I have two robots.txt pages for www and non-www version. Will that be a problem?
-
There are two robots.txt pages. One for www version and another for non-www version though I have moved to the non-www version.
-
It wont affect your SEO, you just don;t need the the non-https version
-
Hi ramb,
Short answer: No, it won't affect your ability to rank in Google. Unless both sites (non-www and www version) compete for the same search term and one of them isn't blocked in the correspondent robots.txt file.
If you can, make sure to have a redirection rule so as everything in the non-www goes to the www.
It bugs me why aren't you redirecting the complete non-www to the www version.
Two possibilities come to my mind:- You can't redirect the whole non-www due to some app or technical need.
In this case, both versions, if accessible to Google, will be treated as different sites. Thus, you must be sure that both robots file are correct for the given subdomain. - You have a separate website, which contains different content from the www version (this usually happens with subdomains with different page types, such as products.abc.com and categories.abc.com)
In this case, please be sure that you know what you want to be blocked and have each robots.txt file in their subdomain.
Keep in mind that Robots file only controls where you don't want googlebot to access in the public version of your website. When a certain page or group of pages are blocked in robots.txt, google won't access them anymore thus not knowing if that page has what it needs to rank for any given search term. Google might rank lower and users will see a note in search results, leading to a lower CTR.
Hope it helps.
Best Luck.
Gaston - You can't redirect the whole non-www due to some app or technical need.
-
Are you redirecting everything on www to non-www? If so, you don't really need a robots.txt to be served for the www subdomain. Google will ignore the original robots.txt file if it is given a 301 anyway.
-
Hi Gatson
Thank you for your response. Currently, www version of the site is redirected to non-www version, which is the primary(or root) domain.
But the problem is, I have 2 robots.txt files running for the same site. i.e. same robots.txt file loads on both www and non-www version. (Example https://www.abc.com/robots.txt and https://abc.com/robots.txt).
Does it affect my site's SEO ??
Should I redirect www-version of the file to non-www version?
Your feedback will be highly appreciated.Thank you,
R.
-
Hi ramb,
It's totally fine to have different robots.txt files for different subdomains.
Thus said, http://domain.com and http://www.domain.com are different subdomains. Consider the one with non-www as the full root domain.In case it is needed, here you have Google's official resource about robots.txt:
Learn about Robots.txt file - Search Console helpHope it helps.
Best luck.
Gast
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
-
Three version of english pages: EN-US, EN-GB und EN as x-default
We want address the search market for USA and UK. Therefore all english pages have small regional variations with similar content. Since a longer time (after a relaunch) Google has problems to identify the right page (/en-gb/) for the right search market (UK) - although we use hreflang and sitemaps from the beginning. We monitor those in moz for our UK campaign (/en-gb/ pages) by jumps in the ranking of individual keywords (>-50 and >+50). -50 means not that the ranking of our website is lost. In this case Google will substitute the ranking of the /en-gb/ page with the variant /en/. One excample:
Technical SEO | | PeterGolze
https://www.openmind-tech.com/en-gb/industries/cam-software-for-motor-sports/
This page lost the ranking and the other languag variant is ranking for position 2.
https://www.openmind-tech.com/en/industries/cam-software-for-motorsport/ In the moment I have no idea what we can change in our html code.0 -
Robots.txt vs. meta noindex, follow
Hi guys, I wander what your opinion is concerning exclution via the robots.txt file.
Technical SEO | | AdenaSEO
Do you advise to keep using this? For example: User-agent: *
Disallow: /sale/*
Disallow: /cart/*
Disallow: /search/
Disallow: /account/
Disallow: /wishlist/* Or do you prefer using the meta tag 'noindex, follow' instead?
I keep hearing different suggestions.
I'm just curious what your opinion / suggestion is. Regards,
Tom Vledder0 -
Is it good to redirect million of pages on a single page?
My site has 10 lakh approx. genuine urls. But due to some unidentified bugs site has created irrelevant urls 10 million approx. Since we don’t know the origin of these non-relevant links, we want to redirect or remove all these urls. Please suggest is it good to redirect such a high number urls to home page or to throw 404 for these pages. Or any other suggestions to solve this issue.
Technical SEO | | vivekrathore0 -
Robots.txt - What is the correct syntax?
Hello everyone I have the following link: http://mywebshop.dk/index.php?option=com_redshop&view=send_friend&pid=39&tmpl=component&Itemid=167 I want to prevent google from indiexing everything that is related to "view=send_friend" The problem is that its giving me dublicate content, and the content of the links has no SEO value of any sort. My problem is how i disallow it correctly via robots.txt I tried this syntax: Disallow: /view=send_friend/ However after doing a crawl on request the 200+ dublicate links that contains view=send_friend is still present in the CSV crawl report. What is the correct syntax if i want to prevent google from indexing everything that is related to this kind of link?
Technical SEO | | teleman0 -
Non-Canonical Pages still Indexed. Is this normal?
I have a website that contains some products and the old structure of the URL's was definitely not optimal for SEO purposes. So I created new SEO friendly URL's on my site and decided that I would use the canonical tags to transfer all the weight of the old URL's to the New URL's and ensure that the old ones would not show up in the SERP's. Problem is this has not quite worked. I implemented the canonical tags about a month ago but I am still seeing the old URL's indexed in Google and I am noticing that the cache date of these pages was only about a week ago. This leads me to believe that the spiders have been to the pages and seen the new canonical tags but are not following them. Is this normal behavior and if so, can somebody explain to me why? I know I could have just 301 redirected these old URL's to the new ones but the process I would need to go through to have that done is much more of a battle than to just add the canonical tags and I felt that the canonical tags would have done the job. Needless to say the client is not too happy right now and insists that I should have just used the 301's. In this case the client appears to be correct but I do not quite understand why my canonical tags did not work. Examples Below- Old Pages: www.awebsite.com/something/something/productid.3254235 New Pages: www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name Canonical tag on both pages: rel="canonical" href="http://www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name"/> Thanks guys for the help on this.
Technical SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt0 -
Getting home page content at top of what robots see
When I click on the text-only cache of nlpca(dot)com on the home page http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UIJER7OJFzYJ:www.nlpca.com/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1 our H1 and body content are at the very bottom. How do we get the h1 and content at the top of what the robots see? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | BobGW0 -
Are there any SEO implications if a page does two 301s and then a 304?
Curious to see if this is a positive or negative thing for SEO...or even perhaps, neutral. h9SZz
Technical SEO | | RodrigoStockebrand0 -
.htaccess and www - non www
Recently I have taken over a website and I made a pretty colossal mistake. The site was properly constructed via .htaccess to a www domain. Typically I roll without it and I made a bad assumption that the .htaccess was not previously set correctly because there were hundreds of fundamental mistakes. After a couple of days I noticed the mistake but some of our new (non www) have picked up some solid links etc. So now I feel that I am in a nightmare of creating redirects etc. So should I switch back to WWW or not? Does it matter at this point?
Technical SEO | | mikeusry0