Why webmasters are reluctant to change broken links?

I'd really like to understand the motives of webmaster that don't replace broken links with new ones.

1. It's bad for user experience to have a broken link on the site.

2. Even linking to not so good article is better than broken (or no link), especially when the context requires a link.

Some people say that simply finding a broken link is not enough to get a back-link from the site. I would disagree with that.

1. If a website has broken links, it's obvious that the owner does not use any tools to find them, and thus is unaware of them. For such non-tech person it's a great help if someone shows the broken link for free. Because otherwise they would have to pay for that.

2. I think it's extremely rude for the blog owner to start asking favours, from the person who helped them for free. Seriously if someone on the parking lot would tell you that you have a broken tire and would offer replacement tire, would you ask them to "provide more value"!?

3. It's also strange, that these same people originally linked to a website, in most cases without asking anything in return, but now, when that link became broken, they suddenly want some personal gain from linking to you. Where's the logic?

submitted by /u/AwkwardAd3
[link] [comments]

from Search Engine Optimization: The Latest SEO News https://ift.tt/3csMkKI