Moz Crawl Test: WordPress sites with and without /feed and /trackback entires?
-
I have multiple WP websites and on some of the websites, on my Moz Crawl test, I see an entry for every blog post but also entries for /feed and /trackback for that single blog post. For example,
www...com/someArticle
www....com/someArticle/feed
www...com/someArticle/trackback
1. Can anyone explain why the Crawl test is picking up the /feed and /trackback items? Is it simply because they are 301 redirects to the original post (www...com/someArticle)?
2. What setting(s) in WordPress are making this information appear? Or is it just that the site(s) that have the /feed and /trackback are displaying "normal" behavior for a WP site with a lot of trackbacks and feed entires?
3. Should /fee and /trackback, as well as /author be blocked in robots.txt?
Thanks in advance for your advice and input!
-
I have the same issue but instead of it redirecting to the parent post its just going to a 404 page.
-
So I solved the problem (or at least figured where it was coming from). On this particular site, under the comments area, there is a link for "trackback url" and a link for "comments rss feed". Naturally these are ../trackback and ../blog so that's why the crawl is picking them up. They are 301 redirected to the "parent" page so that's why they are not a duplicate content issue. Thank to everyone for their help!
-
1. If you check the source code of your blog posts, there must be some sort of link to the feeds - possibly even in the header. I'm not 100% on how the Moz crawler operates (if it only spiders <a>anchor links or if it spiders referenced links in the header - pretty sure the latter) - but either way that's how they're finding it, through some sort of link on the page.</a>
<a>You could try running a crawl with Screaming Frog SEO Spider and see if it also picks up the feed URLs and Screaming Frog will show you where it found the links as well.
2. Good question. Your theme may be displaying links to these things somewhere - the best way to find out is to crawl with Screaming Frog and it will show you which pages link to your feed and trackback URLs. Then if you don't need them, you can go into the editor and remove them from the code.
3. I agree with Thomas here, I would not block them with robots.txt - rather I would see if you can fix them at the source and remove the links if they are not needed.
-Dan</a>
-
Thanks, I'll check it out!
-
Hi, you should never block feeds they're really pretty beneficial to your site. Take a look at this from Joost it will explain it much better than I can
http://yoast.com/example-robots-txt-wordpress/
All the best sincerely, Thomas
-
Thank you.
When you say "TrackBacks are from people posting either identical or similar content to WordPress.com", what do you mean? I thought trackbacks were notifications of links back when someone links to your content?
And why does the codex recommend blocking feeds and trackbacks in robots.txt?
Thanks again!
-
the TrackBacks are from people posting either identical or similar content to WordPress.com I would follow up with that. unless that person is you.
No do not block a feed with robots.txt and do not block the TrackBacks use automatics Digital millennium act takedown if somebody is stealing your content.
Sincerely,
Thomas
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
-
Ahrefs vs Moz
Hi! I noticed the Moz DA en the Ahrefs DA are very different. Where https://www.123opzeggen.nl/ has a DA of 10 at MOZ, the DA at Ahrefs is 26. Where does this big difference come from? Do you measure in different ways? I hope you can answer this question for me. Thank you in advance!
Moz Pro | | NaomiAdivare2 -
Why is Link Count smaller than Internal Links in Crawl Test report?
We recently ran the crawl test report and for most of our pages we are getting 1150 internal links but 40-50 as the link count. Why is there such a big disparity?
Moz Pro | | usdmseo0 -
Crawl diagnostics up to date after Magento ecommerce site crawl?
Howdy Mozzers, I have a Magento ecommerce website and I was wondering if the data (errors/warnings) from the Crawl diagnostics are up to date. My Magento website has 2.439 errors, mainly 1.325 duplicate page content and 1.111 duplicate page title issues. I already implemented the Yoast meta data plugin that should fix these issues, however I still see there errors appearing in the crawl diagnostics, but when going to the mentioned URL in the crawl diagnostics for e.g.: http://domain.com/babyroom/productname.html?dir=desc&targetaudience=64&order=name and checking the source code and searching for 'canonical' I do see: http://domain.com/babyroom/productname.html" />. Even I checked the google serp for url: http://domain.com/babyroom/productname.html?dir=desc&targetaudience=64&order=name and I couldn't find the url indexed in Google. So it basically means the Yoast meta plugin actually worked. So what I was wondering is why I still see the error counted in the crawl diagnostics? My goal is to remove all the errors and bring it all to zero in the crawl diagnostics. And now I am still struggling with the "overly-dynamic URL" (1.025) and "too many on-page links" (9.000+) I want to measure whether I can bring the warnings down after implementing an AJAX-based layered navigation. But if it's not updating it here crawl diagnostics I have no idea how to measure the success of eliminating the warnings. Thanks for reading and hopefully you all can give me some feedback.
Moz Pro | | videomarketingboys0 -
Moz Data Issues?
Since the launch of Moz something or other has been wrong with my data. Is everyone having these issues? Or is it just me?
Moz Pro | | EcommerceSite0 -
Rel="canonical" tag is implemented in my product pages, but still getting canoncal error for products in Moz. What is the problem? me or MOZ?
I have included the rel="canonical" tag in all my product pages, but still getting canonical error in MOZ reports for more than 6 month ! I would like to know if my code is wrong or the MOZ report system is not working properly. Here is an example of my canonical code in line 84 rel="canonical" href="http://www.doornmore.com/slab-single-door-80-fiberglass-courtlandt-1-panel-arch-lite-glass.html" /> Thanks Shayann
Moz Pro | | Shayann0 -
How do you search for mentions of your brand without searching within your own site
We have a social network site and we monitor mentions. However, when we search we are finding content from our site being included. How do i filter the content to exclude my site.
Moz Pro | | seoworx1230 -
Press Release - using moz bar/OSE is reading domain not page? How? Why?
A question posed by Christopher Glaeser from early today:low PA high DA, had a follow up response from him providing 2 urls from PR WEB for separate press releases: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/11/prweb8923419.htm (HP White) On moz bar Page Analysis/Link Data = PA - 47 DA - 36 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/12/prweb9051351.htm (Golfer's Advice) On moz bar Page Analysis/Link Data = PA - 1 DA - 96 I kept scratching my head as to how a press release of 6 weeks ago had garnered such attention from a company that would not seem to have a huge traffic due to more obscure product offering and scientific subject (Analyses of Armor Industry versus Golf Advice).
Moz Pro | | RobertFisher
Then I realized that for HP White, Link Data was not about the PR. The url from mozbar was HPWhite.com not the above, I did not notice until I used OSE where same thing was happening. When I cut and pasted the above press release url for HP White and placed it in OSE this changed: PA - 49 DA - 96 (2 links 2 linking root domains) For Golfers advice (0 links from 0 linking domains) Note to all: the links to the PR WEB release for the HP included a low end directory type link and a link from PR WEB (. For Golfer's Advice there was not a link back to the release from PR WEB: Note that Golfer's Advice is a newer release (6 weeks). So, any link from HPWhite release would equal more juice to HP White and PR Web and Vocus. Any link to Golfer's Advice from release offers......???? to Golfer's Advice and who cares to Vocus and PR Web. So, I guess this begs a couple of questions: Why the mozbar link analysis difference for one versus the other? Does PR Web treat some differently than others? Who benefits most from me paying a PR Web to do press releases for a client, PR Web and Vocus or my client and I???? I have tried to order the images to make sense: L to R top, then bottom is last. [](<a href=)" target="_blank">a> [](<a href=)" target="_blank">a> [](<a href=)" target="_blank">a> [](<a href=)" target="_blank">a> [](<a href=)" target="_blank">a> [](<a href=)" target="_blank">a>0 -
Errors on my Crawl Diagnostics
I have 51 errors on my Crawl Diagnostics tool.46 are 4xx Client Error.Those 4xx errors are links to products (or categories) that we are not selling them any more so there are inactive on the website but Google still have the links. How can I tell Google not to index them?. Can those errors (and warnings) could be harming my rankings (they went down from position 1 to 4 for the most important keywords) thanks,
Moz Pro | | cardif0