404 or 503 Malware Content ?
-
Hi Folks
When it comes to malware , if I have a site that uses iframe to show content off 3rd party sites which at times gets infected. Would you recommend 404 or 503 ing those pages with the iframe till the issue is resolved ? ( I am inclined to use 503 .. )
Then take the 404/503 off and ask for a reindex ( from GWT malware section )
OR
Ask for a reindex as soon as the 404/503 goes up. ( I do understand we are asking to index as non existing page , but the malware warning gets removed )
PS : it makes sense for this business to showcase content using iframe on these special pages . I do understand these are not the best way to go about SEO.
-
Thanks Peter, apologies for the delay was tied downed with some other things. Your help is much appreciated.
-
Sorry, I realized my comments about the 503 were kind of confusing. A 503 shouldn't serve a page for visitors, either - it's just a matter of 404s sometimes seeming a little more friendly, from the user perspective. It just depends on how you're set up.
My only other concern about the 503 is that it's generally intended for short-term use (at least it's been implemented that way). It's great if your site is down for a day and basically tells Google to come back later. If you leave one up for weeks or months, though, I'm honestly not sure what will happen. It's probably going to be treated like a 404, but it also could signal to Google that you have technical problems on the site. So, it may depend on the timeframe. The problem here is that you don't control the malware - it could be weeks before the 3rd party takes action.
-
Come to think of it we don't get a lot of malware warning in GWT anymore , I am guessing that is because the framed pages are no longer indexed. ( We could have potentially got the warnings while they were still being de-indexed ?? )
I am worried about that since GWT used to warn us about these and if the pages are no longer indexed and Google no longer sends us notification , we might miss these pages with malware. I have to look in to some way of tracking this ( if you have come across any solution I would love to hear more about it ) .
Thanks a lot for your help Peter.
Serving up malware content to users was never an option. I think .. in our case it makes sense for us to go the 503 route . If anyone is wondering how we plan to handle it :
When we see a malware notification on the i-framed pages.
- We plan to disable the iframe and send a general page for visitors saying the content is temporarily disabled .
- We will send a 503 header response with this page to state that this is a temporary issue. ( for search engines )
- Ask the site owner to fix the issue .
- Once issue is resolved , remove the 503 and make the framed content live again.
This helped me make this decision : https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2600719?hl=en&ref_topic=2600715&rd=1
-
So, it's not indexed, but you're still get malware warnings? That's odd. Honestly, Google shouldn't even see something in a frame as directly being part of your site, in many cases. If you 404 those pages, you potentially kill them for visitors, too - on the other hand, you probably shouldn't be sending your visitors to frames with malware. If it's just a few, I'd probably 404 them temporarily - it'll protect your rankings and your visitors. I'm honestly not sure if the 503 is going to do much that the NOINDEX isn't doing.
-
Hi Peter
The content used to be index, but I have added the noindex tag on there ( since I felt the same way about them being indexed as you did ) but we still get the GWT warning about malware from time to time. My initial concern was do I 503 or 404 the page till we fix the malware issue. I think 503 is the best way to go about it.
-
Is there any compelling reason to index this content? It's probably going to look thin to Google, at best (since it's mostly a wrapper around an outside site), and the search value is pretty minimal. In other words, it's good for your users and possibly conversion, but it doesn't have much value for search visitors. If the page is really just a wrapper around a demo site, then I'd consider using META NOINDEX on the frameset and just keep those out of your search results completely.
-
Hi Peter
Thanks for looking in to this.
We sell templates and themes for various cms and we find that it's great if we can demo the content to users before they purchase them. Our content is created by the community and most of them often add updates to existing content. We find that its best to let our authors host their own files and we link to that content through an iframe.
At times some of the author's might get hacked / or some of their advertisement gets flagged as malware. We get notified by WMT when google see an malware on these iframed pages.
-
I tend to agree with Sorina - in a perfect world, it would be great if you could somehow vet that content and make sure it stays safe for your users (even crawl the sites offline if you need to). What content does the page have around the iFrame (if you can explain it generally without giving away private details)? I'm wondering if these pages should be indexed at all, malware or no, since they're mostly just re-displays of other people's content. META NOINDEX might be a better bet here.
-
Probably you will not like my answer and you will give me the thumb down but:
Your main concern should be your visitors. You are displaying on your website content that, as you personally say, "at times" is dangerous to your visitors. Studies show the percentage of internet users that don't have any antivirus software or use outdated/expired software is somewhere around 50-60%. You should care more about your visitors and stop putting them in danger.
I don't know what content you are iframing on your website, but you should find a more trusted source that doesn't get infected at all.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Question About Thin Content
Hello, We have an encyclopedia type page on our e-commerce site. Basically, it's a page with a list of terms related to our niche, product definitions, slang terms, etc. The terms on the encyclopedia page are each linked to their own page that contains the term and a very short definition (about 1-2 sentences). The purpose of these is to link them on product pages if a product has a feature or function that may be new to our customers. We have about 82 of these pages. Are these pages more likely to help us because they're providing information to visitors, or are they likely to hurt us because of the very small amount of content on each page? Thanks for the help!
Technical SEO | | mostcg0 -
SEO for a a static content website
Hi everyone, We would like to ask suggestions on how to improve our SEO for our static content help website. With the release of each new version, our company releases a new "help" page, which is created by an authoring system. This is the latest page: http://kilgray.com/memoq/2015/help-en/ I have a couple of questions: 1- The page has an index with many links that open up new subpages with content for users. It is impossible to add title tags to this subpages, as everything is held together by the mother page. So it is really hard to for users to find these subpage information when they are doing a google search. 2- We have previous "help" pages which usually rank better in google search. They also have the same structure (1 page with big index and many subpages) and no metadata. We obviously want the last version to rank better, however, we are afraid exclude them from bots search because the new version is not easy to find. These are some of the previous pages: http://kilgray.com/memoq/2014R2/help-en/ http://kilgray.com/memoq/62/help-en/ I would really appreciate suggestions! Thanks
Technical SEO | | Kilgray0 -
Content relaunch without content duplication
We write great Content for blog and websites (or at least we try), especially blogs. Sometimes few of them may NOT get good responses/reach. It could be the content which is not interesting, or the title, or bad timing or even the language used. My question for the discussion is, what will you do if you find the content worth audience's attention missed it during its original launch. Is that fine to make the text and context better and relaunch it ? For example: 1. Rechristening the blog - Change Title to make it attractive
Technical SEO | | macronimous
2. Add images
3. Check spelling
4. Do necessary rewrite, spell check
5. Change the timeline by adding more recent statistics, references to recent writeups (external and internal blogs for example), change anything that seems outdated Also, change title and set rel=cannoical / 301 permanent URLs. Will the above make the blog new? Any ideas and tips to do? Basically we like to refurbish (:-)) content that didn't succeed in the past and relaunch it to try again. If we do so will there be any issues with Google bots? (I hope redirection would solve this, But still I want to make sure) Thanks,0 -
Why are some pages now duplicate content?
It is probably a silly question, but all of a sudden, the following pages of one of my clients are reported as Duplicate content. I cannot understand why. They weren't before... http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/mediterranea-halal
Technical SEO | | MarketingEnergy
http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/gyros-halal
http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/döner-halal
http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/vegetariana
http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/seizoen-pizza-estate
http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/contadina
http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/4-stagioni
http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/shoarma Thanks for any help in the right direction 🙂 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | <colgroup><col style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 17225; width: 353pt;" width="471"></colgroup>
| http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/mediterranea-halal |
| http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/gyros-halal |
| http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/döner-halal |
| http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/vegetariana |
| http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/seizoen-pizza-estate |
| http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/contadina |
| http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/4-stagioni |
| http://www.ciaoitalia.nl/product/pizza-originale/shoarma |0 -
Duplicate Content Errror
I am getting a duplicate content error for urls for the "tags" or categories pages for my blog. These are some the URLs that SEOmoz is saying are errors, or duplicate pages. http://sacmarketingagency.com/blog/?Tag=Facebook http://sacmarketingagency.com/blog/?Tag=content+marketing http://sacmarketingagency.com/blog/?Tag=inbound+marketing As you can see, they are just the pages that are aggregating certain blog post based on how we tagged them with the appropriate category. Is this really a problem for our SEO, if so any suggestions on how to fix this?
Technical SEO | | TalkingSheep0 -
Can you 404 any forms of URL?
Hi seomozzers, <colgroup><col width="548"></colgroup>
Technical SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art
| http://ex.com/user/login?destination=comment%2Freply%2F256%23comment-form |
| http://ex.com/user/login?destination=comment%2Freply%2F258%23comment-form |
| http://ex.com/user/login?destination=comment%2Freply%2F242%23comment-form |
| http://ex.com/user/login?destination=comment%2Freply%2F257%23comment-form |
| http://ex.com/user/login?destination=comment%2Freply%2F260%23comment-form |
| http://ex.com/user/login?destination=comment%2Freply%2F225%23comment-form |
| http://ex.com/user/login?destination=comment%2Freply%2F251%23comment-form |
| http://ex.com/user/login?destination=comment%2Freply%2F176%23comment-form | These are duplicate content and the canonical version is: http://www.ex.com/user (login and pass page of the website) Since there were multiple other duplicates which mostly have been resolved by 301s, I figured that all "LOGIN" URLs (above) should be 404d since they don't carry any authority and 301 those wouldn't be the best solution since "too many 301s" can slow down the website speed. But a member of the dev team said: "Looks like all the urls requested to '404 redirect' are actually the same page http://ex.com/user/login. The only part of the url that changes is the variables after the "?" . I don't think you can (or highly not recommended) make 404 pages display for variables in a url. " So my question is: I am not sure what he means by that? and Is it really better to not 404 these? Thanks0 -
Duplicate content issue
Hi everyone, I have an issue determining what type of duplicate content I have. www.example.com/index.php?mact=Calendar,m57663,default,1&m57663return_id=116&m57663detailpage=&m57663year=2011&m57663month=6&m57663day=19&m57663display=list&m57663return_link=1&m57663detail=1&m57663lang=en_GB&m57663returnid=116&page=116 Since I am not an coding expert, to me it looks like it is a URL parameter duplicate content. Is it? At the same time "return_id" would makes me think it is a session id duplicate content. I am confused about how to determine different types of duplicate content, even by reading articles on Seomoz about it: http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/duplicate-content. Could someone help me on how to recognize different types of duplicate content? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Crawl Errors and Duplicate Content
SEOmoz's crawl tool is telling me that I have duplicate content at "www.mydomain.com/pricing" and at "www.mydomain.com/pricing.aspx". Do you think this is just a glitch in the crawl tool (because obviously these two URL's are the same page rather than two separate ones) or do you think this is actually an error I need to worry about? Is so, how do I fix it?
Technical SEO | | MyNet0