Robots txt is case senstive? Pls suggest
-
Hi i have seen few urls in the html improvements duplicate titles
Can i disable one of the below url in the robots.txt?
/store/Solar-Home-UPS-1KV-System/75652
/store/solar-home-ups-1kv-system/75652if i disable this
Disallow: /store/Solar-Home-UPS-1KV-System/75652
will the Search engines scan this /store/solar-home-ups-1kv-system/75652
im little confused with case senstive.. Pls suggest go ahead or not in the robots.txt
-
Hi Already there is some equity for duplicate links, wht is going to happen?
-
Actually, you have just one option to not index them - the second one. The first will, still keep them in index if google can find them. I currently have roughly 27k URLs indexed that were blocked via robots.txt from the start (generated with a time-based parameter; yeah: ouch.).
Those results do not usually appear in "normal" search but can be forced (currently you may try site:grimoires.de inurl:fakechecknr and showing skipped results to see the effect of that). So basically I'd advise against using robots.txt - it does not prevent indexing, only the visiting/reading of that page.
Regards
Nico
-
Hi Abdul,
Yes, it is case sensitive.
Remember that you must not have many pages like that.
The first thing you should do is elimiate those duplicate pages.In the case you can´t eliminate them, you have 2 way to ask the google bot not to index them:
1- By robots.txt with a 'Disallow:' instruction
2- By a meta tag with a_ '' _in theHope it helps.
GR
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
-
Block session id URLs with robots.txt
Hi, I would like to block all URLs with the parameter '?filter=' from being crawled by including them in the robots.txt. Which directive should I use: User-agent: *
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mat_C
Disallow: ?filter= or User-agent: *
Disallow: /?filter= In other words, is the forward slash in the beginning of the disallow directive necessary? Thanks!1 -
Internal search pages (and faceted navigation) solutions for 2018! Canonical or meta robots "noindex,follow"?
There seems to conflicting information on how best to handle internal search results pages. To recap - they are problematic because these pages generally result in lots of query parameters being appended to the URL string for every kind of search - whilst the title, meta-description and general framework of the page remain the same - which is flagged in Moz Pro Site Crawl - as duplicate, meta descriptions/h1s etc. The general advice these days is NOT to disallow these pages in robots.txt anymore - because there is still value in their being crawled for all the links that appear on the page. But in order to handle the duplicate issues - the advice varies into two camps on what to do: 1. Add meta robots tag - with "noindex,follow" to the page
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SWEMII
This means the page will not be indexed with all it's myriad queries and parameters. And so takes care of any duplicate meta /markup issues - but any other links from the page can still be crawled and indexed = better crawling, indexing of the site, however you lose any value the page itself might bring.
This is the advice Yoast recommends in 2017 : https://yoast.com/blocking-your-sites-search-results/ - who are adamant that Google just doesn't like or want to serve this kind of page anyway... 2. Just add a canonical link tag - this will ensure that the search results page is still indexed as well.
All the different query string URLs, and the array of results they serve - are 'canonicalised' as the same.
However - this seems a bit duplicitous as the results in the page body could all be very different. Also - all the paginated results pages - would be 'canonicalised' to the main search page - which we know Google states is not correct implementation of canonical tag
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html this picks up on this older discussion here from 2012
https://moz.com/community/q/internal-search-rel-canonical-vs-noindex-vs-robots-txt
Where the advice was leaning towards using canonicals because the user was seeing a percentage of inbound into these search result pages - but i wonder if it will still be the case ? As the older discussion is now 6 years old - just wondering if there is any new approach or how others have chosen to handle internal search I think a lot of the same issues occur with faceted navigation as discussed here in 2017
https://moz.com/blog/large-site-seo-basics-faceted-navigation1 -
Is robots met tag a more reliable than robots.txt at preventing indexing by Google?
What's your experience of using robots meta tag v robots.txt when it comes to a stand alone solution to prevent Google indexing? I am pretty sure robots meta tag is more reliable - going on own experiences, I have never experience any probs with robots meta tags but plenty with robots.txt as a stand alone solution. Thanks in advance, Luke
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart1 -
Robots.txt, Disallow & Indexed-Pages..
Hi guys, hope you're well. I have a problem with my new website. I have 3 pages with the same content: http://example.examples.com/brand/brand1 (good page) http://example.examples.com/brand/brand1?show=false http://example.examples.com/brand/brand1?show=true The good page has rel=canonical & it is the only page should be appear in Search results but Google has indexed 3 pages... I don't know how should do now, but, i am thinking 2 posibilites: Remove filters (true, false) and leave only the good page and show 404 page for others pages. Update robots.txt with disallow for these parameters & remove those URL's manually Thank you so much!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | thekiller990 -
Robots.txt vs noindex
I recently started working on a site that has thousands of member pages that are currently robots.txt'd out. Most pages of the site have 1 to 6 links to these member pages, accumulating into what I regard as something of link juice cul-d-sac. The pages themselves have little to no unique content or other relevant search play and for other reasons still want them kept out of search. Wouldn't it be better to "noindex, follow" these pages and remove the robots.txt block from this url type? At least that way Google could crawl these pages and pass the link juice on to still other pages vs flushing it into a black hole. BTW, the site is currently dealing with a hit from Panda 4.0 last month. Thanks! Best... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Robots.txt & Duplicate Content
In reviewing my crawl results I have 5666 pages of duplicate content. I believe this is because many of the indexed pages are just different ways to get to the same content. There is one primary culprit. It's a series of URL's related to CatalogSearch - for example; http://www.careerbags.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?q=Mobile I have 10074 of those links indexed according to my MOZ crawl. Of those 5349 are tagged as duplicate content. Another 4725 are not. Here are some additional sample links: http://www.careerbags.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?dir=desc&order=relevance&p=2&q=Amy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Careerbags
http://www.careerbags.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?color=28&q=bellemonde
http://www.careerbags.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?cat=9&color=241&dir=asc&order=relevance&q=baggallini All of these links are just different ways of searching through our product catalog. My question is should we disallow - catalogsearch via the robots file? Are these links doing more harm than good?0 -
Suggestions for a SEO Review
I think it would be beneficial to have a third party seo review of the network of sites my team and I manage and was wondering if any of you had suggestions for what sort of tests should be done or that we should expect to see done during one of these reviews. We are a small team who has varying seo experience and have been working hard to make improvements to our sites in the past year. Most of our sites have been completely overhauled in the last 12-16 months and seo work that had not been done in the past has been setup, along with some corrections that may have been harming seo. We believe we are on the right track and have learned a good amount about seo in that time, but it would be nice to have some "expert" feedback outside of our office to get a clearer picture on anything we may be missing or some suggested improvements. A sort of double check on the work we have done.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | unikey0 -
Is there a reason to put a canonical to yourself? Interesting case...
Hi, I was looking at BlueNile (biggest diamonds online dealer in the world) since I was wondering how they dealt with similar products and with sold products. Each diamond that is sold is unique. Once it is sold it is unavailable for sale. Also, all diamonds are VERY similar so they should also find a way to handle duplication in content. Look at the following 2 pages: http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-1-carat-or-less-ideal-cut-g-color-vs1-clarity_LD02360835 http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-1-carat-or-less-ideal-cut-g-color-vs1-clarity_LD02366155 The pages are practically identical and in the "view source" I noticed that they add a canonical tag to themselves... Any thoughts on that? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet0