Should you really remove all soft 404 error URLs from your sitemap?

What exactly is a soft 404 error?

A soft 404 error occurs when a page returns an HTTP status 200 (OK) while it should return a 404. In other words, the server tells Google that everything is fine, but the displayed content corresponds to an error page or is almost empty.

Google detects these situations by analyzing the content of the page: little text, lack of useful navigation, generic error messages. The engine understands that the page provides no value, despite the 200 code. These errors often appear on e-commerce sites when a product is removed but the page remains accessible with a message stating “Product unavailable” instead of a true 404.

Why does Google insist on their exclusion from the sitemap?

The XML sitemap is a file that you voluntarily submit to Google to indicate the priority URLs for crawling and indexing. By including soft 404 errors, you send a conflicting signal: you request the indexing of a page that your own content declares nonexistent.

Google then wastes crawl budget revisiting these unnecessary pages. Worse yet, your sitemap loses credibility. If Google sees that 30% of your listed URLs are soft errors, it will trust the entire file less and may reduce the crawling frequency of your true strategic pages.

How does this directive fit into the indexing strategy?

Mueller’s statement reminds us of a fundamental principle: the sitemap is not a raw inventory of all your URLs. It is a prioritization tool you use to guide the crawler toward your high-value content.

This means that active maintenance is required. You cannot generate an automatic sitemap without filters and forget it for six months. Sites that choose this option end up with thousands of obsolete URLs, unnecessary parameter variations, empty pagination pages. Google then has to sort through these, which slows down the indexing of important new content.

• A soft 404 error returns a 200 code but displays error content or is almost empty
• Including these URLs in the sitemap wastes crawl budget and undermines the file’s credibility
• The XML sitemap should be a prioritization tool for strategic pages, not a comprehensive inventory
• Google detects soft 404s through content analysis, regardless of the HTTP code
• Regular maintenance of the sitemap is essential to avoid the accumulation of obsolete URLs

Is this recommendation consistent with field observations?

Absolutely. SEO audits regularly show sites with 20 to 40% soft 404 errors in their sitemap. These sites often experience abnormally long indexing delays for their new strategic pages. Once the cleanup is done, the crawl frequency usually increases within 3 to 4 weeks.

Interestingly, Google does not directly penalize these errors in rankings. You do not lose positions because your sitemap contains soft 404s. But you lose crawl efficiency: Google spends time on dead ends instead of discovering your new content. This is an invisible but real opportunity cost.

What nuances should be added to this directive?

Mueller remains vague on a crucial point: how to handle temporarily unavailable pages? A product out of stock for 15 days is not necessarily dead forever. Should it be removed from the sitemap immediately or should you wait? Google does not provide a clear time threshold.

From my field experience, I recommend distinguishing two cases. If the page will return within 30 days with the same content (stock, scheduled maintenance), keep it in the sitemap but temporarily block its indexing using noindex. If it is permanent or of indefinite duration, remove it from the sitemap and send a true 404 or a 410 (gone). [To be verified]: Google has never officially confirmed this time threshold approach, but it limits unnecessary back and forth.

In what situations does this rule pose practical problems?

On large e-commerce sites with dynamic catalogs, the situation becomes complex. Imagine having 50,000 items with a weekly turnover of 5%: removing and then reinjecting 2,500 URLs per week into the sitemap creates a significant technical burden if managed manually.

Some CMS generate the sitemap on the fly by querying the product database. If your business logic keeps product listings in the database with a flag “available=false,” the sitemap will continue to include them unless you add a specific filter. This is where many teams mess up: the developer may not necessarily know what a soft 404 is from an SEO perspective, and the SEO may not always understand the sitemap generation logic from a technical standpoint.