404 vs. 200?

[cindyt-17038]

Is it better to have an error page return a 404 or 200? If I change it to 200, will I still be able to see reports of 404's and/ or broken links? Is there a valid SEO reason that Google would have for not wanting error pages to return 200?

In other words, is there any SEO reason to absolutely change it to return a 404? I would rather let it return 200 if no priority reason to change.

[title edited by staff to provide clarity]

[AdamThompson]

404 is the correct status to return for page not found. Matt Cutts has indicated that Google does a pretty good job of guessing when a 200 page is an error page, but why not make it easy for Google? I always prefer to use 404 or 301 for pages that don't exist.

[cindyt-17038]

Thanks Adam. Is there a valid SEO reason rather than just Matt Cutts says?

; )

[AdamThompson]

Yes, but that isn't the reason I gave.

Matt Cutts said that Google does a pretty good job of recognizing error pages, even if they are 200's.

404 is the correct status to use for page not found, regardless of whether Google can guess whether a 200 page is an error page or not. Based on the fact that 404 is the correct status to use for page not found, I suggest using it rather than a 200 page.

[AdamThompson]

If the page has external links pointing to it, I use a 301 so as to not lose the link juice.