Meta-robots Nofollow
-
I don't understand Meta-robots Nofollow. Wordpress has my homepage set to this according to SEOMoz tool.
Is this really bad?
-
Hi Paul
Many thanks for the swift reply, much appreciated.
I will check why the nofollow was originally added, but as you say by removing it from the pages will allow it to pass the juice onto other internal pages. Point taken re your last comment.
All the best.
Richard
-
Without seeing the page, I can't say for sure why it was no-followed, Richard, but if it's just because of the presence of an external link on the page, then absolutely, you should remove the no-follow from the header.
I'd also recommend against a no-follow on the external link itself as well, unless it meets one of the two usual no-follow criteria: either it's a link arising from a commercial relationship (e.g. paid), or it's an untrusted link (e.g. from a user-generated review or comment).
If it doesn't meet one of these two criteria, it should be left as a regular followed link. Search engines tend to look a little cross-eyed at sites that no-follow what should be regular links, as it's not a natural action.
And note - no-following links doesn't preserve link juice for the other links on the page. That's an out-dated concept from a couple years ago.
Make sense?
Paul
-
Hi Paul,
Can I ask a related question,
I am looking at a page within a website, it has this
I think the page has the nofollow as it contains a single link to an external website.
Would it be better to have the nofollow on the specific external link rather on the page?
Many thanks!
Richard
-
It could very well have been set in a SEO plugin, Pat.
If it's referencing a meta-robots nofollow, that was likely set in the actual header of the page, not in the robots.txt file.
It's easy enough to check. You can look for it in the header of your page by navigating to the page in your browser, then right-clicking in the page and selecting "View Page Source". Then look in the header section for "nofollow" in the meta tags at the top of the page. You can also make sure it's not in your robots.txt file by just navigating to www.yourdomain.com/robots.txt.
Hope that helps.
Paul
-
Thanks Paul.
Think it may be because it was a wordpress site in development and I had the SEO plugin set to no-follow. Pushed it live and I think that was still the case.
Waiting to see what turns up in next crawl. Where is that set? in robots.txt?
Appreciate the response.
-
Yes this is really bad. in fact it's deadly for the ranking of your website. With this setting in place, your website is telling the Search Engines not to make any effort to travel through the rest of the pages of your website, and therefore won't be able to add them their index. In addition, none of the authority value of your home page is being passed along to the other pages of the site. This means very little traffic from organic search.
Some of your other pages may get listed by virtue of having incoming links from other sites, but you are giving yourself a massive handicap by having this setting in place. And there's absolutely no reason I can think of why you'd want to keep it in place.
Sounds to me like a glitch when the site was being set up, and it needs to be corrected pronto.
Paul
<object id="plugin0" style="position: absolute; z-index: 1000;" width="0" height="0" type="application/x-dgnria"><param name="tabId" value="ff-tab-21"> <param name="counter" value="331"></object>
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 a login page for a payroll / timekeeping comp[any be no follow for robots.txt?
I am managing a Timekeeping/Payroll company. My question is about the customer login page. Would this typically be nofollow for robots?
Technical SEO | | donsilvernail0 -
Missing meta descriptions from Google SERPs
Hullo all, I run an e-commerce website and hence have a lot of product category/sub-category pages to handle. Despite giving each of these category pages meta descriptions, in the Google SERPs, a lot of these descriptions don't show up fully. Rather, only half the text that I'd inputed as my meta desc. shows up; the other half has generic stuff from that page given. I've attached a screen shot to give you an example of what comes up in the SERPs. Could you please tell me what exactly is the problem? Is it a coding issue? Or has Google not crawled that page? Need help asap! Thank you in advance! aE9RKXJ
Technical SEO | | suchde0 -
Best use of robots.txt for "garbage" links from Joomla!
I recently started out on Seomoz and is trying to make some cleanup according to the campaign report i received. One of my biggest gripes is the point of "Dublicate Page Content". Right now im having over 200 pages with dublicate page content. Now.. This is triggerede because Seomoz have snagged up auto generated links from my site. My site has a "send to freind" feature, and every time someone wants to send a article or a product to a friend via email a pop-up appears. Now it seems like the pop-up pages has been snagged by the seomoz spider,however these pages is something i would never want to index in Google. So i just want to get rid of them. Now to my question I guess the best solution is to make a general rule via robots.txt, so that these pages is not indexed and considered by google at all. But, how do i do this? what should my syntax be? A lof of the links looks like this, but has different id numbers according to the product that is being send: http://mywebshop.dk/index.php?option=com_redshop&view=send_friend&pid=39&tmpl=component&Itemid=167 I guess i need a rule that grabs the following and makes google ignore links that contains this: view=send_friend
Technical SEO | | teleman0 -
Google inconsistent in display of meta content vs page content?
Our e-comm site includes more than 250 brand pages - lrg image, some fluffy text, maybe a video, links to categories for that brand, etc. In many cases, Google publishes our page title and description in their search results. However, in some cases, Google instead publishes our H1 and the aforementioned fluffy page content. We want our page content to read well, be descriptive of the brand and appropriate for the audience. We want our meta titles and descriptions brief and likely to attract CTR from qualified shoppers. I'm finding this difficult to manage when Google pulls from two different areas inconsistently. So my question... Is there a way to ensure Google only utilizes our title/desc for our listings?
Technical SEO | | websurfer0 -
Duplicate Meta Description in GWMT
We've just discovered that there are multiple duplicate URLs indexed for a site that we're working on. It seems that when new versions of the site was developed in the last couple of years, there were new page names and URL structures that were used. All of these seem to be showing up as Duplicate Meta Descriptions in Google's WMT, which is not surprising as they are basically the same page with the same content that are just sitting on different page names/URLs. This is an example of the situation, where URL 5 is the current version. Note: all the others are still live and resolve, although they are not linked to from the current site. URL 1: www.example.com/blue-tshirts.html (Version 1 - January 2010) URL 2: www.example.com/blue-t-shirts.html (Version 2 - July 2010) URL 3: www.example.com/blue_t_shirts.html (Version 3 - November 2010) URL 4: www.example.com/buy/blue_tshirts.html (Version 4 - January 2011) URL 5: www.example.com/buy/bluetshirts.html (Version 5 - April 2011) Presumably, this is a clear case of duplicate content. QUESTION: In order to solve it, shall we 301 all of the previous URLs to the current one - ie. Redirect URLs 1-4 to URL 5? Or, should some of them be NoIndexed? To complicate matters, there is Pagination on most of them. For example: URL 1: www.example.com/blue-tshirts.html (Version 1 - January 2010) URL 1a: www.example.com/page-1/blue-tshirts.html URL 1b: www.example.com/page-2/blue-tshirts.html URL 1c: www.example.com/page-3/blue-tshirts.html URL 4: www.example.com/buy/blue_tshirts.html URL 4a: www.example.com/buy/page-1/blue_tshirts.html URL 4b: www.example.com/buy/page-2/blue_tshirts.html URL 4c: www.example.com/buy/page-3/blue_tshirts.html URL 5: www.example.com/buy/bluetshirts.html URL 5a: www.example.com/buy/page-1/bluetshirts.html URL 5b: www.example.com/buy/page-2/bluetshirts.html URL 5c: www.example.com/buy/page-3/bluetshirts.html Since URL 5 is the current site, we are going to 'NoIndex, Follow' URLs 5a, 5b and 5c, which is what we understand to be the correct thing to do for paginated pages. QUESTION: What shall we do with URLs 1a, 1b and 1c? Should we apply the same "No Index, Follow" OR should they be 301'd to their respective counterparts in 5a, 5b and 5c? QUESTION: In the same way, since URL 4 is the version just before the current live Version 5, does it make a different on whether the paginated pages (ie 4a, 4b and 4c) should be No Indexed or 301'd? Thanks in advance for all responses and suggestions, it's greatly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | orangechew0 -
Mobile site - allow robot traffic
Hi, If a user comes to our site from a mobile device, we redirect to our mobile site. That is www.mysite/mypage redirects to m.mysite/mypage. Right now we are blocking robots from crawling our m. site. Previously there were concerns the m. site could rank for normal browser searches. To make sure this isn't a problem we are planning on rel canonical our m. site pages and reference the www pages (mobile is just a different version of our www site). From my understanding having a mobile version of a page is a ranking factor for mobile searches so allowing robots is a good thing. Before doing so, I wanted to see if anyone had any other suggestions/feedback (looking for potential pitfalls, issues etc)
Technical SEO | | NicB10 -
SeoMoz robot is not able to crawl my website.
Hi, SeoMoz robot crawls only two web pages of my website. I contacts seomoz team and they told me that the problem is because of Javascript use. What is the solution to this? Should I contact my webdesign company and ask them to remove Javascript code?
Technical SEO | | ashish2110 -
Site not being Indexed that fast anymore, Is something wrong with this Robots.txt
My wordpress site's robots.txt used to be this: User-agent: * Disallow: Sitemap: http://www.domainame.com/sitemap.xml.gz I also have all in one SEO installed and other than posts, tags are also index,follow on my site. My new posts used to appear on google in seconds after publishing. I changed the robots.txt to following and now post indexing takes hours. Is there something wrong with this robots.txt? User-agent: * Disallow: /cgi-bin Disallow: /wp-admin Disallow: /wp-includes Disallow: /wp-content/plugins Disallow: /wp-content/cache Disallow: /wp-content/themes Disallow: /wp-login.php Disallow: /wp-login.php Disallow: /trackback Disallow: /feed Disallow: /comments Disallow: /author Disallow: /category Disallow: */trackback Disallow: */feed Disallow: */comments Disallow: /login/ Disallow: /wget/ Disallow: /httpd/ Disallow: /*.php$ Disallow: /? Disallow: /*.js$ Disallow: /*.inc$ Disallow: /*.css$ Disallow: /*.gz$ Disallow: /*.wmv$ Disallow: /*.cgi$ Disallow: /*.xhtml$ Disallow: /? Disallow: /*?Allow: /wp-content/uploads User-agent: TechnoratiBot/8.1 Disallow: ia_archiverUser-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: / disable duggmirror User-agent: duggmirror Disallow: / allow google image bot to search all imagesUser-agent: Googlebot-Image Disallow: /wp-includes/ Allow: /* # allow adsense bot on entire siteUser-agent: Mediapartners-Google* Disallow: Allow: /* Sitemap: http://www.domainname.com/sitemap.xml.gz
Technical SEO | | ideas1230