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
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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 issue with ?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=
Hello,
Technical SEO | | Dinsh007
Recently, I was checking how my site content is getting indexed in Google and from today I noticed 2 links indexed on google for the same article: This is the proper link - https://techplusgame.com/hideo-kojima-not-interested-in-new-silent-hills-revival-insider-claims/ But why this URL was indexed, I don't know - https://techplusgame.com/hideo-kojima-not-interested-in-new-silent-hills-revival-insider-claims/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hideo-kojima-not-interested-in-new-silent-hills-revival-insider-claims Could you please tell me how to solve this issue? Thank you1 -
Google has deindexed a page it thinks is set to 'noindex', but is in fact still set to 'index'
A page on our WordPress powered website has had an error message thrown up in GSC to say it is included in the sitemap but set to 'noindex'. The page has also been removed from Google's search results. Page is https://www.onlinemortgageadvisor.co.uk/bad-credit-mortgages/how-to-get-a-mortgage-with-bad-credit/ Looking at the page code, plus using Screaming Frog and Ahrefs crawlers, the page is very clearly still set to 'index'. The SEO plugin we use has not been changed to 'noindex' the page. I have asked for it to be reindexed via GSC but I'm concerned why Google thinks this page was asked to be noindexed. Can anyone help with this one? Has anyone seen this before, been hit with this recently, got any advice...?
Technical SEO | | d.bird0 -
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 -
Getting high priority issue for our xxx.com and xxx.com/home as duplicate pages and duplicate page titles can't seem to find anything that needs to be corrected, what might I be missing?
I am getting high priority issue for our xxx.com and xxx.com/home as reporting both duplicate pages and duplicate page titles on crawl results, I can't seem to find anything that needs to be corrected, what am I be missing? Has anyone else had a similar issue, how was it corrected?
Technical SEO | | tgwebmaster0 -
Noindex vs. page removal - Panda recovery
I'm wondering whether there is a consensus within the SEO community as to whether noindexing pages vs. actually removing pages is different from Google Pandas perspective?Does noindexing pages have less value when removing poor quality content than physically removing ie. either 301ing or 404ing the page being removed and removing the links to it from the site? I presume that removing pages has a positive impact on the amount of link juice that gets to some of the remaining pages deeper into the site, but I also presume this doesn't have any direct impact on the Panda algorithm? Thanks very much in advance for your thoughts, and corrections on my assumptions 🙂
Technical SEO | | agencycentral0 -
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 -
NoIndex/NoFollow pages showing up when doing a Google search using "Site:" parameter
We recently launched a beta version of our new website in a subdomain of our existing site. The existing site is www.fonts.com with the beta living at new.fonts.com. We do not want Google to crawl the new site until it's out of beta so we have added the following on all pages: However, one of our team members noticed that google is displaying results from new.fonts.com when doing an "site:new.fonts.com" search (see attached screenshot). Is it possible that Google is indexing the content despite the noindex, nofollow tags? We have double checked the syntax and it seems correct except the trailing "/". I know Google still crawls noindexed pages, however, the fact that they're showing up in search results using the site search syntax is unsettling. Any thoughts would be appreciated! DyWRP.png
Technical SEO | | ChrisRoberts-MTI0