Internal link points to a page returning 404/410

The finding goes to a page that contains a link to another page of the same site where the crawler recorded a status of 404 or 410. The report gives the count and a concrete example target.

No extra requests are sent for this. The target's status comes solely from pages the crawler already visited. A link to a page outside the sample therefore stays quiet: it cannot be verified, not that it is fine.

How it differs from SIT-03 in the core set: SIT-03 takes a wider set of statuses (404, 410, 400, 405 and other conclusive errors) and is the AI lens. SEO-36 watches only 404 and 410 (“the page does not exist” in its narrowest and most certain sense). One defect can therefore raise both findings.

What the check does not do: it never leaves the domain (you will not see broken links to other sites), it does not distinguish a link in the body from one in the footer, and it cannot see links created by JavaScript. The finding is page-level; severity is warning.

This is the second of two paid-module codes that concern a necessary condition, and it is an observed fact, not an estimate: we sent a request to that URL and the server answered that there is nothing there.

A page returning 404 or 410 does not get indexed, and being in the index is a necessary condition for appearing in Google's AI features:

To be eligible to be shown as a supporting link in AI Overviews or AI Mode, a page must be indexed and eligible to be shown in Google Search with a snippet. There are no additional requirements.Google Search Central, AI features

Where we are precise: this holds for that link's target, not for your whole site. Broken links will not make you invisible to language models. Hence a warning rather than a critical finding.

What we do not claim: that broken links reduce your “authority” or ranking. It is a widespread SEO claim we found no support for.

The real reason to fix it needs no search engine at all: a link that leads nowhere is a promise made to a visitor and not kept.

Before fixing them one by one, look at the list as a whole. When the same target appears on dozens of pages, it is in a template: the footer, the header, a sidebar. One fix clears them all, and that is by far the commonest case.

For individual targets, decide which of three situations applies:

1. The content moved → fix the link to the new URL. A redirect on the old URL is a safety net, not a substitute for a correct link.
2. The content is gone for good → remove the link, or replace it with one to the nearest meaningful page. Leaving a link to a 404 “so there is something there” is the worst option.
3. A typo in the URL → typically a missing slash, a doubled // mid-path, or http instead of https.

The difference between 404 and 410 is worth using: 410 says “this is permanently gone” and a search engine returns less often than for a 404. When you retire content deliberately, 410 is the more honest answer.

And prevention worth more than a one-off fix: when you change URLs, create the redirects before you publish. Broken links nearly always appear during a rebuild, not while writing new content.