3 ms·
it seems incredibly short-sighted to assume that just because these actions might possibly give you a small bump in SEO right now, they won't have long-term con
by notatoad 3y ago
it seems incredibly short-sighted to assume that just because these actions might possibly give you a small bump in SEO right now, they won't have long-term consequences.
if CNET deletes all their old articles, they're making a situation where most links to CNET from other sites lead to error pages (or at least, pages with no relevant content on them) and even if that isn't currently a signal used by google, it could become one.
- bagacrap 3y agoNo doubt those links are redirected to the CNET homepage.
- mantra2 3y agoIsn’t mass redirecting 404s to the homepage problematic SEO-wise?
- twelve40 3y agoTechnically, you're supposed to do a 410 or a 404, but when some pages being deleted have those extremely valuable old high-reputation backlinks, it's just wasteful, so i'd say it's better to redirect, to the "next best page" like maybe a category or something, or the homepage, as the last resort. Why would it be problematic? Especially if you do a sweep and only redirect pages that have valuable backlinks.
- mantra2 3y agoI was only talking about mass redirecting 404s to the homepage, which I've heard is not great, I think what you're saying is fine -- but that sounds like more of a well thought out strategy.