Proactive 301 - good practice or bad practice?

[chewy]

So I'm working on a site that *may* have had a penalty applied by something that seems to more properly belong in a zoo.

I see using GWMT many backlinks from sites I don't want to have anything to do with, and I know since these are sitewide links that this is pretty bad.

Reading here and elsewhere, I know the best thing to do is sit tight -

But in the meantime, I'm working to bring this particular site back into basic compliance by removing or repair many 404's that have accumulated through years of new pages, renamed pages, removed pages, code mistakes that got multiplied out into many pages, etc etc - the usual html rot that grow over time like weeds if you don't pay attention to it / develop strategies to avoid, etc.

In the revamping / repairing / redirecting process, I see using GWMT that removed pages are still linked all over the place - so when I see this, should I issue a 301 or just let it go 404?

If I issue a 301, I am supposedly conserving that imaginary linkjuice and following best practices.

But what if I happen to see a missing page has more bad links than good? Should I 301 that as well?

[goodroi]

Every situation is different and needs to be individually evaluated. I would be very careful in using massive amounts of 301 redirects for unrelated pages.

[chewy]

This is most certainly not massive by any means.

It is currently on the order of a dozen or 2 pages - in addition to about 50 other redirects that have been there for years.

[deadsea]

I correct all broken links I find into my site using 301 redirects. Its good for any user that stumbles across one. I don't see how you can hope to convince Google that the sitewide links in question are for users if some of them don't even work.

[chewy]

Xenu, Screaming Frog, Linkscape, GWMT data and htaccess updates seem to be the only antidotes at this point.

[g1smd]

I redirect most types of broken URL request if there is content that is a suitable replacement, but specifically do not take ownership of any broken links from junk sites.

[chewy]

What if a link has both junk sites and good sites pointing to it?

I've been ducking (not 301ing) these - figured I'd hear the same from you guys.

You'd think there'd be a server directive that says "don't allow index or follow type linkjuice to come in from this site".

maybe we'll see something invented like this (and I'm sure I'm not the first person to think this...)

[lucy24]

It is currently on the order of a dozen or 2 pages - in addition to about 50 other redirects that have been there for years.

Ooh, nice. With those numbers you can give each 404 the appropriate treatment.

page used to exist but no longer does >> 410

page used to be at URL A but is now at URL B,
or page used to exist but its content is now to be found at URL C,
or page is linked from good and deserving other site which can't spell >> 301

page has no existence outside of g###'s fevered imagination and/or garbage links >> 404

[chewy]

Nice - thanks Lucy!

PS - can we invent a few new ones?

Maybe:

1313 >> Didn't ask for that inbound link and DON'T want ANYTHING to do with it!

911 >> These guys are scrapers or other 'net criminals