Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
However, recently the question came up if we haven't been wasting PR needlessly that way. Someone suggested 301-redirecting all such requests to the index page.
Would that be a problem for Google?
Thanks.
[edited by: true_INFP at 5:40 pm (utc) on Mar. 24, 2009]
I'd like to add that some of the removed documents are hot-linked images.
No PR issue with image, as far as I know. Even Google's logo doesn't show PR. And since images do not link anywhere on their own, they cannot circulate PR at any rate.
Do you see any problem with 301-redirecting all such requests to the index page? Would Google like that?
[edited by: true_INFP at 2:40 pm (utc) on Mar. 25, 2009]
If a url is no longer available, either redirect to a true replacement page or else let the request get a 404 status as you are currently doing. Thsat way you don't risk the rankings for the rest of your site.
It is not a good idea to redirect all non-existing files to the home page. You end up, over time, with all those bad urls being indexed as duplicates of your home page content.
That doesn't seem to match the official information provided by Google that duplicate content issues are prevented using 301 redirects.
In other words, any URL that gives HTTP 301 is actually removed from the Google search index and replaced by the target URL of the redirection. That's why there should be no duplicate.
[edited by: true_INFP at 4:26 pm (utc) on Mar. 25, 2009]
While the URL is dropped (eventually), its still resolving to the same place. I looks like your serving the same content for multiple resource requests.
There are (were?) spamming techniques involving 301 PR funnelling. What you are doing superficially resembles this. You could get caught in that penalty.
If the resource isn't there anymore, you should be serving a 410 (Gone). There are plenty of references to indicate 410 is treated as a 404 by G, so just serve that.
If you want the content to be your home page, so be it, but serve a 404 response.
[edited by: Shaddows at 5:01 pm (utc) on Mar. 25, 2009]
Here's the point. If any old filepath on your domain resolves no matter what it is, then your server is not giving an accurate response to those bad requests. A file that doesn't exist is 404 (or possibly 410 Gone) - and that's an accurate response.
Admittedly webmasters should notice their link-checker is getting served a 301 in the chain and investigate, but still its not ideal
Here's the point. If any old filepath on your domain resolves no matter what it is, then your server is not giving an accurate response to those bad requests. A file that doesn't exist is 404 (or possibly 410 Gone) - and that's an accurate response.
HTTP 4xx completely wastes formerly gained PR.
Are you 301-ing all invalid requests or URLs that did once exist?
If you read just the topic, you'll know the answer. ;-)
I know that Matt Cutts has addressed this recently and discouraged the practice of redirecting all missing file requests to the home page. I'll see if I can find the reference.
question: i want to make my blog more professional and have been removing old posts. will my 404 page take care of this or should I use a 301 that directs back to home?Matt Cutts Said,
Aaron, if the posts are truly removed, I would go with a 404.[mattcutts.com...]
If I find something more recent or stronger, I'll post it here, too.
In the meantime, just think about what a 301 is saying - "Yes, that content is here but it's now at a new address." But when content is removed, that is not true.
In the meantime, just think about what a 301 is saying - "Yes, that content is here but it's now at a new address." But when content is removed, that is not true.
If I find something more recent or stronger, I'll post it here, too.
[edited by: true_INFP at 7:09 pm (utc) on Mar. 25, 2009]
I don't think you have a black/white answer here. You will probably be fine, but I think you are running a risk.
Its up to you to decide if the risk is high or low, and if the corresponding benefit (retaining PR) is worth it. Not forgetting that G could 'tweak' the way it looks at 301s at any point.
Funnily enough, the reason that you may very well be immune is the same reason I wouldn't take the risk, namely that you clearly have a successful and well regarded site.
That is an absolutely crucial point here.
That is an absolutely crucial point here.
The caution people are expressing is a concern that you continue to return a 404 for urls that never existed on your server.
We've never done that nor have I written anywhere in this thread that I intend to do anything like that. On the contrary, I specifically wrote that we're talking about handling requests for removed content that once existed.
So, again, your use of the word "continue" is quite difficult to understand for me.
If you begin serving a 301 redirect for the urls that DID exist but have been removed, make sure that the server still returns a 404 status for urls that NEVER existed.
"No, I'm not. 301 only happens to pages that did once exist. Thank you all for taking time to reply"
The fact is, many people are cavalier in their approach to relating facts. Others are confused as to what facts they relay.
Take you for instance. You have stated you ARE 301-ing old pages. Great. You have NOT said what you do with the other pages. There is therefore doubt.
When you ask for help, it is good manners to be courteous to those who try to help, even if you perceive their questions to be superfluous.
[edited by: Shaddows at 10:52 pm (utc) on Mar. 29, 2009]
Sure. And answered the question. And added extra information so that you would not go on to implement something that would be harmful.
So, again. Yes you can 301 requests for documents that did exist and which no longer exist. You should 301 to a page that is a similar topic. I would avoid redirecting all of those to the root home page. That's likely not a good profile to have.
And finally, to clarify something you need to be wary of in your implementation of a redirect: for URLs that have never existed, you should continue to return a 404 status for those. That is, do not start redirecting those.
Here I use the word 'continue' in the same context as Tedster used it above.
true_INFP, you're being incredibly pedantic.
