12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Should I use 301 redirection to reduce soft 404 errors

by whatwewa
11 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I think, we should not use 301 permanent redirection to solve soft 404 errors. Please any one suggest me in this issue.
What are the possible methods to get 0 soft 404 errors in google webmasters tools.
#301 #404 #errors #redirection #reduce #soft
  • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
    You're right. Returning an error page without a proper HTTP header is a bad idea, and you should not cover for that with redirections. If your server or CMS is that broken fixing it would be the right way to go.

    It's totally impossible to say how you should proceed because there's so much popular HTTP server software and CMSes around.
    Signature
    Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
    Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

    What's your excuse?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137243].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    This thread doesn't even make sense.

    The whole point of a 301 is to prevent a 404.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137274].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      The whole point of a 301 is to prevent a 404.
      Well, sometimes returning a 404 is a good thing.

      I have a feeling that OP doesn't really understand what Google means by "soft 404 error".

      Maybe somebody has been creating "error pages" for content that was deleted, or something equally weird.
      Signature
      Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
      Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

      What's your excuse?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137292].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      You can't prevent 404 errors. Period. End of story.

      Errors are errors. A soft 404 error, I presume, would be to
      have a custom 404 error page, and NOT zap them to
      some unexpected page without an explanation.

      But you can't prevent 404 errors.

      If you mean for pages that should be there, well, that's your
      problem.

      If you get a 404 error, a 404 error is logged. Even if you
      have a custom 404 page, or redirect(not 301) your 404 page.

      Doing a 301 for every page that gets a 404 error would be silly.
      You would be caught in a never ending trap.

      Paul
      Signature

      If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137298].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        This thread is straight out of the Twilight Zone.






        Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

        Well, sometimes returning a 404 is a good thing.

        I have a feeling that OP doesn't really understand what Google means by "soft 404 error".

        Maybe somebody has been creating "error pages" for content that was deleted, or something equally weird.
        That's beyond crazy.

        A 404 is a %$#^ up URL so it's never going to be a good thing.













        Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

        You can't prevent 404 errors. Period. End of story.

        Errors are errors. A soft 404 error, I presume, would be to
        have a custom 404 error page, and NOT zap them to
        some unexpected page without an explanation.

        But you can't prevent 404 errors.

        If you mean for pages that should be there, well, that's your
        problem.

        If you get a 404 error, a 404 error is logged. Even if you
        have a custom 404 page, or redirect(not 301) your 404 page.

        Doing a 301 for every page that gets a 404 error would be silly.
        You would be caught in a never ending trap.

        Paul
        It's not complicated, a single line of code that will catch all existing/future 404s & redirect to a live webpage. Done.







        [edit]
        Never mind, I see India is hitting the SEO forum with a bunch of junk threads.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137316].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          That's beyond crazy.

          A 404 is a %$#^ up URL so it's never going to be a good thing.
          If the page is delirately deleted and there's no obvious page to redirect to returning a proper 404 is the right way to go. It's somewhat crazy to suggest that 301 is something that you should automatically use as a replacement.

          I'd agree that if your page has a lot of backlinks you should either not delete it, or you really should have a replacement at hand.
          Signature
          Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
          Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

          What's your excuse?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10139675].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

            If the page is delirately deleted and there's no obvious page to redirect to returning a proper 404 is the right way to go. It's somewhat crazy to suggest that 301 is something that you should automatically use as a replacement.

            I'd agree that if your page has a lot of backlinks you should either not delete it, or you really should have a replacement at hand.
            There is no such thing as a proper 404, a 404 page is a trash can.

            It doesn't make sense to force traffic to look at a useless 404 page let alone knowing it will never be indexed or ranked by search engines.

            Whoever invented 404s is an idiot.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10139683].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
              Originally Posted by yukon View Post

              There is no such thing as a proper 404, a 404 page is a trash can.
              I've made enough references to what I call a proper 404, and it has nothing to do with your little "hey, lets redirect everything" trick. A proper not found returns the HTTP 404 header just as a proper redirect should return 3xx in the header.

              On the other hand, a "soft 404" seems to be something that isn't a proper error page, but just a content that says error. Or something. I have no idea why anyone would have this kind of pages with modern CMSes and server software. It takes effort to break core functionality this badly.

              Originally Posted by yukon View Post

              It doesn't make sense to force traffic to look at a useless 404 page let alone knowing it will never be indexed or ranked by search engines.
              I've got no idea what you're raving and ranting about. I said about the same above, did I not? If your page has backlinks, you don't just delete it (although in real world you sometimes have to). And no, I don't see mass redirect as a silver bullet of any sort.

              So apparently not everyone agrees with your chosen trick, and to you that's just madness a la Twilight Zone? Well, from my perspective this hyperbole is getting so thick that it's soon reaching the level of "tripping balls".
              Signature
              Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
              Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

              What's your excuse?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10140126].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author VimalRai
    301 Redirect is lifesaver for you if you post moves from one url to other one domain to other. You retain upto 90% link juice of that page. 404 does not gives you any juice
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137408].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bryan2015
    There is not such exact method for this problem dear.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138681].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    I could see a good use for 404s. If someone was typing in a url directly, and mis-typed it, I would not want them just redirected to a home page. I would want them to see an error page acknowledging the error.

    Just doing a auto redirect to a home page or any other page could be confusing to them. Imagine they hit the home page. They are probably thinking, "How did I end up here?" So they start typing the URL again. This time their browser autofills as they are typing with the same URL they just entered. They do not notice the error and just select the autofill. Again, redirected to the home page. Now they are really confused with what is going on.

    Situation like that, I think 404s are a good thing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10139742].message }}

Trending Topics