Broken-Link Audit

What a Broken-Link Audit Is, in Plain Language

A broken-link audit is a systematic check of every link on a website to find the ones that no longer lead anywhere useful. The auditor collects the links from the site's pages, visits each destination, and records which ones return an error, which ones redirect to an unrelated page, and which ones point at content that has changed beyond recognition. The result is a list of links that need fixing, sorted so that the most important ones can be dealt with first. It is called an audit because it is a review of the whole site, not a spot check of a single page.

The word broken covers more than a single kind of failure. A link can be broken because the target page was deleted, because its address changed without a redirect, because the target site itself has closed, because the address was typed incorrectly, or because the target server is temporarily unavailable. A link can also be effectively broken even though it technically loads: it may land on a homepage instead of the promised article, or on a page that now covers a different topic. A good audit catches both kinds, the outright errors and the misleading successes, because both frustrate the reader who clicked.

An audit is different from noticing a broken link by accident. Readers do notice broken links, and they sometimes report them, but relying on reports means the site owner only learns about the links that a helpful reader happened to click and bothered to mention. Most broken links are never reported; they are simply clicked, met with an error, and abandoned. An audit reverses that order. Instead of waiting for readers to find the failures, the site owner finds them first, on a schedule, and fixes them before they cost readers, trust, or search visibility.

What a Broken-Link Audit Is Not

A broken-link audit is not a one-time cleanup that permanently solves the problem. Links break continuously, because the web itself changes continuously: other sites move, rename, and close their pages, and a site's own pages are reorganised over time. An audit that is done once and never repeated will look tidy for a while and then quietly go stale, just as a garden weeded once will grow weeds again. The audit is a routine, not a project with a finish line, and its value comes from repetition at a sensible interval.

An audit is also not a substitute for good link hygiene in the first place. Choosing stable, reputable sources, linking to specific articles rather than to homepages, and updating internal links when a page moves will all reduce the number of broken links an audit finds. The audit catches what slips through those habits; it does not replace them. A site that audits frequently but keeps linking carelessly will spend its effort fixing the same kind of failure again and again, instead of preventing it.

Finally, an audit is not a judgement on the quality of the content it checks. A page can be beautifully written and still contain a broken link to a source that moved last month, and a page with no broken links can still be thin or outdated. The audit answers one specific question: do the links on this site still lead where they promise to lead? That question matters, but it is one part of maintaining a site, alongside refreshing content, checking structure, and listening to readers. It should be reported as what it is, not inflated into a verdict on the whole site.

How a Broken-Link Audit Works

The audit begins with collection. The auditor gathers every link from the site's pages: links inside articles, links in navigation, links in footers, and links in any resource or reference sections. Both internal links, which point at other pages on the same site, and external links, which point at other sites, are collected, because both kinds can break. Internal links usually break when a page on the same site moves or is deleted. External links usually break when the other site changes, which the site owner cannot control but can still detect and respond to.

The third stage is sorting and fixing. Not all broken links matter equally, so the list is sorted by importance: links on popular pages first, links in prominent positions next, and links on rarely visited pages last. Each broken link then gets one of a small set of fixes. An internal link to a moved page is updated to the new address. A link to a deleted page is replaced with a link to an equivalent page or removed. An external link to a moved page is updated if the new address can be found, and removed or replaced if the source is genuinely gone. The audit ends when the list has been worked through and the fixes have been checked, not when the list has merely been printed.

Chart: The Four Stages of a Broken-Link Audit

Source note: qualitative process diagram based on standard audit practice as described in Google Search Central guidance on site maintenance and in MDN Web Docs on HTTP status responses. No measured figures are shown, because the time and effort of an audit depend on the size of the site and the number of links it contains.

Why a Broken-Link Audit Matters

For readers, a broken link is a small betrayal of trust. The reader clicked because the link promised something specific, an article, a source, a product, a piece of evidence, and instead met an error or an unrelated page. One broken link is a minor annoyance. Several, across a site, suggest that nobody is looking after the place, and the reader begins to doubt the rest of the content too, even the parts that are perfectly accurate. A site that audits its links signals the opposite: that someone is still tending the site, and that its recommendations can be relied on.

For search engines, broken links waste the effort spent crawling a site and muddy the picture of how its pages connect. A crawler that follows a link to an error has spent a visit learning nothing, and a page full of dead ends gives the crawler less reason to return promptly. Internal links also carry readers and crawlers between related pages, so a broken internal link does more than frustrate one click: it cuts a path through the site. Keeping those paths open, a subject covered in internal linking and in internal linking strategy for blogs, is part of why an audit matters beyond the single link it fixes.

Common Mistakes in a Broken-Link Audit

The first mistake is checking only the homepage, or only the newest articles, and calling the result an audit. Broken links accumulate fastest in older content, because older articles have had more time for their targets to move, and because they are the articles least likely to have been revisited. An audit that skips old pages misses exactly the links most likely to be broken. The audit should cover the whole site, or at least a defined, representative set of pages that includes old and new content, popular and quiet pages alike.

The second mistake is treating every reported failure as equally urgent and fixing them in whatever order the tool printed them. A broken link on a popular guide that hundreds of readers use deserves attention before a broken link on a forgotten draft that nobody visits. Sorting by page importance, by link position, and by whether the link is internal or external makes the audit efficient. Internal broken links usually come first, because the site owner controls both ends of the link and the fix is straightforward, while external links need a judgement about whether the source has moved, changed, or closed.

The third mistake is deleting a broken link without considering a replacement. Deleting removes the error, but it also removes whatever the link was offering the reader: evidence for a claim, a deeper explanation, or a next step. Where an equivalent page exists, updating the link preserves that value. Where no equivalent exists, the sentence around the link may need rewriting so that it no longer promises something the site cannot deliver. Deletion is the right fix when the link's purpose is gone; it is a lazy fix when the purpose remains and only the address has changed.

Step by Step: Running a Broken-Link Audit With the Broken Link Checker

Start by defining the scope. List the pages the audit will cover, beginning with the site's most visited articles, its guides, and its resource pages, and working outward to the rest of the site. If the site is large, audit in sections rather than trying to cover everything in one sitting, and record which sections have been covered and when, so that the next audit can start where the last one left off. A defined scope, written down, is what turns an audit from a vague intention into a repeatable routine.

Next, open the Broken Link Checker and test the first page from your scope. Enter the page's address, run the check, and read the list of links it finds. Note which links return errors, which redirect, and where each redirect lands. Work through the list one link at a time, and for each one decide whether it is an internal link you control, or an external link whose fate depends on another site. That distinction determines the fix, so it is worth making it explicitly rather than treating every failure the same way.

Then fix the internal links first. For each broken internal link, find the page's current address in the site's sitemap or navigation, and update the link to point directly at it. If the target page was deleted and no equivalent exists, remove the link and rewrite the surrounding sentence so it no longer promises the missing content. If the target page moved and a redirect exists, update the link anyway, because a direct link is more reliable than a link that depends on a redirect, and it removes a hop from the reader's journey.

After that, deal with the external links. For each broken external link, try to find the source's new address: search for the article title, check the source site's search or archive, and see whether the content moved to a new section. If a new address is found, update the link. If the source is genuinely gone, replace it with another reputable source that supports the same point, or remove the link and adjust the text. Resist the temptation to keep a broken external link because the source was once impressive; a dead link to a famous source helps nobody.

Finally, retest the pages you changed and record the audit. Run the Broken Link Checker again on each fixed page and confirm that the errors are gone and that no new redirect chains have been introduced. Write down the date, the pages covered, the links fixed, and any links that could not be fixed and why. That record is what makes the next audit faster: the next auditor can see which pages were recently checked, which external sources are already known to be gone, and which sections are due for another pass. Set the next audit date now, while the work is fresh, rather than leaving it to chance.

How Rankenza Handles Broken-Link Audits

Rankenza's article process reduces the number of broken links a new article introduces, by linking directly to current pages. Research starts from the top 10 pages for a keyword, filtered by what the searcher actually wants, so the outline reflects pages that exist now. Drafts are written in original words, reviewed by a human editor, and given internal links drawn from the customer's own sitemap, which lists current addresses rather than retired ones. A new article therefore starts its life with direct internal links, instead of links that rely on old redirects or on addresses that have already moved.

For a site that already exists, the Broken Link Checker gives the owner a straightforward way to run the audit described here, page by page, without installing anything. Combined with the refresh routine in how to refresh old blog content for SEO, it supports a maintenance habit that keeps older articles as reliable as new ones. Related glossary terms include anchor text, backlink, and crawl budget, and the wider measurement picture is covered in how to measure blog SEO results in Google Search Console.

How This Looks on Rankenza

Typical approach: links are added when an article is written and never checked again, so old articles quietly accumulate errors as their targets move, and the site owner only learns about a broken link when a reader complains, if a reader complains at all. The cost is paid in lost readers, wasted crawl effort, and a site that slowly looks untended.

Rankenza's approach: top-10 search research first; outline filtered by what the searcher wants; original draft reviewed by a human editor; internal links drawn from the customer's own sitemap; first article free, then $3.60 per article or $89 for 50 credits. See it in practice in how to write blog posts that rank on Google, and audit a page with the Broken Link Checker.

Sources: What the Research Says

According to Google Search Central guidance on site maintenance and on how search works, keeping a site's links and pages reachable helps crawlers discover and understand content, and pages that return errors waste the crawl effort that could have gone to live pages. MDN Web Docs on HTTP status codes explains the responses an audit encounters, including the not-found response that marks a deleted page and the server-error responses that mark a failing destination. Google's documentation on soft 404 errors describes the related case where a page returns a success code but contains no useful content, which an audit should treat as a failure even though no error was returned. Where this guide gives no figure, that is deliberate: the sources above describe behaviour and guidance, not a single number that would apply to every site.

Frequently Asked Questions

How often should I audit my links? Often enough that broken links do not accumulate unnoticed, and tied to real events: after a migration, a redesign, or a section reorganisation, and otherwise on a regular schedule that fits the size of the site. A small blog may need a full audit a few times a year; a larger site with many external links benefits from more frequent passes over its most visited pages.

Are external broken links my problem if another site moved its page? Yes, in the sense that the reader's experience is yours to protect, even though the move was not your decision. You cannot control the other site, but you can detect the break, update the link to the new address where one exists, or replace the source. Leaving a known broken link in place because someone else caused it still leaves your reader at a dead end.

Should I remove a link or redirect it when its target page is deleted? It depends on whether an equivalent page exists. If the content moved, update the link or redirect the old address to the new one. If the content is genuinely gone, remove the link and rewrite the surrounding text so it no longer promises the missing content. Redirecting a deleted article to a homepage is rarely the right answer, because it sends the reader somewhere generic instead of answering their question.

Does a broken-link audit help search visibility? It helps indirectly, by keeping the site's paths open for readers and crawlers, by removing dead ends that waste crawl effort, and by preserving the internal connections that show how pages relate to each other. It is maintenance, not a shortcut: a site with no broken links but thin content will not outperform a site with strong content, but a strong site with broken links is weaker than the same site with its links intact.