Robots.txt
-
Hi all,
Happy New Year!
I want to block certain pages on our site as they are being flagged (according to my Moz Crawl Report) as duplicate content when in fact that isn't strictly true, it is more to do with the problems faced when using a CMS system...
Here are some examples of the pages I want to block and underneath will be what I believe to be the correct robots.txt entry...
Disallow: /forum/index.php?app=core&module=search
http://www.XYZ.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=reports&rcom=gallery&imageId=980&ctyp=image
Disallow: /forum/index.php?app=core&module=reports
Disallow: /forum/index.php?app=forums&module=post
http://www.XYZ.com/forum/gallery/sizes/182-promenade/small/
http://www.XYZ.com/forum/gallery/sizes/182-promenade/large/
Disallow: /forum/gallery/sizes/
Any help \ advice would be much appreciated.
Many thanks
Andy
-
You may be better off just doing a pattern match if your CMS generates a lot of junk URLs. You could save yourself a lot of time and heartache with the following:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /*?That will block everything with with a ? in the string. So yeah, use with caution - as always.
If you're quite certain you want to block access to the image sizes subdirectory you may use:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /sizes*/
More on all of that fun from Google and SEO Book.
Robots.txt is almost as unforgiving as .htaccess, especially once you start pattern matching. Make sure to test everything thoroughly before you push to a live environment. For serious. You have been warned.
Google WMT and Bing WMT also provide parameter handling tools. Once you tell Bing and/or Google that you want their bots to ignore urls with certain parameter(s) you select. So if you wanted to handle it that way, it looks like ignoring the app= parameter should do the trick for most of your expressed concerns.
Good luck! explosions in the distance XD
-
Thanks DC1611, I will look into the other options but I have hundreds (and I mean hundreds) of examples that I would need to investigate...
Andy
-
You can quite easily check if these filters work - using Google Webmastertools (crawl section > robots.txt tester).
In the test-tool you can enter the criteria & check if they do block Googlebot from indexing these pages. I tried a few of the examples you gave & they seem to work.Apart from updating your robots.txt (which seems quite a radical solution) you could also consider implementing canonical url's for these duplicate url's.
Another alternative is to configure url parameters in Google Webmastertools (also in the crawl section) - where you can indicate which parameters need to be ignored.
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
-
Syndicated content with meta robots 'noindex, nofollow': safe?
Hello, I manage, with a dedicated team, the development of a big news portal, with thousands of unique articles. To expand our audiences, we syndicate content to a number of partner websites. They can publish some of our articles, as long as (1) they put a rel=canonical in their duplicated article, pointing to our original article OR (2) they put a meta robots 'noindex, follow' in their duplicated article + a dofollow link to our original article. A new prospect, to partner with with us, wants to follow a different path: republish the articles with a meta robots 'noindex, nofollow' in each duplicated article + a dofollow link to our original article. This is because he doesn't want to pass pagerank/link authority to our website (as it is not explicitly included in the contract). In terms of visibility we'd have some advantages with this partnership (even without link authority to our site) so I would accept. My question is: considering that the partner website is much authoritative than ours, could this approach damage in some way the ranking of our articles? I know that the duplicated articles published on the partner website wouldn't be indexed (because of the meta robots noindex, nofollow). But Google crawler could still reach them. And, since they have no rel=canonical and the link to our original article wouldn't be followed, I don't know if this may cause confusion about the original source of the articles. In your opinion, is this approach safe from an SEO point of view? Do we have to take some measures to protect our content? Hope I explained myself well, any help would be very appreciated, Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fabio80
Fab0 -
Robots.txt: how to exclude sub-directories correctly?
Hello here, I am trying to figure out the correct way to tell SEs to crawls this: http://www.mysite.com/directory/ But not this: http://www.mysite.com/directory/sub-directory/ or this: http://www.mysite.com/directory/sub-directory2/sub-directory/... But with the fact I have thousands of sub-directories with almost infinite combinations, I can't put the following definitions in a manageable way: disallow: /directory/sub-directory/ disallow: /directory/sub-directory2/ disallow: /directory/sub-directory/sub-directory/ disallow: /directory/sub-directory2/subdirectory/ etc... I would end up having thousands of definitions to disallow all the possible sub-directory combinations. So, is the following way a correct, better and shorter way to define what I want above: allow: /directory/$ disallow: /directory/* Would the above work? Any thoughts are very welcome! Thank you in advance. Best, Fab.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau1 -
I want to Disavow some more links - but I'm only allowed one .txt file?
Hey guys, Wondering if you good people could help me out on this one? A few months back (June 19) I disavowed some links for a client having uploaded a .txt file with the offending domains attached. However, recently I've noticed some more dodgy-looking domains being indexed to my client's site so went about creating a new "Disavow List". When I went to upload this new list I was informed that I would be replacing the existing file. So, my question is, what do I do here? Make a new list with both old and new domains that I plan on disavowing and replace the existing one? Or; Just replace the existing .txt file with the new file because Google has recognised I've already disavowed those older links?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Webrevolve0 -
Our Robots.txt and Reconsideration Request Journey and Success
We have asked a few questions related to this process on Moz and wanted to give a breakdown of our journey as it will likely be helpful to others! A couple of months ago, we updated our robots.txt file with several pages that we did not want to be indexed. At the time, we weren't checking WMT as regularly as we should have been and in a few weeks, we found that apparently one of the robots.txt files we were blocking was a dynamic file that led to the blocking of over 950,000 of our pages according to webmaster tools. Which page was causing this is still a mystery, but we quickly removed all of the entries. From research, most people say that things normalize in a few weeks, so we waited. A few weeks passed and things did not normalize. We searched, we asked and the number of "blocked" pages in WMT which had increased at a rate of a few hundred thousand a week were decreasing at a rate of a thousand a week. At this rate it would be a year or more before the pages were unblocked. This did not change. Two months later and we were still at 840,000 pages blocked. We posted on the Google Webmaster Forum and one of the mods there said that it would just take a long time to normalize. Very frustrating indeed considering how quickly the pages had been blocked. We found a few places on the interwebs that suggested that if you have an issue/mistake with robots.txt that you can submit a reconsideration request. This seemed to be our only hope. So, we put together a detailed reconsideration request asking for help with our blocked pages issue. A few days later, to our horror, we did not get a message offering help with our robots.txt problem. Instead, we received a message saying that we had received a penalty for inbound links that violate Google's terms of use. Major backfire. We used an SEO company years ago that posted a hundred or so blog posts for us. To our knowledge, the links didn't even exist anymore. They did.... So, we signed up for an account with removeem.com. We quickly found many of the links posted by the SEO firm as they were easily recognizable via the anchor text. We began the process of using removem to contact the owners of the blogs. To our surprise, we got a number of removals right away! Others we had to contact another time and many did not respond at all. Those we could not find an email for, we tried posting comments on the blog. Once we felt we had removed as many as possible, we added the rest to a disavow list and uploaded it using the disavow tool in WMT. Then we waited... A few days later, we already had a response. DENIED. In our request, we specifically asked that if the request were to be denied that Google provide some example links. When they denied our request, they sent us an email and including a sample link. It was an interesting example. We actually already had this blog in removem. The issue in this case was, our version was a domain name, i.e. www.domainname.com and the version google had was a wordpress sub domain, i.e. www.subdomain.wordpress.com. So, we went back to the drawing board. This time we signed up for majestic SEO and tied it in with removem. That added a few more links. We also had records from the old SEO company we were able to go through and locate a number of new links. We repeated the previous process, contacting site owners and keeping track of our progress. We also went through the "sample links" in WMT as best as we could (we have a lot of them) to try to pinpoint any other potentials. We removed what we could and again, disavowed the rest. A few days later, we had a message in WMT. DENIED AGAIN! This time it was very discouraging as it just didn't seem there were any more links to remove. The difference this time, was that there was NOT an email from Google. Only a message in WMT. So, while we didn't know if we would receive a response, we responded to the original email asking for more example links, so we could better understand what the issue was. Several days passed we received an email back saying that THE PENALTY HAD BEEN LIFTED! This was of course very good news and it appeared that our email to Google was reviewed and received well. So, the final hurdle was the reason that we originally contacted Google. Our robots.txt issue. We did not receive any information from Google related to the robots.txt issue we originally filed the reconsideration request for. We didn't know if it had just been ignored, or if there was something that might be done about it. So, as a last ditch final effort, we responded to the email once again and requested help as we did the other times with the robots.txt issue. The weekend passed and on Monday we checked WMT again. The number of blocked pages had dropped over the weekend from 840,000 to 440,000! Success! We are still waiting and hoping that number will continue downward back to zero. So, some thoughts: 1. Was our site manually penalized from the beginning, yet without a message in WMT? Or, when we filed the reconsideration request, did the reviewer take a closer look at our site, see the old paid links and add the penalty at that time? If the latter is the case then... 2. Did our reconsideration request backfire? Or, was it ultimately for the best? 3. When asking for reconsideration, make your requests known? If you want example links, ask for them. It never hurts to ask! If you want to be connected with Google via email, ask to be! 4. If you receive an email from Google, don't be afraid to respond to it. I wouldn't over do this or spam them. Keep it to the bare minimum and don't pester them, but if you have something pertinent to say that you have not already said, then don't be afraid to ask. Hopefully our journey might help others who have similar issues and feel free to ask any further questions. Thanks for reading! TheCraig
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheCraig5 -
Robot.txt error
I currently have this under my robot txt file: User-agent: *
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Rubix
Disallow: /authenticated/
Disallow: /css/
Disallow: /images/
Disallow: /js/
Disallow: /PayPal/
Disallow: /Reporting/
Disallow: /RegistrationComplete.aspx WebMatrix 2.0 On webmaster > Health Check > Blocked URL I copy and paste above code then click on Test, everything looks ok but then logout and log back in then I see below code under Blocked URL: User-agent: * Disallow: / WebMatrix 2.0 Currently, Google doesn't index my domain and i don't understand why this happening. Any ideas? Thanks Seda0 -
202 error page set in robots.txt versus using crawl-able 404 error
We currently have our error page set up as a 202 page that is unreachable by the search engines as it is currently in our robots.txt file. Should the current error page be a 404 error page and reachable by the search engines? Is there more value or is it a better practice to use 404 over a 202? We noticed in our Google Webmaster account we have a number of broken links pointing the site, but the 404 error page was not accessible. If you have any insight that would be great, if you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, VPSEO
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VPSEO0 -
Robots.txt unblock
I'm currently having trouble with what appears to be a cached version of robots.txt. I'm being told via errors in my Google sitemap account that I'm denying Googlebot access to the entire site. I uploaded clean and "Allow" robots.txt yesterday, but receive the same error. I've tried "Fetch as Googlebot" on the index and other pages, but still the error. Here is the latest: | Denied by robots.txt |
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Elchanan
| 11/9/11 10:56 AM | As I said, there in not blocking on the robots.txt for 24 hours. HELP!0 -
Should I robots block this directory?
There's about 43k pages indexed in this directory, and while helpful to end users, I don't see it being a great source of unique content for search engines. Would you robots block or meta noindex nofollow these pages in the /blissindex/ directory? ie. http://www.careerbliss.com/blissindex/petsmart-index-980481/ http://www.careerbliss.com/blissindex/att-index-1043730/ http://www.careerbliss.com/blissindex/facebook-index-996632/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CareerBliss0