a page so that it does exist!! A little feeling in my stomach says maybe there is an easier way?

Any suggestions would be appreciated..

Thanks


Arth
http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-forum/threads/106535-Is-It-Advisable-to-Remove-Web-Pages-From-Web-Site?p=549582&viewfull=1#post549582

[techmeaux]

You can do all the above.

What I found was that I did so much modification to the old pages evolved into a new web structure, that I'd keep the old pages entirely, like ones from old forum links etc, wherever they originally were, link them with a nav footer, or other sub-nav to update versions. I'd then take them and plug them into a site map, where an archive headings is created, or a sub-nav. I'd sometimes migrate that same info for linking to an rss, where the page was a modified replication of the archive/site map.

That way, for some of the info in my web, the user could find the old or new info, and it still had a tertiary value for search volume, and was not spam flaggable.

[mjtaylor]

Ok , some differences of opinion here..

If a 404 page is created, say with content, site map etc, basically giving 'options' where visitor can go next... is this scenario seen as a negative by Google and affect ranking?

Is the 301 redirect better? In terms of ranking the page by Google? If taking the 301 route however.... I would need to identify the page url that the incoming link is expecting to see right?

Yes, a 301 redirect is better. It is even recommended by search engines.

Let's presume for a moment that one of the old pages on the site was a link magnet and was attracting a lot of PR and link power to the page, and therefore to the site. That ranking power can pass through a 301, but not a 404. So, a 404 stops any SEO value dead in its tracks, while the 301 passes it.

And yes, as dburdon mentions, if one has no access to the htaccess file, a meta refresh works to push the traffic through and if it's brief (0 seconds) has no negative SEO impact. But it doesn't pass PR or any other SEO value.

[mjtaylor]

This is what I do, would be interested in others opinions on this.

I go into my google wemaster account and remove that url from google that gives the 404 error

If you inherited the WT account and it had those files ... but you would still need the 301.

[SemAdvance]

Yes, a 301 redirect is better. It is even recommended by search engines.


It is if you know all of the inbound links pointing to the site or page(s) a 301 can help, otherwise a 404 is needed.



Let's presume for a moment that one of the old pages on the site was a link magnet and was attracting a lot of PR and link power to the page, and therefore to the site. That ranking power can pass through a 301, but not a 404. So, a 404 stops any SEO value dead in its tracks, while the 301 passes it.


A 404 page will still receive passed PR, and if a sitemap of the site pages is used, will pass the PR internally.....

Where did you read that a 404 stops PR??



And yes, as dburdon mentions, if one has no access to the htaccess file, a meta refresh works to push the traffic through and if it's brief (0 seconds) has no negative SEO impact. But it doesn't pass PR or any other SEO value.

If a 301 passes PR and SEO value, please explain how a meta refresh (301 on page) fails to do so....

Your blanket statements have me wondering......

[williamc]

A 404 page will still receive passed PR, and if a sitemap of the site pages is used, will pass the PR internally.....

Yes, but who the hell wants a 404 page to rank for anything? The 301 passes the ranking ability to the correct page, the 404 does not.


If a 301 passes PR and SEO value, please explain how a meta refresh (301 on page) fails to do so....

Actually, a meta refresh is still seen as a 302 AFAIK.

[weegillis]

Yes, but who the hell wants a 404 page to rank for anything?

To this I would add (in the HEAD of the custom 404 document),

<meta name="robots" content="follow,noindex" />
to keep my 404 page OUT OF the index.

I would further venture that if an indexed URL returns 404 (from an unconfigured server) it will eventually be removed, and in the meantime would have no link popularity value assigned. In other words, the link probably ONLY exists in the index, and its original source page already dropped from the index.

If these URLs (requests) are captured with a custom 404 page, they will less likely be removed, but rather updated, and treated as 301. On the assumption the old link is simply residue in the index, and the new one to a page that is already indexed (like the home page) it will still show as a vote, even if there is no juice to pass along.

[williamc]

make 301 redirects to home page

Why to the homepage?

[confettiguru]

Why to the homepage?

I'm with WilliamC on this..Why to the homepage indeed. You should direct
to the page most closely related. Just makes sense

[Clint1]

........
If these URLs (requests) are captured with a custom 404 page, they will less likely be removed, but rather updated, and treated as 301.
Are you saying that's good or bad?

I use a custom 404 page with a site search on it (and most of my product links), and explanations as to what could have happened.

[Clint1]

I'm with WilliamC on this..Why to the homepage indeed. You should direct
to the page most closely related. Just makes sense
Perhaps to possibly give your homepage more PR. While I always do a 301 from an invalid URL to either the correct URL, or to a related URL if the page was removed, if there are not other pages like it I have done a 301 from those types to my homepage.

[johnbotash]

As usually I like the 301 redirects better because it allows you to send the visitor directly to the page most relevant to your site visitors without having to do anything.

[weegillis]

As usually I like the 301 redirects better because it allows you to send the visitor directly to the page most relevant to your site visitors without having to do anything.

You will still need to do an internal audit to repair all links pointing to non-existent pages. While redirects will work, the links still point to the wrong location. This is inadequate site management. Permanent redirects are meant to advise search engines, not make our job easier.

[cogzidel]

301 redirection is the better option...

Thanks & Regards,
Cogzidel Technologies