Forum Moderators: open
I don't understand the overzealous use of 301 by some CMS vendors when dealing wit pages that contain information that is no longer available (i.e., product inventory).
So, my question is when is it best to use 404 versus a 301?
To me a custom 404 would seem to be more appropriate in the case of expired information. I personally feel that 301 should be used for strategic URL changes (i.e., site redesign, domain change, etc.).
Am I off base?
A 410-Gone should be used to indicate that the resource has been intentionally removed, and that there is no reasonable replacement. However, a 410_Gone response can only be understood by HTTP/1.1 clients (and possible future versions) and so cannot always be used if the client used HTTP/1.0 to make the request.
A 404-Not Found means that the server cannot find the requested resource. It does not say whether the resource is missing because it was intentionally removed, missing because it was accidentally removed, or can't be found because the requested URL was (and always has been) invalid. However, it must be used to respond to client requests using HTTP/1.0 or previous in many cases.
To explain the "qualified" statements above, here are the details: Some clients indicate that they are using HTTP/1.0 when in fact they are using an "extended," "enhanced, or "upgraded" version of HTTP/1.0. In fact, since HTTP/1.0 cannot be used to reach a name-based virtual host, it is a good bet that *all* so-called HTTP/1.0 requests seen on name-based virtual servers are actually HTTP/1.1 or an "enhanced" HTTP/1.0.
The reason for both of these facts is that a true HTTP/1.0 client cannot send an HTTP Host header. As a result, it cannot be used to access sites on name-based shared virtual servers where several domains share the same IP address, because name-based virtual servers rely on the Hosts header to determine which site's content to serve.
As a result, if a request for a removed resource is made using HTTP/1.1, use 410-Gone. If the request indicates HTTP/1.0, but there is a Host header present in the HTTP request, you can also use 410-Gone. If there is no Host header in the request, then use a 404. And if you're on name-based virtual server, you can always use 410-Gone, because you'll never receive a true HTTP/1.0 request if the server is configured properly.
Ref: RFC2616 - HTTP/1.1 Protocol [w3.org]
Jim
I was definitely off base (actually I was on the wrong playing field. LOL)!
Thanks to your detailed response and reference to the protocol resource, I now know that the best approach for pages containing offers or content that is no longer available is to use the 410 response.
Now, if could only convince my CMS provider of that...sigh.
If you make your visitors happy, that'll usually make the search engines happy.
If your special deal on large fuzzy green widgets ended last month, and you redirect that traffic to a page offering "this month's special" of medium fuzzy green widgets or large fuzzy blue widgets, that might be quite appropriate. If, however, all you have to offer this month is used diesel tractors, that wouldn't be appropriate, and a 410 might be the only option.
Just make sure that the custom 410 Error document explains that the page was intentionally removed, and provides the visitor with resources to find similar products -- Text links to your home page, category pages, and site search facility, as appropriate.
This is definitely a "blend" between the proper technical response and good marketing ... And you *can* do both.
Jim
I do think that leaving the original content and adding some additional relevant links and/or updated information is OK though. But 301'ing to a "close" resource is lieing.
Rand Fishkin had a whiteboard friday video about this exact topic two weeks ago. He's a fan of the 301 for the link juice. I disagreed in the comments but nobody really sided with me.
That depends on whether the Webmaster is lying to him or herself about the degree of "closeness." If the visitor will have the opinion that the replacement resource is close enough to satisfy his/her needs, then that is close enough. But if the Webmaster gets greedy and provides an only-somewhat-related replacement resource, then that is lying. And if the visitor leaves the "replacement" page, then it's also a marketing failure and an abuse of the visitor's trust.
So, it's all down to a "how long is a piece of string?" type of question. There are no fixed answers, and each situation must be very carefully evaluated.
Jim
I think my bone is more specific to those that think it's OK to use a 301 period just to direct a visitor to a non-relevant page (i.e., home page) as opposed to another page offering similar content (other similar inventory).
If a blue widget is no longer available but a green widget is available, what is the sense of directing someone to an "index.aspx" page?
Similarly, I also noticed that many CMS systems redirect users from a www.domain.com to a www.domain.com/index.asp or domain.com/home.asp.
I just have to scratch my head and wonder... why?
