Robots.txt
-
Google Webmaster Tools say our website's have low-quality pages, so we have created a robots.txt file and listed all URL’s that we want to remove from Google index.
Is this enough for the solve problem?
-
Ah, it's difficult to see anything on the page because i can't read Turkish.
The only thing you should know is that every single page in a website should have unique content. So if two pages are exactly or almost exactly the same then Google will think it's duplicate content.
-
Yeah that's definitely a duplicate content issue you're facing.
However, did you know that each of your pages have this little tag right at the top of them? name="robots" content="noindex" />
...Seems like it's already done.
-
Thank You Wesley,
Here our pages but language is Turkish,
http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/besiktas-basaksehir-ev-esyasi-tasinma-6495
http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/ev-tasima-6503
http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/evden-eve-nakliyat-6471
Our site is a home to home moving listing portal. Consumers who wants to move his home fills a form so that moving companies can cote prices. We were generating listing page URL’s by using the title submitted by customer. Unfortunately we have understood by now that many customers have entered same content.
-
Well now I'm confused on the problem.. If the issue is duplicate content then the answer is definitely to block them with robots and/or use a rel=canonical tag on each.
However, the Google notice you are referencing has nothing to do with duplicate content notices to my knowledge.
There is always a way to improve your content. Filling out a form auto-generates a page, per my understanding. Great. Have it auto-generate a better looking page!
-my 2 cents. hope it's helpful.
-
I agree with Jesse and Allen.
Of course the problems in Google Webmaster Tools will disappear by no-indexing it.
Low quality pages isn't a good thing for visitors either.It's difficult to give you any other advice then the very broad advise: Improve the quality of the pages.
If you could give us some links to let us know which website and which pages we're talking about then we could give you a better advice on how exactly you can improve those pages. -
Our site is a home to home moving listing portal. Consumers who wants to move his home fills a form so that moving companies can cote prices. We were generating listing page URL’s by using the title submitted by customer. Unfortunately we have understood by now that many customers have entered same content.
-
Iskender.
Our experience has been YES. Google does follow your Robots.txt file and will ignore indexing those pages. If they have a problem, the problem will disappear.
My concern is, what is causing the "Low-quality" error message? In the long run, wouldn't it be better to correct the page to improve the quality? I look at each page as a way to qualify for a greater number of keywords, hence attracting more attention for your website.
We have had several pages flagged as duplicate content, when we never wanted the duplicate page indexed anyway. Once we included the page in the Robots.txt file the flagged error disappeared.
-
Why not improve the pages, instead?
If Google says they are low quality, what makes you think any viewer will stick around? Bet the bounce rate is exceptionally high on those pages, maybe even site-wide.
Always remember to design pages for readers and not Google. If Google tells you your pages suck, they are probably just trying to help you and give you a hint that it's time to improve your site.
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
-
Robots.txt allows wp-admin/admin-ajax.php
Hello, Mozzers!
Technical SEO | | AndyKubrin
I noticed something peculiar in the robots.txt used by one of my clients: Allow: /wp-admin/admin-ajax.php What would be the purpose of allowing a search engine to crawl this file?
Is it OK? Should I do something about it?
Everything else on /wp-admin/ is disallowed.
Thanks in advance for your help.
-AK:2 -
Bloking pages in roborts.txt that are under a redirected subdomain
Hi Everyone, I have a lot of Marketo landing pages that I don't want to show in SERP. Adding the noindex meta tag for each page will be too much, I have thousands of pages. Blocking it in roborts.txt could have been an option, BUT, the subdomain homepage is redirected to my main domain (with a 302) so I may confuse search engines ( should they follow the redirect or should they block) marketo.mydomain.com is redirected to www.mydomain.com disallow: / (I think this will be confusing with the redirect) I don't have folders, all pages are under the subdomain, so I can't block folders in Robots.txt also Would anyone had this scenario or any suggestions? I appreciate your thoughts here. Thank you Rachel
Technical SEO | | RaquelSaiz0 -
Do I have a robots.txt problem?
I have the little yellow exclamation point under my robots.txt fetch as you can see here- http://imgur.com/wuWdtvO This version shows no errors or warnings- http://imgur.com/uqbmbug Under the tester I can currently see the latest version. This site hasn't changed URLs recently, and we haven't made any changes to the robots.txt file for two years. This problem just started in the last month. Should I worry?
Technical SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Empty Meta Robots Directive - Harmful?
Hi, We had a coding update and a side-effect of that was that our directive was emptied, in other words it now reads as: on all of the site. I've since noticed that Google's cache date on all of the pages - at least, the ones I tested - have a Cached date of no later than 17 December '12 - that's the Monday after the directive was removed on mass. So, A, does anyone have solid evidence of an empty directive causing problems? Past experience, Matt Cutts, Fishkin quote, etc. And then B - It seems fairly well correlated but, does my entire site's homogenous Cached date point to this tag removal? Or is it fairly normal to have a particular cache date across a large site (we're a large ecommerce site). Our site: http://www.zando.co.za/ I'm having the directive reinstated as soon as Dev permitting. And then, for extra credit, is there a way with Google's API, or perhaps some other tool, to run an arbitrary list and retrieve Cached dates? I'd want to do this for diagnosis purposes and preferably in a way that OK with Google. I'd avoid CURLing for the cached URL and scraping out that dates with BASH, or any such kind of thing. Cheers,
Technical SEO | | RocketZando0 -
Magento Robots & overly dynamic URL-s
How can i block all URL-s on a Magento store that have 2 or more dynamic parameters in it, since all the parameters have attribute name in it and not some uniform ID Would something like: Disallow: /?&* work? Since the only thing that is constant throughout all the custom parameters is that they are separated with "&" Thanks 🙂
Technical SEO | | tilenkrivec0 -
Robots exclusion
Hi All, I have an issue whereby print versions of my articles are being flagged up as "duplicate" content / page titles. In order to get around this, I feel that the easiest way is to just add them to my robots.txt document with a disallow. Here is my URL make up: Normal article: www.mysite.com/displayarticle=12345 Print version of my article www.mysite.com/displayarticle=12345&printversion=yes I know that having dynamic parameters in my URL is not best practise to say the least, but I'm stuck with this for the time being... My question is, how do I add just the print versions of articles to my robots file without disallowing articles too? Can I just add the parameter to the document like so? Disallow: &printversion=yes I also know that I can do add a meta noindex, nofollow tag into the head of my print versions, but I feel a robots.txt disallow will be somewhat easier... Many thanks in advance. Matt
Technical SEO | | Horizon0 -
Subdomain Removal in Robots.txt with Conditional Logic??
I would like to see if there is a way to add conditional logic to the robots.txt file so that when we push from DEV to PRODUCTION and the robots.txt file is pushed, we don't have to remember to NOT push the robots.txt file OR edit it when it goes live. My specific situation is this: I have www.website.com, dev.website.com and new.website.com and somehow google has indexed the DEV.website.com and NEW.website.com and I'd like these to be removed from google's index as they are causing duplicate content. Should I: a) add 2 new GWT entries for DEV.website.com and NEW.website.com and VERIFY ownership - if I do this, then when the files are pushed to LIVE won't the files contain the VERIFY META CODE for the DEV version even though it's now LIVE? (hope that makes sense) b) write a robots.txt file that specifies "DISALLOW: DEV.website.com/" is that possible? I have only seen examples of DISALLOW with a "/" in the beginning... Hope this makes sense, can really use the help! I'm on a Windows Server 2008 box running ColdFusion websites.
Technical SEO | | ErnieB0 -
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