Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Thoughts about stub pages - 200 & noindex ok, or 404?
-
With large database/template driven websites it is often possible to get a lot of pages with no content on them.
What are the current thoughts regarding these pages with no content, options;
-
Return a 200 header code with noindex meta tag
-
Return a 404 page & header code
-
Something else?
Thanks
-
-
I would agree with all the comments on how to technically deal with the random pages, but it is a losing battle until you get your website database/templates under control. I once had a similar issue and had to work months to get a solution in place as the website would create all kinds of issues like this.
We had to implement a system so that the creation of these pages would be minimized. I think the issue is that you need to make sure that any random page requests, make sure they get a 404 to start with so that the URL does not get indexed to start with.
That said, all the random URLs that are already indexed, I like the 200 options with the noindex meta tag. My reasons: This is because otherwise with the 404s you get all these error messages that are meaningless in GWT. The noindex also gets the page out of the index. I have seen Google retry 404s on one of our sites, crazy. Ever since Google started showing soft 404s for 301s that redirect many pages to a single URL, I only try to use 301s on more of a one to one basis.
Good luck.
-
Ok, a understand better. I have the same problem with a Site un Drupal, I think is better use a robot.txt to block the empty pages.
These because the link juice that the page transfere is minimum and use extra resources from the server.
If you can't block with robots.txt the noindex,follow meta es ok. But if you see in Analytics that some Landing Pages are www.example.com/product/ {} random_text_here es better use a 404 with redirect 301 to Site Map for user experience.
-
Thanks for the info.
For more information, let me try and explain the scenario a little better.
When using a template to generate all product page on a site, often these are designed in a way so that any URLs of the form "www.example.com/product/{something}" will map to a script called "GenerateProductPage.java" likely based on the rule that anything in the /product/ directory will map there (or .asp etc depending on the language being used).
On the site, there are only going to be links to the actual products that are stored in the DB, so for a user there are no issues there.
But Google manages to find all manor of strange URLs and since they are of the form "www.example.com/product/{random_text_here}" then this also will 'try' and generate a product page. Since there is no actual product in the database called 'random_text_here' then this will result in an empty product page with nothing there except the template navigation, footer links and menus etc.
We currently are doing as you mentioned, by "noindex, follow" the pages for the same reasons you listed.
So the question was; is this ok to do? is this bad to do? (if so why). Is there any harm in doing things the current way? Should we be 404'ig the pages (and what value does this have over the other methods?) etc.
Thanks for your input Carlo as it shows your thoughts are along the same lines as ours.
Has anyone else got anything to add to the information provided?
Thanks
-
Hi, mmm, I not really sure that understand why you have invalid pages, options:
- Products without stock
- Is build based in other database
If you have a product name without content is better a meta noindex, follow because transferred link juice.
But like I say I dont know why these products exist. If you have more info I could help more
-
Thanks for the response.
I guess what I was getting at with the question is when websites are built on flexible platforms and can easily create these pages automatically.
For example, if there was flexible URLs in place whereby URLs such as www.example.com/product/{product_name} all mapped to one script which generated a product page.
So www.example.com/product/{invalid_product_name} would also work and essentially show a blank product page.
The question being, how is the best way to handle these for Google and is there any benefit/harm from either of the methods outlined in the original question.
Has anyone else any thoughts on best ways to handle these scenarios?
Thanks
-
If you know that a Page doesn't have content I recomend:
- A page without content have to response 404.
- If the Page return a 404 make a 301 to Site map.
- In the Site Map use meta noindex, follow to transfer the link juice.
- Eventually you need clean these pages because is bad for users and SEO.
Regards
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
-
Duplicate content, although page has "noindex"
Hello, I had an issue with some pages being listed as duplicate content in my weekly Moz report. I've since discussed it with my web dev team and we decided to stop the pages from being crawled. The web dev team added this coding to the pages <meta name='robots' content='max-image-preview:large, noindex dofollow' />, but the Moz report is still reporting the pages as duplicate content. Note from the developer "So as far as I can see we've added robots to prevent the issue but maybe there is some subtle change that's needed here. You could check in Google Search Console to see how its seeing this content or you could ask Moz why they are still reporting this and see if we've missed something?" Any help much appreciated!
Technical SEO | | rj_dale0 -
Cookies disabled pointing to a 404 page
Hi mozzers, I am running an audit and disabled cookies on our homepage for testing purposes, this pointed to a 404 http response? I tried on other pages and they were loading correctly. I assume this is not normal? Why this is happening? and could this harm the site's SEO? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Taysir0 -
Robots.txt & meta noindex--site still shows up on Google Search
I have set up my robots.txt like this: User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | RoxBrock
Disallow: / and I have this meta tag in my on a Wordpress site, set up with SEO Yoast name="robots" content="noindex,follow"/> I did "Fetch as Google" on my Google Search Console My website is still showing up in the search results and it says this: "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt" This site has not shown up for years and now it is ranking above my site that I want to rank for this keyword. How do I get Google to ignore this site? This seems really weird and I'm confused how a site with little content, that has not been updated for years can rank higher than a site that is constantly updated and improved.1 -
Home Page Ranking Instead of Service Pages
Hi everyone! I've noticed that many of our clients have pages addressing specific queries related to specific services on their websites, but that the Home Page is increasingly showing as the "ranking" page. For example, a plastic surgeon we work with has a page specifically talking about his breast augmentation procedure for Miami, FL but instead of THAT page showing in the search results, Google is using his home page. Noticing this across the board. Any insights? Should we still be optimizing these specific service pages? Should I be spending time trying to make sure Google ranks the page specifically addressing that query because it SHOULD perform better? Thanks for the help. Confused SEO :/, Ricky Shockley
Technical SEO | | RickyShockley0 -
Is the Authority of Individual Pages Diluted When You Add New Pages?
I was wondering if the authority of individual pages is diluted when you add new pages (in Google's view). Suppose your site had 100 pages and you added 100 new pages (without getting any new links). Would the average authority of the original pages significantly decrease and result in a drop in search traffic to the original pages? Do you worry that adding more pages will hurt pages that were previously published?
Technical SEO | | Charlessipe0 -
Best way to handle pages with iframes that I don't want indexed? Noindex in the header?
I am doing a bit of SEO work for a friend, and the situation is the following: The site is a place to discuss articles on the web. When clicking on a link that has been posted, it sends the user to a URL on the main site that is URL.com/article/view. This page has a large iframe that contains the article itself, and a small bar at the top containing the article with various links to get back to the original site. I'd like to make sure that the comment pages (URL.com/article) are indexed instead of all of the URL.com/article/view pages, which won't really do much for SEO. However, all of these pages are indexed. What would be the best approach to make sure the iframe pages aren't indexed? My intuition is to just have a "noindex" in the header of those pages, and just make sure that the conversation pages themselves are properly linked throughout the site, so that they get indexed properly. Does this seem right? Thanks for the help...
Technical SEO | | jim_shook0 -
404 error - but I can't find any broken links on the referrer pages
Hi, My crawl has diagnosed a client's site with eight 404 errors. In my CSV download of the crawl, I have checked the source code of the 'referrer' pages, but can't find where the link to the 404 error page is. Could there be another reason for getting 404 errors? Thanks for your help. Katharine.
Technical SEO | | PooleyK0 -
Why are pages still showing in SERPs, despite being NOINDEXed for months?
We have thousands of pages we're trying to have de-indexed in Google for months now. They've all got . But they simply will not go away in the SERPs. Here is just one example.... http://bitly.com/VutCFiIf you search this URL in Google, you will see that it is indexed, yet it's had for many months. This is just one example for thousands of pages, that will not get de-indexed. Am I missing something here? Does it have to do with using content="none" instead of content="noindex, follow"? Any help is very much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | MadeLoud0