Disallowed "Search" results with robots.txt and Sessions dropped
-
Hi
I've started working on our website and I've found millions of "Search" URL's which I don't think should be getting crawled & indexed (e.g. .../search/?q=brown&prefn1=brand&prefv1=C.P. COMPANY|AERIN|NIKE|Vintage Playing Cards|BIALETTI|EMMA PAKE|QUILTS OF DENMARK|JOHN ATKINSON|STANCE|ISABEL MARANT ÉTOILE|AMIRI|CLOON KEEN|SAMSONITE|MCQ|DANSE LENTE|GAYNOR|EZCARAY|ARGOSY|BIANCA|CRAFTHOUSE|ETON).I tried to disallow them on the Robots.txt file, but our Sessions dropped about 10% and our Average Position on Search Console dropped 4-5 positions over 1 week. Looks like over 50 Million URL's have been blocked, and all of them look like all of them are like the example above and aren't getting any traffic to the site.
I've allowed them again, and we're starting to recover. We've been fixing problems with getting the site crawled properly (Sitemaps weren't added correctly, products blocked from spiders on Categories pages, canonical pages being blocked from Crawlers in robots.txt) and I'm thinking Google were doing us a favour and using these pages to crawl the product pages as it was the best/only way of accessing them.
Should I be blocking these "Search" URL's, or is there a better way about going about it??? I can't see any value from these pages except Google using them to crawl the site.
-
If you have a site with, at least 30k URLs, looking at only 300 keywords won't reflect the general status of the whole site. If you are looking for a 10% loss in traffic, I'd start by chasing the pages that lost more traffic, then analyzing whether they lost rankings or if there are some other issues.
Another way to find where there is traffic loss is in search Console, looking at keywords that aren't in the top300. There might be a lot to analyze.
It's not a big deal having a lot of pages blocked in robots.txt when what's blocked is correctly blocked. Keep in mind that GSC will flag those pages with warnings as they were previously indexed and now are blocked. That's just how they've set up flags.
Hope it helps.
Best luck.
Gaston -
If you have a general site which happens to have a search facility, blocking search results is quite usual. If your site is all 'about' searching (e.g: Compare The Market, stuff like that) then the value-add of your site is how it helps people to find things. In THAT type of situation, you absolutely do NOT want to block all your search URLs
Also, don't rule out seasonality. Traffic naturally goes up and down, especially at this time of year when everyone is on holiday. How many people spend their holidays buying stuff or doing business stuff online? They're all at the beach - mate!
-
Hi Gaston
"Search/" pages were getting a small amount of traffic, and a tiny bit of revenue, but I definitely don't think they need to be indexed or are important to users. We're down in mainly "Sale" & "Brand" pages, and I've heard the Sale in general across the store isn't going well, but don't think I can go back management with that excuse
I think my sitemaps are sorted now, I've broken them down into 6 x 5,000 URL files, and all the canonical tags seem to be fine and pointing to these URL's. I am a bit concerned that URL's "blocked by robots.txt" shot up from 12M to 73M, although all the URLs Search Console are showing me look like they need to be blocked!
We've also tracking nearly 300 Keywords, and they've actually had good improvements in the same period. Finding it hard to explain it!
-
Hi Frankie,
My guess is that the traffic you were losing was because of its traffic driven by /search pages.
The questions you should be asking are:
- Are those /search pages getting traffic?
- Are them important to users?
- After being disallowed, which pages were losing traffic?
As a general rule, Google doesn't want to crawl nor index internal search pages, unless they have some value to users.
On another matter, the crawlability of your product pages can be easily solved with a sitemap file. If you are worried about the size of it, remember that it can contain up to 50k URLs and you can create several sitemaps and list them in a sitemap index.
More info about that here: Split up your large sitemaps - Google Search Console HelpHope it helps.
Best luck,
Gaston
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
-
What do you add to your robots.txt on your ecommerce sites?
We're looking at expanding our robots.txt, we currently don't have the ability to noindex/nofollow. We're thinking about adding the following: Checkout Basket Then possibly: Price Theme Sortby other misc filters. What do you include?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThomasHarvey0 -
How to SEO to make "phones-ring"
What to do to make "phones-ring". How will make this happen?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Green.landon0 -
Should pages with rel="canonical" be put in a sitemap?
I am working on an ecommerce site and I am going to add different views to the category pages. The views will all have different urls so I would like to add the rel="canonical" tag to them. Should I still add these pages to the sitemap?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Robots.txt Syntax
I have been having a hard time finding any decent information regarding the robots.txt syntax that has been written in the last few years and I just want to verify some things as a review for myself. I have many occasions where I need to block particular directories in the URL, parameters and parameter values. I just wanted to make sure that I am doing this in the most efficient ways possible and thought you guys could help. So let's say I want to block a particular directory called "this" and this would be an example URL: www.domain.com/folder1/folder2/this/file.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt
or
www.domain.com/folder1/this/folder2/file.html In order for me to block any URL that contains this folder anywhere in the URL I would use: User-agent: *
Disallow: /this/ Now lets say I have a parameter "that" I want to block and sometimes it is the first parameter and sometimes it isn't when it shows up in the URL. Would it look like this? User-agent: *
Disallow: ?that=
Disallow: &that= What about if there is only one value I want to block for "that" and the value is "NotThisGuy": User-agent: *
Disallow: ?that=NotThisGuy
Disallow: &that=NotThisGuy My big questions here are what are the most efficient ways to block a particular parameter and block a particular parameter value. Is there a more efficient way to deal with ? and & for when the parameter and value are either first or later? Secondly is there a list somewhere that will tell me all of the syntax and meaning that can be used for a robots.txt file? Thanks!0 -
Add or not add "nofollow" to duplicate internal links?
Hello everyone. I have searched on these forums for an answer to my concerns, and despite I found many discussions and questions about applying or not applying "nofollow" to internal links, I couldn't find an answer specific to my particular scenarios. Here is my first scenario: I have an e-commerce site selling digital sheet music, and on my category pages our products are shown typically with the following format: PRODUCT TITLE link that takes to product page Short description text "more info" link that takes to the same product page again As you may notice, the "more info" link takes at the very same page of the PRODUCT TITLE link. So, my question is: is there any benefit to "nofollow" the "more info" link to tell SEs to "ignore" that link? Or should I leave the way it is and let the SE figure it out? My biggest concern by leaving the "nofollow" out is that the "more info" generic and repetitive anchor text could dilute or "compete" with the keyword content of the PRODUCT TITLE anchor text.... but maybe that doesn't really matter! Here a typical category page from my site; http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html My second scenario: on our product pages, we have several different links that take to the very same "preview page" of the product we sell. Each link has a different anchor text, and some other links are just images, all taking to the same page. Here are the anchor texts or ALT text of such same links: "Download Free Sample" (text link) "Cover of the [product title]" (ALT image text) "Look inside this title" (ALT image text) "[product title] PDF file" (ALT image text) "This item contains one high quality PDF sheet music file ready to download and print." (ALT image text) "PDF" (text link) "[product title] PDF file" (ALT image text) So, I have 7 links on the same product page taking the user to the same "product preview page" which is, by the way, canonicalized to the "main" product page we are talking about. Here is an example of product page on my site: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/Moonlight.html My instinct is to tell SEs to take into account just the links with the "[product title] PDF file" anchor text, and then add a "nofollow" to the other links... but may that hurting in some way? Is that irrelevant? Doesn't matter? How should I move? Just ignore this issue and let the SEs figure it out? Any thoughts are very welcome! Thank you in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
I have two sitemaps which partly duplicate - one is blocked by robots.txt but can't figure out why!
Hi, I've just found two sitemaps - one of them is .php and represents part of the site structure on the website. The second is a .txt file which lists every page on the website. The .txt file is blocked via robots exclusion protocol (which doesn't appear to be very logical as it's the only full sitemap). Any ideas why a developer might have done that?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Robots.txt: Syntax URL to disallow
Did someone ever experience some "collateral damages" when it's about "disallowing" some URLs? Some old URLs are still present on our website and while we are "cleaning" them off the site (which takes time), I would like to to avoid their indexation through the robots.txt file. The old URLs syntax is "/brand//13" while the new ones are "/brand/samsung/13." (note that there is 2 slash on the URL after the word "brand") Do I risk to erase from the SERPs the new good URLs if I add to the robots.txt file the line "Disallow: /brand//" ? I don't think so, but thank you to everyone who will be able to help me to clear this out 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kuantokusta0 -
Robots.txt: Can you put a /* wildcard in the middle of a URL?
We have noticed that Google is indexing the language/country directory versions of directories we have disallowed in our robots.txt. For example: Disallow: /images/ is blocked just fine However, once you add our /en/uk/ directory in front of it, there are dozens of pages indexed. The question is: Can I put a wildcard in the middle of the string, ex. /en/*/images/, or do I need to list out every single country for every language in the robots file. Anyone know of any workarounds?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IHSwebsite0
