Blocked by robots
-
my client GWT has a number of notices for "blocked by meta-robots" - these are all either blog posts/categories/or tags
his former seo told him this: "We've activated following settings:
- Use noindex for Categories
- Use noindex for Archives
- Use noindex for Tag Archives
to reduce keyword stuffing & duplicate post tags
Disabling all 3 noindex settings above may remove google blocks but also will send too many similar tags, post archives/category. "is this guy correct?
what would be the problem with indexing these?
am i correct in thinking they should be indexed?
thanks
-
As far as the upgrading of php on a server - this is for a different client, I seem to recall?
I would have a real problem with a developer saying they weren't going to upgrade because it might break things. Of course it might break things, but there are industry-standard approaches to dealing with this
For example, create a duplicate version of the site on a server instance that is using the newer version of php, and do a full Quality Assurance analysis on the dev site to find and fix anything that has issues with the new php version. Then deploy back to the live site with the php upgrade.
This is standard operating procedure and is necessary because there will come a time when any older server software will no longer be supported and therefore becomes a security risk as it will be unpatched. Planning for these kinds of upgrades should be included in any website operational plan.
Also, their solution to move WordPress to a subdomain is no protection whatsoever for the fact they have an extremely vulnerable, version.
First, the site is just as vulnerable to being hacked again as it is still unpatched. Being on a subdomain has no effect on this. Also, they have ruined the SEO value of that blog by moving it to a subdomain instead of fixing the issue and keeping it as a subdirectory of the prime site. And depending on the type of vulnerability exploited, it may still be possible for a hacker to get into the server via the vulnerable WP, then traverse from the subdomain to the prime site and cause harm there as well.
In the short term, if there truly aren't resources to properly do QA (Quality Assurance) on a dev site running an updated version of PHP, the alternative would be to move the WordPress install to it's own server or VPS running a current version of PHP, upgrade it and security patch it, then use a reverse proxy setup to have it show up as blog.domain.com (or even move it back to domain,com/blog).
This would at least allow for a properly secured WordPress that could also use current and new plugins. This would, however be at the expense of a slightly more complicated setup of the reverse proxy.
Hope that answers your question?
Paul
-
Sorry, Erik - I didn't' forget about you, but was dealing with an ethical dilemma.
Unfortunately, the business of the site you're dealing with is so completely against the terms of service of the Search Engines and against what I believe to be good, sustainable SEO, that I've decided I can't, in good conscience, do anything to help them.
Sorry this leaves you no assistance, but I would suggest strongly you not rely heavily on this client for ongoing revenues. They are just begging to get hammered by Google, if that's not what's happening already.
Paul
-
i'm happy for all the help so i'm not complaining here but i think you forgot about me paul.
also i need to know why my client is so adamant about not wanting to upgrade his php from 5.1.6 to 5..2.4 saying it could hinder his sites overall functionality. any idea why?
i want to update his WP to newest version and it requires php to be updated so we are running old plugins and old WP - his blog was hacked so his webguys moved the location from site.com/blog to blog.site.com
i feel handcuffed - no reason to run WP if you cant use plugins right?
-
Sorry I missed this, Erik. Happy to have a look in the next day or two.
Paul
-
First, to be clear, the Webmaster Tools notifications are just that. Google isn't indicating any kind of a problem, Erik. It's just declaring what it has found in the site's robot.txt file.
There's no way to give a definitive answer without seeing the actual website structure, but in general, it is VERY common and good practice to no-index the categories and tags on CMS-based websites. Usually, you want some form of the archives to be indexed, but it's usually the individual pages that are most important. (e.g. not date-based archives.)
The problem with allowing all of these to be indexed is that to a search engine, they will all look like duplicate content of other pages on the website. This will cause the search engine crawler to have to work much harder to find all the content on your website, and ad a result may quit part way though.
In addition,much of the content it finds it will consider to be duplicative of other pages on the website, and therefore will have a hard time knowing which version is actually the most valuable result to return. And as a result will split the authority of each of the pages, making them MUCH harder to rank.
This is a standard challenge of any CMS based website, because they display the same content organized by what are referred to as different taxonomies (different ways of categorizing or linking the same information).
Again, without seeing the actual site I can't say for sure, but short answer is that those three directives are very common for CMS- based websites and are very likely correct.
Hope that helps?
Paul
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
-
Adding your sitemap to robots.txt
Hi everyone, Best practice question: When adding your sitemap to your robots.txt file, do you add the whole sitemap at once or do you add different subcategories (products, posts, categories,..) separately? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts!
Technical SEO | | WeAreDigital_BE0 -
Can I Block https URLs using Host directive in robots.txt?
Hello Moz Community, Recently, I have found that Google bots has started crawling HTTPs urls of my website which is increasing the number of duplicate pages at our website. Instead of creating a separate robots.txt file for https version of my website, can I use Host directive in the robots.txt to suggest Google bots which is the original version of the website. Host: http://www.example.com I was wondering if this method will work and suggest Google bots that HTTPs URLs are the mirror of this website. Thanks for all of the great responses! Regards,
Technical SEO | | TJC.co.uk
Ramendra0 -
Robots User-agent Query
Am I correct in saying that the allow/disallow is only applied to msnbot_mobile? mobile robots file User-agent: Googlebot-Mobile User-agent: YahooSeeker/M1A1-R2D2 User-agent: MSNBOT_Mobile Allow: / Disallow: /1 Disallow: /2/ Disallow: /3 Disallow: /4/
Technical SEO | | ThomasHarvey1 -
Robots.txt - "File does not appear to be valid"
Good afternoon Mozzers! I've got a weird problem with one of the sites I'm dealing with. For some reason, one of the developers changed the robots.txt file to disavow every site on the page - not a wise move! To rectify this, we uploaded the new robots.txt file to the domain's root as per Webmaster Tool's instructions. The live file is: User-agent: * (http://www.savistobathrooms.co.uk/robots.txt) I've submitted the new file in Webmaster Tools and it's pulling it through correctly in the editor. However, Webmaster Tools is not happy with it, for some reason. I've attached an image of the error. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm managing another site with the exact same robots.txt file and there are no issues. Cheers, Lewis FNcK2YQ
Technical SEO | | PeaSoupDigital0 -
Adding multi-language sitemaps to robots.txt
I am working on a revamped multi-language site that has moved to Magento. Each language runs off the core coding so there are no sub-directories per language. The developer has created sitemaps which have been uploaded to their respective GWT accounts. They have placed the sitemaps in new directories such as: /sitemap/uk/sitemap.xml /sitemap/de/sitemap.xml I want to add the sitemaps to the robots.txt but can't figure out how to do it. Also should they have placed the sitemaps in a single location with the file identifying each language: /sitemap/uk-sitemap.xml /sitemap/de-sitemap.xml What is the cleanest way of handling these sitemaps and can/should I get them on robots.txt?
Technical SEO | | MickEdwards0 -
Can I rely on just robots.txt
We have a test version of a clients web site on a separate server before it goes onto the live server. Some code from the test site has some how managed to get Google to index the test site which isn't great! Would simply adding a robots text file to the root of test simply blocking all be good enough or will i have to put the meta tags for no index and no follow etc on all pages on the test site also?
Technical SEO | | spiralsites0 -
Robots.txt checker
Google seems to have discontinued their robots.txt checker. Is there another tool that I can use to check my text instead? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | theLotter0 -
How to recover after blocking all the search engine spiders?
I have the following problem - one of my clients (a Danish home improvement company) decided to block all the international traffic (leaving only Scandiavian one), because they were getting a lot of spammers using their mail form to send e-mails. As you can guess this lead to blocking Google also since the servers of Google Denmark are located in the US. This lead to drop in their rankings. So my question is - What Shall I do now - wait or contact Google? Any help will be appreciated, because to be honest I had never see such thing in action until now 😄 Best Regards
Technical SEO | | GroupM0