Should you really be concerned about accumulating 404 errors in the Search Console?

Why does Google insist on the 404 code for deleted pages?

When a page is permanently removed from a site, the server must return an HTTP 404 code to clearly signal to the crawler that the resource no longer exists. This is the standard and clean way to communicate this information.

The acceptable alternative is a 301 redirect to a relevant page, but only if that redirect provides real value to the user. Redirecting constantly to the homepage or an unrelated page dilutes the experience and can be seen as manipulation.

What does 'normal and expected' mean in the Search Console?

Mueller clarifies that seeing 404 errors in the Search Console is not unusual — it is even the natural lifecycle of a website that removes outdated content, exhausted product pages, or expired articles. Google crawls billions of pages and inevitably discovers URLs that no longer exist.

The confusion arises because many webmasters associate 'error' with 'serious problem'. Here, the 404 is information, not a malfunction. What would be problematic is returning a 200 code (success) on an empty or nonexistent page, as this misleads the engine.

Do 404 errors really impact site ranking?

No. Mueller states unequivocally: 404 errors do not have a negative impact on ranking. Google does not penalize a site for deleting pages and properly returning 404s.

What can affect ranking, however, is a broken internal link structure that points heavily to 404s, or lost quality backlinks due to deletions without strategic redirection. But the 404 code itself? Neutral.

• A 404 code is the expected response when a page no longer exists permanently.
• A 301 redirect is appropriate only to a relevant and equivalent page.
• 404s in the Search Console are not a penalty signal — it's a factual observation from the crawl.
• Broken internal linking to 404s can degrade UX and dilute crawl budget.
• Consistently redirecting to the homepage is a bad practice that benefits neither the user nor SEO.

Is this statement consistent with real-world observations?

Yes, completely. For years, sites with thousands of 404s face no visible algorithmic penalties. Case studies show that e-commerce sites managing catalogs of hundreds of thousands of products accumulate massive 404s without losing rankings — as long as the internal linking is clean.

What poses a problem in practice is the confusion between technical signal and quality signal. An isolated 404 is neutral. But a site that generates thousands of internal 404s daily through its menu or widgets may indeed lose crawl budget and degrade user experience. That's what needs to be monitored — not the code itself.

What nuances should be added to this statement?

Mueller talks about 'redirect' as an alternative to the 404, but he does not specify what type of redirect. A permanent 301 to a similar page is fine. A temporary 302? A 307? A client-side JavaScript redirect? The statement remains vague on these edge cases. [To verify]: Does Google treat all redirects the same way in this context?

Another point: the notion of 'relevant page' for a redirect is not defined. Is redirecting a product page to its parent category relevant? To a similar product? To a search results page? Google's criteria remain subjective and open to interpretation.

In what cases might this rule not apply strictly?

If a deleted page has active quality backlinks, leaving a blank 404 is wasting juice. In this specific case, a 301 redirect to the most thematically relevant page is strategically superior, even if Google says a 404 is 'normal'.

Another edge case: deleted pages that still receive direct organic traffic (brand, awareness, old bookmarks). Again, a sudden 404 can frustrate the user. An interstitial page explaining the deletion with suggestions for alternatives might be wiser than a standard 404 — even though technically, Google prefers the 404.

What should be done when deleting a page?

First, decide if the page deserves a 301 redirect or a clean 404. If it has active backlinks, residual traffic, or a clear equivalent on the site, redirect it. If it's a worthless page that has been dead for a long time with no inbound links, leave a clean 404.

Next, clean up the internal linking. Scan the site to identify all links pointing to the deleted page and replace or remove them. A tool like Screaming Frog or Sitebulb can do this in a few minutes. This step is what really matters — not the 404 code itself.

What mistakes should absolutely be avoided?

The worst mistake: redirecting all deleted pages to the homepage by default. This is a practice inherited from the 2000s that contributes nothing and can even be perceived as an attempt at manipulation if done systematically. Google has already flagged it as a soft 404.

Another trap: leaving a 404 on a page that returns a 200 code. Typically, an 'Error 404' page displayed but served with a 200 HTTP code. This is a soft 404, and here, Google may indeed struggle to interpret the signal and waste crawl budget.

How can I check that my site handles deletions correctly?

Use the Search Console to list the 404s detected by Google, then cross-reference with an internal audit to identify where these URLs come from. If they arise from your own internal linking, correct them. If it's from external crawling of old backlinks, ignore them.

For redirects, check that they return a 301 code and not a 302 or a chain of multiple redirects. A tool like Redirect Path (Chrome extension) or a simple `curl -I` command can provide this information immediately.

• Audit the internal linking to find links to deleted pages
• Decide on a case-by-case basis: clean 404 or 301 redirect based on the value of the page
• Avoid redirects to the homepage unless it's truly the best alternative
• Check the returned HTTP codes to ensure that a 404 is indeed a 404, not a 200
• Monitor the 404s in the Search Console to detect any potential structural issues
• Test the redirects to avoid chains or loops of redirects