Timely use of robots.txt and meta noindex
-
Hi,
I have been checking every possible resources for content removal, but I am still unsure on how to remove already indexed contents.
When I use robots.txt alone, the urls will remain in the index, however no crawling budget is wasted on them, But still, e.g having 100,000+ completely identical login pages within the omitted results, might not mean anything good.
When I use meta noindex alone, I keep my index clean, but also keep Googlebot busy with indexing these no-value pages.
When I use robots.txt and meta noindex together for existing content, then I suggest Google, that please ignore my content, but at the same time, I restrict him from crawling the noindex tag.
Robots.txt and url removal together still not a good solution, as I have failed to remove directories this way. It seems, that only exact urls could be removed like this.
I need a clear solution, which solves both issues (index and crawling).
What I try to do now, is the following:
I remove these directories (one at a time to test the theory) from the robots.txt file, and at the same time, I add the meta noindex tag to all these pages within the directory. The indexed pages should start decreasing (while useless page crawling increasing), and once the number of these indexed pages are low or none, then I would put the directory back to robots.txt and keep the noindex on all of the pages within this directory.
Can this work the way I imagine, or do you have a better way of doing so?
Thank you in advance for all your help.
-
Hi Deb,
Thank you for your reply.
I have never thought, that Google would crawl the robots.txt this rarely. I actually read it somewhere, which makes complete sense, that before they start crawling, they validate the process against robots.txt. This is one page only, but basically one of the most important ones.
This is now a shocking experience for me, thank you for drawing my attention to it. Anyway, I have submitted the page through 'Fetch as Google' now.
Regarding your url suggestion, I do not want them to be 404-d, at least not all of them, as for examply the login pages I still want to use, and why we have individual urls, is that because we would like our visitors to return back the page they left, before we asked them to log in. So status 200 is ok, because these pages we have for customers, but the very same pages are totally useless for Google to crawl or to index.
I hope this clarifies.
-
It seems like the latest Robots.txt file has not been cached by Google so far .. this is what it has –
So, you need to use Fetch As Google Bot and Submit this Robots.txt file to index to fix this issue at the earliest.
What concerns me that defunct URLs like this - http://www.kozelben.hu/login?r=%2Fceg%2Fdrink-island-bufe-whisky-bar-alkotas-utca-17-1123-budapest-126126%23addComment or http://www.kozelben.hu/supplier/nearby/supplierid/127493/type/geo are returning 200 Ok server side response code whereas they should be returning 404 server side response. The problem would have stopped here for once and all.
However assuming the fact that the CMS of your website does not offer you any such option [in that case, this is a bad CMS], you need to apply Meta noindex tag against them and wait patiently for search engine to catch them.
_Can’t you fix the 404 thing? Let us know. _
-
Really good article, indeed!
I have been thinking about the whole concept during the weekend, and now I have a further concept, definetely worth considering.
Thank you again, Ryan.
-
Lindsay wrote a great article on the topic which I am sure you will enjoy: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/serious-robotstxt-misuse-high-impact-solutions
-
Thank you for the further info, Ryan.
Although I see your point and can accept lots of truth in it, checking all the competitors and even the largest sites all around the web, they still keep using robots.txt (even Google does so).
I however accept noindex to be a superior solution to robots.txt and will use it for all the contents I do not want to be indexed.
I will then see, if I need and how I might need to use robots.txt. I hope, it does not hurt having a noindexed page included in robots.txt (at a later time, when it is already out of the index).
-
I understand your concern Andras. The two questions I would focus on with respect to crawl budget:
1. Is all your content being indexed properly?
2. Is your content being indexed in a timely manner?
If the answer to the above two questions is yes, I would not spend any more time thinking about crawl budget. Either way, using the "noindex" meta tag is going to be the best way to handle the issue you originally presented.
On a related note, does the content on your "useful" pages change frequently? If so, ensure you are optimizing your links (both internal and external) to these pages. When you demonstrate these are important pages to your site, Google will crawl the pages more frequently.
-
Hi Ryan,
Thank you for your reply.
The only worry I have regarding the crawl budget, that I currently have three times more indexed pages than useful pages, due to the issues I have mentioned earlier.
It is true, that I do not have daily content updates on all of my useful pages, however I have thought that Google allocates individual crawling budget to all sites, based on the value he assigns to them.
I just want this budget to be spent wisely, and not causing my useful pages to be crawled less frequently, due to crawling no-value (but noindexed) content instead.
-
Hi Andras,
The first thing to know is a general rule....the best robots.txt file is a blank one. There is almost always a better method of managing a situation without using robots.txt. There are numerous reasons, one of which is search engines do not always see the robots.txt file.
Regarding the noindex meta tag, that is the proper solution. I understand your concern over crawl budget, but I suggest in this instance, your concerns are not warranted. It is a waste of crawl budget to have search engines spend extra time due to slow servers, bad code, thin content, etc. If you have pages which should not be indexed, adding the noindex tag is likely the best solution.
Without being familiar with your site, it is not possible to offer a definitive answer, but generally speaking this response should be accurate. Keep in mind many sites have millions of pages, and Google has the ability to crawl the entire site each month.
-
Can you show us examples of URLs that are causing you trouble? That would be easier for us to provide a solution.
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
-
Problems with Meta Title on Bing
On the Bing search engine, it isn't showing the actual meta title we have for a website. It's showing something different. However, the correct meta title is showing on the Google search engine. Has anyone had the same issue? Has anyone been able to fix this issue? Thanks for your help!
Technical SEO | | Harrison.Stickboy0 -
John Mueller says don't use Schema as its not working yet but I get markup conflicts using Google Mark-up
I watched recently John Mueller's Google Webmaster Hangout [DEC 5th]. In hit he mentions to a member not to use Schema.org as it's not working quite yet but to use Google's own mark-up tool 'Structured Data Markup Helper'. Fine this I have done and one of the tags I've used is 'AUTHOR'. However if you use Google's Structured Data Testing Tool in GWMT you get an error saying the following Error: Page contains property "author" which is not part of the schema. Yet this is the tag generated by their own tool. Has anyone experienced this before? and if so what action did you take to rectify it and make it work. As it stands I'm considering just removing this tag altogether. Thanks David cqbsdbunpicv8s76dlddd1e8u4g
Technical SEO | | David-E-Carey0 -
Why Google ranks a page with Meta Robots: NO INDEX, NO FOLLOW?
Hi guys, I was playing with the new OSE when I found out a weird thing: if you Google "performing arts school london" you will see w w w . mountview . org. uk at the 3rd position. The point is that page has "Meta Robots: NO INDEX, NO FOLLOW", why Google indexed it? Here you can see the robots.txt allows Google to index the URL but not the content, in article they also say the meta robots tag will properly avoid Google from indexing the URL either. Apparently, in my case that page is the only one has the tag "NO INDEX, NO FOLLOW", but it's the home page. so I said to myself: OK, perhaps they have just changed that tag therefore Google needs time to re-crawl that page and de-index following the no index tag. How long do you think it will take to don't see that page indexed? Do you think it will effect the whole website, as I suppose if you have that tag on your home page (the root domain) you will lose a lot of links' juice - it's totally unnatural a backlinks profile without links to a root domain? Cheers, Pierpaolo
Technical SEO | | madcow780 -
Wordpress: Should your blog posts be noindex?
Wordpress defaults all blog posts to no index/nofollow Is this how it should be handled? I understand the nofollow from the page.com/blog to the page.com/blog/blogtitle But why noindex? We have Yoast installed and this is the default.
Technical SEO | | cschwartzel0 -
Which Web host do you use?
A friend of mine has a successful website which is hosted by the company he used to use for developing his site. As he no longer uses them feels he should use it. Who do you use for hosting a small to medium sized business?
Technical SEO | | Ant710 -
No indexing url including query string with Robots txt
Dear all, how can I block url/pages with query strings like page.html?dir=asc&order=name with robots txt? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | HMK-NL0 -
What are the SEO implications of URLs that use a # in them?
I have several clients who have begun to ask questions about sites that are designed to look like a single page. When you click on a link, the URL changes but it uses a # before (i.e. http://www.kelloggs.com/teamusa**/#**/teamusa/athletes/kerri-walsh.html. What are the SEO implications of having a page set up this way? I noticed that Google has indexed this page but the indexed URL does not include a #. Is Google indexing a separate version of this page? Any insights would be really helpful! Thanks
Technical SEO | | VMLYRDiscoverability0 -
Your opinion on using the markup from schema.org
I am attending SMXEast and one of the speakers is strongly encouraging to use the markup from schema.org. Does anyone have experience with the markup from schema.org and were you able to track any outcome in the search rankings based on adding this markup?
Technical SEO | | irvingw0