OSE link report showing links to 404 pages on my site
-
I did a link analysis on this site mormonwiki.com. And many of the pages shown to be linked to were pages like these http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Planning_a_trip_to_Rome_By_using_Movie_theatre_-_Your_five_Fun_Shows2052752
There happens to be thousands of them and these pages actually no longer exist but the links to them obviously still do. I am planning to proceed by disavowing these links to the pages that don't exist. Does anyone see any reason to not do this, or that doing this would be unnecessary?
Another issue is that Google is not really crawling this site, in WMT they are reporting to have not crawled a single URL on the site. Does anyone think the above issue would have something to do with this? And/or would you have any insight on how to remedy it?
-
The site does have and has had ranking issues since the first Penguin and has really had problems the last few months. And other than some minor things low quality links are really the only problem with the site.
-
Hi,
Adam is correct that the disavow tool should only be used if you think the links are causing you significant ranking problems. It's become quite common for people to disavow links without either a confirmed penalty or ranking issues, but those two factors were originally how Google recommended the tool be used.
What it sounds like has happened to your site with these bad pages is that spammers have created spam pages on the wiki then pointed links to those pages from elsewhere. It's a very common and old spam tactic, used on sites that allow UGC.
Those pages are now returning 404s, so technically the inbound links pointing to them should not hurt your website or cause a penalty. It's generally assumed the links to 404 pages (good or bad links) don't hurt or help. I disagree that they'll cause a "bad user experience" as it sounds like they have been built for spam purposes only - no one is going to try and visit these links.
If you believe these links are causing a ranking issue, the disavowal tool is certainly an option - I take it there's no chance you can negotiate these links' removal with the folks who built them? Removing links is always preferable to using disavowal also.
-
If you are seeing zero pages indexed and zero traffic from search then I would assume you have perhaps verified and subsequently are looking at data for the non-www version of the domain.
Double check that the site listed in WMT is www.mormonwiki.com and not mormonwiki.com. If you are looking at indexation and traffic data for the www version then there may be something else going on and unfortunately I wouldn't be able to diagnose the issue without looking at the WMT account.
Have your rankings been significantly affected? You would need to perform a fair amount of analysis before you can conclude that the site has been affected algorithmically. You would also need to be sure that any negative impact to rankings is a result of poor quality links and not something else, such as on-page factors.
Using the disavow should really be a last resort and only if it has been impossible to get troublesome links removed. As the warning from Google states, the disavow feature 'can potentially harm your site's performance' so I would not recommend using it until you have performed more in-depth analysis.
-
Right so if the pages no longer exist they need to be gotten rid of right? Most of these won't be removed by the webmasters and so they'll need to be disavowed right?
These pages were UGC and are essentially spam, and entirely irrelevant to anything on the site itself. So 301 redirects would not be wise or useful I don't think.
-
It hasn't received a manual action no. But that doesn't mean algorthimically the site isn't being affected.
So you're saying to not worry at all about these links?
They offer nothing in terms of value. If going to live pages they would be considered very spammy and completely irrelevant. But since these pages don't even exist you're saying it's unnecessary to bother with them at all?
I'm seeing the crawlability issue in WMT itself. The strange thing is that I know some pages have been indexed, we get most of our traffic organically from Google. But WMT shows zero pages indexed, zero traffic from search etc. The site has been verified as well.
-
I agree with Adam, if the links are natural then there is no need to disavow them.
However, if the links go to pages that no longer exist then it provides a poor user experience that can harm your rankings. Think of it like having dead links on your website. Have you set up 301 redirects for the pages that have become inactive? If not, set them up and make sure to redirect the pages to relevant areas of the website (no all to the homepage). Do this and the links should pass more juice and your website's performance should improve.
-
Are you performing a link analysis because the site received a manual action notification in WMT? If the site hasn't received a penalty then there is no need to use the disavow feature. As Google states:
'This is an advanced feature and should only be used with caution. If used incorrectly, this feature can potentially harm your site’s performance in Google’s search results. We recommend that you disavow backlinks only if you believe you have a considerable number of spammy, artificial, or low-quality links pointing to your site, and if you are confident that the links are causing issues for you. In most cases, Google can assess which links to trust without additional guidance, so most normal or typical sites will not need to use this tool.'
In terms of the crawlability of the site, where are you seeing WMT reporting to have not crawled a single page? A simple site: search of the mormonwiki.com domain returns about 65,600 results and I can't see any major issues that would prevent search engines from crawling the site. However, I would probably fix the issue with the robots.txt file. Currently, www.mormonwiki.com/robots.txt 301 redirects to www.mormonwiki.com/Robots.txt, which returns a 404 error.
Hope that helps.
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
-
Redirecting Pages During Site Migration
Hi everyone, We are changing a website's domain name. The site architecture will stay the same, but we are renaming some pages. How do we treat redirects? I read this on Search Engine Land: The ideal way to set up your redirects is with a regex expression in the .htaccess file of your old site. The regex expression should simply swap out your domain name, or swap out HTTP for HTTPS if you are doing an SSL migration. For any pages where this isn’t possible, you will need to set up an individual redirect. Make sure this doesn’t create any conflicts with your regex and that it doesn’t produce any redirect chains. Does the above mean we are able to set up a domain redirect on the regex for pages that we are not renaming and then have individual 1:1 redirects for renamed pages in the same .htaccess file? So have both? This will not conflict with the regex rule?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nhhernandez0 -
Dfferent url of some other site is shown by Google in cace copy of our site's page
Hi, When i check cached copy of url of my site http://goo.gl/BZw2Zz , the url in cache copy shown by Google is of some other third party site. Why is Google showing third party url in our site's cached url. Did any of you guys faced any such issue. Regards,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vivekrathore0 -
Is it bad practice to create pages that 404?
We have member pages on our site that are initially empty, until the member does some activity. Currently, since all of these pages are soft 404s, we return a 404 for all these pages and all internal links to them are js links (not links as far as bots are concerned). As soon as the page has content, we switch it to 200 and make the links into regular hrefs. After doing some research, I started thinking that this is not the best way to handle this situation. A better idea would be to noindex/follow the pages (before they have content) and let the links to these pages be real links. I'd love to hear input and feedback from fellow Mozzers. What are your thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | YairSpolter0 -
Unnatural links to your site—impacts links
I got message in my Google webmaster tool: Unnatural links to your site—impacts links Does anyone knows the difference between "Unnatural links to your site—impacts links" and "Unnatural links to your site" Thank you Sina
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SinaKashani0 -
Should all pages on a site be included in either your sitemap or robots.txt?
I don't have any specific scenario here but just curious as I come across sites fairly often that have, for example, 20,000 pages but only 1,000 in their sitemap. If they only think 1,000 of their URL's are ones that they want included in their sitemap and indexed, should the others be excluded using robots.txt or a page level exclusion? Is there a point to having pages that are included in neither and leaving it up to Google to decide?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RossFruin1 -
How can I fix "Too Many On Page Links"?
One of the warnings from SEO Moz says that we have "too many on page links" on a series of pages on my website. The pages it's giving me these warnings on are on my printing sample pages. I'm assuming that it's because of my left navigation. You can see an example here: http://www.3000doorhangers.com/door-hanger-design-samples/deck-and-fence-door-hanger-samples/ Any suggestions on how to fix this warning? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JimDirectMailCoach0 -
Too many on page links - product pages
Some of the pages on my client's website have too many on page links because they have lists of all their products. Is there anything I should/could do about this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlightAnalytics0 -
Multiple sites linking back with pornographic anchor text
I discovered a while ago that we had quite a number of links pointing back to one of our customer's websites. The anchor text of these links contain porn that is extremely bad. These links are originating from forums that seems to link between themselves and then throw my customers web address in there at the same time. Any thoughts on this? I'm seriously worried that this may negatively affect the site.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GeorgeMaven0