Block in robots.txt instead of using canonical?
-
When I use a canonical tag for pages that are variations of the same page, it basically means that I don't want Google to index this page. But at the same time, spiders will go ahead and crawl the page. Isn't this a waste of my crawl budget? Wouldn't it be better to just disallow the page in robots.txt and let Google focus on crawling the pages that I do want indexed?
In other words, why should I ever use rel=canonical as opposed to simply disallowing in robots.txt?
-
With this info, I would go with Robots.txt because, as you say, it outweighs any potential loss given the use of the pages and the absence of links.
Thanks
-
Thanks Robert.
The pages that I'm talking about disallowing do not have rank or links. They are sub-pages of a profile page. If anything, the main page will be linked to, not the sub-pages.
Maybe I should have explained that I'm talking about a large site - around 400K pages. More than 1,000 new pages are created per week. That's why I am concerned about managing crawl budget. The pages that I'm referring to are not linked to anywhere on the site. Sure, Google can potentially get to them if someone decides to link to them on their own site, but this is unlikely and certainly won't happen on a large scale. So I'm not really concerned about about losing pagerank on the main profile page if I disallow them. To be clear: we have many thousands of pages with content that we want to rank. The pages I'm talking about are not important in those terms.
So it's really a question of balance... if these pages (there are MANY of them) are included in the crawl (and in our sitemap), potentially it's a real waste of crawl budget. Doesn't this outweigh the minuscule, far-fetched potential loss?
I understand that Google designed rel=canonical for this scenario, but that does not mean that it's necessarily the best way to go considering the other options.
-
Thanks Takeshi.
Maybe I should have explained that I'm talking about a large site - around 400K pages. More than 1,000 new pages are created per week. That's why I am concerned about managing crawl budget. The pages that I'm referring to are not linked to anywhere on the site. Sure, Google can potentially get to them if someone decides to link to them on their own site, but this is unlikely (since it's a sub-page of the main profile page, which is where people would naturally link to) and certainly won't happen on a large scale. So I'm not really concerned about about link-juice evaporation. According to AJ Kohn here, it's not enough to see in Webmaster Tools that Google has indexed all pages on our site. There is also the issue of how often pages are being crawled, which is what we are trying to optimize for.
So it's really a question of balance... if these pages (there are MANY of them) are included in the crawl (and in our sitemap), potentially it's a real waste of crawl budget. Doesn't this outweigh the minuscule, far-fetched potential loss?
Would love to hear your thoughts...
-
I would go with the canonicals. If there are any links going to these duplicate pages, that will prevent any "link juice evaporation" from links which Google can see but can't crawl due to robots.txt. Best to let Google just crawl the page and see the canonical so that it understands that it is a duplicate page.
Having canonicals on all your pages is good practice anyway, as it can prevent inadvertent duplicate content from things like query parameters.
Crawl budget can be of some concern if you're talking about a massive number of pages, but start by first taking a look at Google Webmaster Tools and seeing how many of your pages are being crawled vs the total number of pages on your site. As long as this ration isn't small, you should be good. You can also get more crawl budget by building up your domain authority by building links.
-
I don't disagree at all and I think AJ Kohn is a rock star. In SEO, I have learned over time that there are rarely absolutes like always do this or never do that. I based my answer on how you posited the question.
If you read AJ's post you will note that the rel=canonical issue comes up with others commenting and not in the body of his post. Yes, if the page is superfluous like a cart page or a contact page, use the robots.txt to block the crawl. But, if you have a page with rank, links, etc. that help your canonical page, how are you helping yourself by forgoing rel=canon?
I think his bigger point was that you want to be aware and to understand that the # of times you are crawled is at least partially governed by PR which is governed by all those other things we discussed. If you understand that and keep the crawl focused on better pages you help yourself.
Does that clarify a bit?
Best -
Hi, even if you use robots.txt file to block these pages, Google can still pick the references of these pages from third-party websites and can crawl from there. Such pages will not have the description snippet in the search results and instead will show text that reads:
A description of this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt.
So, to fully stop Google from crawling these pages, you can go in for the page-level meta robots tag along with the robots.txt method. The page-level robots meta tag complements robots.txt method.By the way, robots.txt file can definitely save you some crawl budget. I don't think you should be thinking much about crawl budget though, as long as your website is super-easy to crawl with simple text-based internal links and stuff like, super-fast servers etc.,
Those my my two cents my friend.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
-
Thanks for the response, Robert.
I have read lots of SEO advice on maximizing your "crawl budget" - making sure your internal link system is built well to send the bots to the right pages. According to my research, since bots only spend a certain amount of time on your site when they are crawling, it is important to do whatever you can to ensure that they don't "waste time" on pages that are not important for SEO. Just as one example, see this post from AJ Kohn.
Do you disagree with this whole approach?
-
Yair
I think that the canonical is the better option. I am unsure as to your use of the term "crawl budget," in that there is no fixed number of times a page or a site will be crawled versus a second similar site for example. I have a huge reference site that is crawled every couple of days and I have small sites of ten pages that are crawled weekly or less. It is dependent on the traffic and behaviors of that traffic (which would include number of inbound links, etc.) and on things like you re-submitting sitemap, etc.
The canonical tag was created to provide the clarification to the search engine as to what you considered to be the relevant page. Go ahead and use it.Best
Robert
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 was set to disallow for 14 days
We updated our website and accidentally overwrote our robots file with a version that prevented crawling ( "Disallow: /") We realized the issue 14 days later and replaced after our organic visits began to drop significantly and we quickly replace the robots file with the correct version to begin crawling again. With the impact to our organic visits, we have a few and any help would be greatly appreciated - Will the site get back to its original status/ranking ? If so .. how long would that take? Is there anything we can do to speed up the process ? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jc42540 -
Not sure how we're blocking homepage in robots.txt; meta description not shown
Hi folks! We had a question come in from a client who needs assistance with their robots.txt file. Metadata for their homepage and select other pages isn't appearing in SERPs. Instead they get the usual message "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more". At first glance, we're not seeing the homepage or these other pages as being blocked by their robots.txt file: http://www.t2tea.com/robots.txt. Does anyone see what we can't? Any thoughts are massively appreciated! P.S. They used wildcards to ensure the rules were applied for all locale subdirectories, e.g. /en/au/, /en/us/, etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SearchDeploy0 -
We used to speak of too many links from same C block as bad, have CDN's like CloudFlare made that concept irrelevant?
Over lunch with our head of development, we were discussing the way CloudFlare and other CDN's help prevent DDOS attacks, etc. and I began to wonder about the IP address vs. the reverse proxy IP address. Before we would look to see commonalities in the IP as a way that search engines would modify the value to given links and most link software showed this. For ahrefs, I know they still show common IPs using the C block as the reference point. I began to get curious about what was the real IP when our head of dev said, that is the IP from CloudFlare... So, I ran a site in ahrefs and we got an older site we had developed years ago that showed up as follows: Actos-lawsuit.org 104.28.13.57 and again as 104.28.12.57 (duplicate C block is first three sets of numbers are the same and obviously, this has a .12 and a .13 so not duplicate.) Then we looked at our host to see what was the IP shown there: 104.239.226.120. So, this really begs a question of is C Block data or even IP address data still relevant with regard to links? What do the search engines see when they look for IP address now? Yes, I have an opinion, but would love to hear yours first!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RobertFisher0 -
Using hreflang="en" instead of hreflang="en-gb"
Hello, I have a question in regard to international SEO and the hreflang meta tag. We are currently a B2B business in the UK. Our major market is England with some exceptions of sales internationally. We are wanting to increase our ranking into other english speaking countries and regions such as Ireland and the Channel Islands. My research has found regional google search engines for Ireland (google.ie), Jersey (google.je) and Guernsey (google.gg). Now, all the regions have English as one their main language and here is my questions. Because I use hreflang=“en-gb” as my site language, am I regional excluding these countries and islands? If I used hreflang=“en” would it include these english speaking regions and possible increase the ranking on these the regional search engines? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SilverStar11 -
Need help with Robots.txt
An eCommerce site built with Modx CMS. I found lots of auto generated duplicate page issue on that site. Now I need to disallow some pages from that category. Here is the actual product page url looks like
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nahid
product_listing.php?cat=6857 And here is the auto generated url structure
product_listing.php?cat=6857&cPath=dropship&size=19 Can any one suggest how to disallow this specific category through robots.txt. I am not so familiar with Modx and this kind of link structure. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks1 -
Whole site blocked by robots in webmaster tools
My URL is: www.wheretobuybeauty.com.auThis new site has been re-crawled over last 2 weeks, and in webmaster tools index status the following is displayed:Indexed 50,000 pagesblocked by robots 69,000Search query 'site:wheretobuybeauty.com.au' returns 55,000 pagesHowever, all pages in the site do appear to be blocked and over the 2 weeks, the google search query site traffic declined from significant to zero (proving this is in fact the case ).This is a Linux php site and has the following: 55,000 URLs in sitemap.xml submitted successfully to webmaster toolsrobots.txt file existed but did not have any entries to allow or disallow URLs - today I have removed robots.txt file completely URL re-direction within Linux .htaccess file - there are many rows within this complex set of re-directions. Developer has double checked this file and found that it is valid.I have read everything that google and other sources have on this topic and this does not help. Also checked webmaster crawl errors, crawl stats, malware and there is no problem there related to this issue.Is this a duplicate content issue - this is a price comparison site where approx half the products have duplicate product descriptions - duplicated because they are obtained from the suppliers through an XML data file. The suppliers have the descriptions from the files in their own sites.Help!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rrogers0 -
Canonical Issue need hep
Hi Is my site has any issue with duplicate pages within the site , have i define my canonical tag properly , can any one advise please help. childrensfunkyfurniture.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | conversiontactics0 -
1200 pages no followed and blocked by robots on my site. Is that normal?
Hi, I've got a bunch of notices saying almost 1200 pages are no-followed and blocked by robots. They appear to be comments and other random pages. Not the actual domain and static content pages. Still seems a little odd. The site is www.jobshadow.com. Any idea why I'd have all these notices? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | astahl110