@JesseW (I see you addressed something similar before, so I'm reaching out to you regarding this issue.)
After publishing my Online Store and a second website using the builder only (version 7), I began checking for broken links using a common open source product. The results indicated in both instances that ALL of the links inherent in the GoDaddy template are considered BROKEN. This includes:
The only links that are not considered broken are the ones that link to another URL. I suspect this is because the core of the GD links are all named ...websites.godaddy.com whereas the final link name is ...yoururl.com. At some point, the GD link name is changed to your url name during publishing. Therefore, the testing software recognizes this as a missing link.
Since every page has the built-in navigation links, certain photos, etc., this has to be affecting our SEO in a negative way. Broken links are known to hurt your ranking and, if too many, even shut down your site. I need to know what GD is going to do to rectify this situation so we can have "clean" sites. Having all these broken links is unacceptable. Thanks.
Solved! Go to Solution.
Hey @Hopeful. What common open source product were you referring to? I ran a test site through a link checker that I found online but didn't get the same results. If you can provide specifics, that would help identify the issue at hand. Thanks!
@JesseW Thanks for looking into this. I tested the whole site and then went back and tested each individual page. The problem existed on every page for all the items I listed. I used the this site:
@Hopeful - Thanks. I was able to reproduce what you're referring to using a test site. However, using other tools on the same test site did not identify broken links. There seems to be something specific about the way GoCentral/Online Store sites are constructed that this tool does not like. Even though the tool indicates that a link is broken, when you click on the "broken" links, they all resolve to pages. However, I have passed this issue on to our development team for further review. I'll let you know once I hear back from them.
@Hopeful - According to our dev team, the validator tool in question uses a "HEAD" request to check links on pages. Apparently, GoCentral servers don't support this request method, as most browsers use a "GET" request instead. That's why the links are coming up as broken, even though they aren't. Hope that helps.
@JesseW Thanks for looking into this! I hope the information you're getting means that this issue isn't hurting our SEO. Is that what you are saying?
I find it odd that IF the GET command, which gets the whole page, is what most browsers use, then the test site wouldn't use that as well. If they use the HEAD command, which only gets the head, the head certainly should be there as part of the whole page. So why is it saying the link is broken? ( I could understand it if the browser was using the GET command on a page that only has a HEAD command.)
Upon further investigation, the following browsers support GET:
The following browsers support HEAD:
If you scroll down in these docs you can see most all of the browsers are compatible with both GET and HEAD. So which browser are you saying the w3.org site is using that is causing it to show all these broken links?
@Hopeful - I don't have a great deal of detail in regard to why we use GET over HEAD. I'm sure that we wouldn't do this intentionally if it had an effect on SEO rankings. I wasn't able to find any information online suggesting that it's a factor. If you find evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it.
As for the validator tool, to clarify, it's the tool itself that is using HEAD vs GET. Browser compatibility with those methods wouldn't have an effect on how the tool runs or whether or not our GoCentral servers accept that request method. I hope that makes sense.
@JesseW I get it. Thank you so much for looking into this. So, to confirm, you are saying our links are not actually broken, it's just this tool. May I ask what tool you used to get different results? This tool I used is very popular so I'm surprised to hear that it functions incorrectly.
@Hopeful. Correct. The links are not broken.
I tried several tools that I found just by searching online. The ones that I liked the most were site24x7.com and drlinkcheck.com.