Easy Question: regarding no index meta tag vs robot.txt
-
This seems like a dumb question, but I'm not sure what the answer is. I have an ecommerce client who has a couple of subdirectories "gallery" and "blog". Neither directory gets a lot of traffic or really turns into much conversions, so I want to remove the pages so they don't drain my page rank from more important pages. Does this sound like a good idea?
I was thinking of either disallowing the folders via robot.txt file or add a "no index" tag or 301redirect or delete them. Can you help me determine which is best.
**DEINDEX: **As I understand it, the no index meta tag is going to allow the robots to still crawl the pages, but they won't be indexed. The supposed good news is that it still allows link juice to be passed through. This seems like a bad thing to me because I don't want to waste my link juice passing to these pages. The idea is to keep my page rank from being dilluted on these pages. Kind of similar question, if page rank is finite, does google still treat these pages as part of the site even if it's not indexing them?
If I do deindex these pages, I think there are quite a few internal links to these pages. Even those these pages are deindexed, they still exist, so it's not as if the site would return a 404 right?
ROBOTS.TXT As I understand it, this will keep the robots from crawling the page, so it won't be indexed and the link juice won't pass. I don't want to waste page rank which links to these pages, so is this a bad option?
**301 redirect: **What if I just 301 redirect all these pages back to the homepage? Is this an easy answer? Part of the problem with this solution is that I'm not sure if it's permanent, but even more importantly is that currently 80% of the site is made up of blog and gallery pages and I think it would be strange to have the vast majority of the site 301 redirecting to the home page. What do you think?
DELETE PAGES: Maybe I could just delete all the pages. This will keep the pages from taking link juice and will deindex, but I think there's quite a few internal links to these pages. How would you find all the internal links that point to these pages. There's hundreds of them.
-
Hello Santaur,
I'm afraid this question isn't as easy as you may have thought at first. It really depends on what is on the pages in those two directories, what they're being used for, who visits them, etc... Certainly removing them altogether wouldn't be as terrible as some people might think IF those pages are of poor quality, have no external links, and very few - if any - visitors. It sounds to me that you might need a "Content Audit" wherein the entire site is crawled, using a tool like Screaming Frog, and then relevant metrics are pulled for those pages (e.g. Google Analytics visits, Moz Page Authority and external links...) so you can look at them and make informed decisions about which pages to improve, remove or leave as-is.
Any page that gets "removed" will leave you with another choice: Allow to 404/410 or 301 redirect. That decision should be easy to make on a page-by-page basis after the content audit because you will be able to see which ones have external links and/or visitors within the time period specified (e.g. 90 days). Pages that you have decided to "Remove" which have no external links and no visits in 90 days can probably just be deleted. The others can be 301 redirected to a more appropriate page, such as the blog home page, top level category page, similar page or - if all else fails - the site home page.
Of course any page that gets removed, whether it redirects or 404s/410s should have all internal links updated as soon as possible. The scan you did with Screaming Frog during the content audit will provide you with all internal links pointing to each URL, which should speed up that process for you considerably.
Good luck!
-
I would certainly think twice about removing those pages as they're in most cases of value for both your SEO as your users. If you would decide to go this way and to have them removed I would redirect all the pages belonging to these subdirectories to another page (let's say the homepage). Although you have a limited amount of traffic there you still want to make sure that the people who land on these pages get redirected to a page that does exist.
-
Are you sure you want to do this? You say 80% of the site consists of gallery and blog pages. You also say there are a lot of internal links to those pages. Are you perhaps under estimating the value of long- tail traffic
To answer your specific question, yes link juice will still pass thru to the pages that are no indexed. They just won't ever show up in search results. Using robots noindex gets you the same result. 301 redirects will pass all your link juice back to the home page, but makes for a lousy user experience. Same for deleting pages.
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
-
No: 'noindex' detected in 'robots' meta tag
I'm getting an error in Search Console that pages on my site show No: 'noindex' detected in 'robots' meta tag. However, when I inspect the pages html, it does not show noindex. In fact, it shows index, follow. Majority of pages show the error and are not indexed by Google...Not sure why this is happening. Unfortunately I can't post images on here but I've linked some url's below. The page below in search console shows the error above... https://mixeddigitaleduconsulting.com/ As does this one. https://mixeddigitaleduconsulting.com/independent-school-marketing-communications/ However, this page does not have the error and is indexed by Google. The meta robots tag looks identical. https://mixeddigitaleduconsulting.com/blog/leadership-team/jill-goodman/ Any and all help is appreciated.
Technical SEO | | Sean_White_Consult0 -
Question on canonicals
hi community let's say i have to 2 e-commerce sites selling the same English books in different currencies - one of the site serves the UK market ( users can purchase in sterling) while another one European markets ( user can purchase in euro). Sites are identical. SEO wise, while the "European" site homepage has a good ranking across major search engines in europe, product pages do not rank very well at all. Since site is a .com too it s hard to push it in local search engines. I would like then to push one of the sites across all search engines,tackling duplicate content etc.Geotargeting would make the rest. I would like to add canonicals tag pointing at the UK version across all EU site product pages, while leaving the EU homepage rank. I have 2 doubts though: is it ok to have canonical tags pointing at an external site. is it ok to have part of a site with canonical tags, while other parts are left ranking?
Technical SEO | | Mrlocicero0 -
Image & Video Sitemaps - Submitted vs. Indexed
Hi Mozzers, I have read all the relevant blogs from media indexing experts like Phil Nottingham and have followed Google's best practice as well as advice from similar discussions on here. We have submitted video and image sitemaps to WT, and the image sitemap has 33 indexed from 720 submitted images, and the video 170 indexed from 738 submitted. With the image sitemap the number (33) has remained steady while the submitted has grown by over 100 in the last month. The video has shown signs of indexing new videos however but still not the amount that were submitted. Thus far, I have followed the guidelines sitemap structure as per Google. We are using Cloudfront so I have added and verified our cloudfront server in the same WT account. If anyone has any advice, it would be most appreciated. There is no duplicate content and the robots.txt is not blocking anything within the sitemap. Image sitemap: view-source:http://www.clowdy.com/sitemap.images.xml
Technical SEO | | Morrreau0 -
Is there any value in having a blank robots.txt file?
I've read an audit where the writer recommended creating and uploading a blank robots.txt file, there was no current file in place. Is there any merit in having a blank robots.txt file? What is the minimum you would include in a basic robots.txt file?
Technical SEO | | NicDale0 -
Indexing Issue
Hi, I am working on www.stjohnswaydentalpractice.co.uk Google only seems to be indexing two of the pages when i search site:www.stjohnswaydentalpractice.co.uk I have added the site to webmaster tools and created a new sitemap which is showing that it has only submitted two of the pages. Can anyone shed any light for why these pages are not being indexed? Thanks Faye
Technical SEO | | dentaldesign0 -
RegEx help needed for robots.txt potential conflict
I've created a robots.txt file for a new Magento install and used an existing site-map that was on the Magento help forums but the trouble is I can't decipher something. It seems that I am allowing and disallowing access to the same expression for pagination. My robots.txt file (and a lot of other Magento site-maps it seems) includes both: Allow: /*?p= and Disallow: /?p=& I've searched for help on RegEx and I can't see what "&" does but it seems to me that I'm allowing crawler access to all pagination URLs, but then possibly disallowing access to all pagination URLs that include anything other than just the page number? I've looked at several resources and there is practically no reference to what "&" does... Can anyone shed any light on this, to ensure I am allowing suitable access to a shop? Thanks in advance for any assistance
Technical SEO | | MSTJames0 -
Is there a reason to set a crawl-delay in the robots.txt?
I've recently encountered a site that has set a crawl-delay command set in their robots.txt file. I've never seen a need for this to be set since you can set that in Google Webmaster Tools for Googlebot. They have this command set for all crawlers, which seems odd to me. What are some reasons that someone would want to set it like that? I can't find any good information on it when researching.
Technical SEO | | MichaelWeisbaum0 -
Severe rank drop due to overwritten robots.txt
Hi, Last week we made a change to drupal core for an update to our website. We accidentally overwrote our good robots.txt that blocked hundreds of pages with the default drupal robots.txt. Several hours after that happened (and we didn't catch the mistake) our rankings dropped from mostly first, second place in Google organic to bottom and mid first page. Basically I believe we flooded the index with very low quality pages at once and threw a red flag and we got de-ranked. We have since fixed the robots.txt and have been re-crawled but have not seen a return in rank. Would this be a safe assumption of what happened? I haven't seen any other sites getting hit in the retail vertical yet in regards to any Panda 2.3 type of update. Will we see a return in our results anytime soon? Thanks, Justin
Technical SEO | | BrettKrasnove0