A bit misleading

  • shawfactor

    (@shawfactor)


    6 months, 1 week ago

    this plugin does serve 410 headers

    But it won’t improve seo.

    410 are for resources that have existed in the past and no longer exists.

    unfortunately this plugin does not follow the standards and serves all missing content with a 410 header (whether it ever existed or not)

    there is no benefit to this approach and my research (stackexchange) indicates this might sctually harm seo in cases where you’ve temporarily changed a posts status to draft or trashed and restored it.

    • This topic was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by shawfactor.
Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Plugin Author Kurban Ali

    (@kurbanali)

    6 months, 1 week ago

    @shawfactor Thank you for your comment. If a page does not exit or due to malware attack unwanted URL’s are getting generated and createing a lot of 404 errors that time this plugin is helpful.

    When someone delete a page, they usually redirect it to a different page either with 301 or 302, if not it shows 404. Google recrawls a 404 page unlimited time unless it is chaange to 410.

    We are not changing the content. The user will see the 404 content assigned by the theme / developer. We are just changing the http status which will help Google Bot not the recrawl the pages again. As a result, it will optimize the website’s crawl budget effectively.

    Thread Starter shawfactor

    (@shawfactor)

    6 months, 1 week ago

    Seriously stop defending your ignorance. This plugin will in some cases be negative to seo, it won’t help it.

    410 headers are for content that has existed but is now GONE. Your plugin is deliberately not following this standard as it’s serving all 404s as 410s. Whilst this won’t (generally)harm seo it won’t help it. And it could cause problems when you move a post temporarily from published to draft btw as that content will take much longer to be indexed when it’s republished.

    I only care as I looked at this plugin thinking it was doing something neat but then looked at the code and actually realised what it was doing

    I’d link to relevant articles but the moderators don’t like external links and in any case it’s only a google search away.

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by shawfactor.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by shawfactor.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by shawfactor.
Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • The topic ‘A bit misleading’ is closed to new replies.