Timely use of robots.txt and meta noindex
-
Hi,
I have been checking every possible resources for content removal, but I am still unsure on how to remove already indexed contents.
When I use robots.txt alone, the urls will remain in the index, however no crawling budget is wasted on them, But still, e.g having 100,000+ completely identical login pages within the omitted results, might not mean anything good.
When I use meta noindex alone, I keep my index clean, but also keep Googlebot busy with indexing these no-value pages.
When I use robots.txt and meta noindex together for existing content, then I suggest Google, that please ignore my content, but at the same time, I restrict him from crawling the noindex tag.
Robots.txt and url removal together still not a good solution, as I have failed to remove directories this way. It seems, that only exact urls could be removed like this.
I need a clear solution, which solves both issues (index and crawling).
What I try to do now, is the following:
I remove these directories (one at a time to test the theory) from the robots.txt file, and at the same time, I add the meta noindex tag to all these pages within the directory. The indexed pages should start decreasing (while useless page crawling increasing), and once the number of these indexed pages are low or none, then I would put the directory back to robots.txt and keep the noindex on all of the pages within this directory.
Can this work the way I imagine, or do you have a better way of doing so?
Thank you in advance for all your help.
-
Hi Deb,
Thank you for your reply.
I have never thought, that Google would crawl the robots.txt this rarely. I actually read it somewhere, which makes complete sense, that before they start crawling, they validate the process against robots.txt. This is one page only, but basically one of the most important ones.
This is now a shocking experience for me, thank you for drawing my attention to it. Anyway, I have submitted the page through 'Fetch as Google' now.
Regarding your url suggestion, I do not want them to be 404-d, at least not all of them, as for examply the login pages I still want to use, and why we have individual urls, is that because we would like our visitors to return back the page they left, before we asked them to log in. So status 200 is ok, because these pages we have for customers, but the very same pages are totally useless for Google to crawl or to index.
I hope this clarifies.
-
It seems like the latest Robots.txt file has not been cached by Google so far .. this is what it has –
So, you need to use Fetch As Google Bot and Submit this Robots.txt file to index to fix this issue at the earliest.
What concerns me that defunct URLs like this - http://www.kozelben.hu/login?r=%2Fceg%2Fdrink-island-bufe-whisky-bar-alkotas-utca-17-1123-budapest-126126%23addComment or http://www.kozelben.hu/supplier/nearby/supplierid/127493/type/geo are returning 200 Ok server side response code whereas they should be returning 404 server side response. The problem would have stopped here for once and all.
However assuming the fact that the CMS of your website does not offer you any such option [in that case, this is a bad CMS], you need to apply Meta noindex tag against them and wait patiently for search engine to catch them.
_Can’t you fix the 404 thing? Let us know. _
-
Really good article, indeed!
I have been thinking about the whole concept during the weekend, and now I have a further concept, definetely worth considering.
Thank you again, Ryan.
-
Lindsay wrote a great article on the topic which I am sure you will enjoy: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/serious-robotstxt-misuse-high-impact-solutions
-
Thank you for the further info, Ryan.
Although I see your point and can accept lots of truth in it, checking all the competitors and even the largest sites all around the web, they still keep using robots.txt (even Google does so).
I however accept noindex to be a superior solution to robots.txt and will use it for all the contents I do not want to be indexed.
I will then see, if I need and how I might need to use robots.txt. I hope, it does not hurt having a noindexed page included in robots.txt (at a later time, when it is already out of the index).
-
I understand your concern Andras. The two questions I would focus on with respect to crawl budget:
1. Is all your content being indexed properly?
2. Is your content being indexed in a timely manner?
If the answer to the above two questions is yes, I would not spend any more time thinking about crawl budget. Either way, using the "noindex" meta tag is going to be the best way to handle the issue you originally presented.
On a related note, does the content on your "useful" pages change frequently? If so, ensure you are optimizing your links (both internal and external) to these pages. When you demonstrate these are important pages to your site, Google will crawl the pages more frequently.
-
Hi Ryan,
Thank you for your reply.
The only worry I have regarding the crawl budget, that I currently have three times more indexed pages than useful pages, due to the issues I have mentioned earlier.
It is true, that I do not have daily content updates on all of my useful pages, however I have thought that Google allocates individual crawling budget to all sites, based on the value he assigns to them.
I just want this budget to be spent wisely, and not causing my useful pages to be crawled less frequently, due to crawling no-value (but noindexed) content instead.
-
Hi Andras,
The first thing to know is a general rule....the best robots.txt file is a blank one. There is almost always a better method of managing a situation without using robots.txt. There are numerous reasons, one of which is search engines do not always see the robots.txt file.
Regarding the noindex meta tag, that is the proper solution. I understand your concern over crawl budget, but I suggest in this instance, your concerns are not warranted. It is a waste of crawl budget to have search engines spend extra time due to slow servers, bad code, thin content, etc. If you have pages which should not be indexed, adding the noindex tag is likely the best solution.
Without being familiar with your site, it is not possible to offer a definitive answer, but generally speaking this response should be accurate. Keep in mind many sites have millions of pages, and Google has the ability to crawl the entire site each month.
-
Can you show us examples of URLs that are causing you trouble? That would be easier for us to provide a solution.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Should you use the keyword for your page in an image?
Hi there! I am currently working on building up the SEO ranking on a page using a specific keyword - dresses. Within this page, we have an online image library full of dresses which are then added to multiple pages determined by brand, colour, type etc for people to search. I am adding hundreds of images all of dresses - I wanted to know if I name these images using the keyword: for example 'dresses_1, 'dresses_2' - will that have a knock on effect on page I am trying to build up and optimise for the keyword 'dresses'??? Any help is appreciated.
Technical SEO | | Jaybeamer0 -
Using RewriteRule - SEO Implications
Hi There, My client has a website (www.activeadventures.com) which they relaunched in April 2013. The company sells inbound tourism trips to New Zealand, South America and the Himalayas. Previously, the websites for these destinations were on their own domains (activenewzealand.com, activehimalayas.com, activesouthamerica.com). With the launch of the new website those domains were all retired (but had 301 redirects put into place to the new site), and moved into sub directories of the activeadventures.com domain (eg: activeadventures.com/new-zealand). There has been no indication that this strategy has improved organic search results (based on analytics) and in my opinion I believe that having this structure has been detrimental to their results. My opinion is based off the following: Visitors to the websites are coming into the site with a specific destination in mind that they want to travel to. Thus... having the destination in the URL I believe provides more immediate relevancy and should result in a higher CTR. I also feel that having the sites on their own URL's will provide a more concentrated theme for the destination based search phrases. The new site is a custom Joomla build and I want to find the easiest way to keep the current Joomla set up AND move the country specific sections of the site back onto their original URL's. It seems on the face of it that the easiest way to get this done is to use the htaccess file and use "RewriteRule" to push all the relevant pages back onto their original domains. Obviously we will ensure we also cover off pointing the existing 301's from the new site and the old sites to this new structure. My question is, are their any potential negative SEO implications of using the RewriteRule in the htaccess file to achieve this? Many thanks in advance. Kind Regards
Technical SEO | | activenz
Conrad Cranfield0 -
Robots.txt Download vs Cache
We made an update to the Robots.txt file this morning after the initial download of the robots.txt file. I then submitted the page through Fetch as Google bot to get the changes in asap. The cache time stamp on the page now shows Sep 27, 2013 15:35:28 GMT. I believe that would put the cache time stamp at about 6 hours ago. However the Blocked URLs tab in Google WMT shows the robots.txt last downloaded at 14 hours ago - and therefore it's showing the old file. This leads me to believe for the Robots.txt the cache date and the download time are independent. Is there anyway to get Google to recognize the new file other than waiting this out??
Technical SEO | | Rich_A0 -
Is having no robots.txt file the same as having one and allowing all agents?
The site I am working on currently has no robots.txt file. However, I have just uploaded a sitemap and would like to point the robots.txt file to it. Once I upload the robots.txt file, if I allow access to all agents, is this the same as when the site had no robots.txt file at all; do I need to specify crawler access on can the robots.txt file just contain the link to the sitemap?
Technical SEO | | pugh0 -
Should Canonical be used if your site does not have any duplicate
Should canonical be used site wide even if my site is solid no duplicate content is generated. please explain your answer
Technical SEO | | ciznerguy0 -
Robots.txt versus sitemap
Hi everyone, Lets say we have a robots.txt that disallows specific folders on our website, but a sitemap submitted in Google Webmaster Tools that lists content in those folders. Who wins? Will the sitemap content get indexed even if it's blocked by robots.txt? I know content that is blocked by robot.txt can still get indexed and display a URL if Google discovers it via a link so I'm wondering if that would happen in this scenario too. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | anthematic0 -
Robots.txt
Hi everyone, I just want to check something. If you have this entered into your robots.txt file: User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | PeterM22
Disallow: /fred/ This wouldn't block /fred-review/ from being crawled would it? Thanks0 -
Using robots.txt to deal with duplicate content
I have 2 sites with duplicate content issues. One is a wordpress blog. The other is a store (Pinnacle Cart). I cannot edit the canonical tag on either site. In this case, should I use robots.txt to eliminate the duplicate content?
Technical SEO | | bhsiao0