Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
What happens to crawled URLs subsequently blocked by robots.txt?
-
We have a very large store with 278,146 individual product pages. Since these are all various sizes and packaging quantities of less than 200 product categories my feeling is that Google would be better off making sure our category pages are indexed.
I would like to block all product pages via robots.txt until we are sure all category pages are indexed, then unblock them. Our product pages rarely change, no ratings or product reviews so there is little reason for a search engine to revisit a product page.
The sales team is afraid blocking a previously indexed product page will result in in it being removed from the Google index and would prefer to submit the categories by hand, 10 per day via requested crawling.
Which is the better practice?
-
@aspenfasteners To my understanding, disallowing a page or folder in robots.txt does not remove pages from Google's index. It merely gives a directive to not crawl those pages/folders. In fact, when pages are accidentally indexed and one wants to remove them from the index, it is important to actually NOT disallow them in robots.txt, so that Google can crawl those pages and discover the meta NOINDEX tags on the pages. The meta NOINDEX tags are the directive to remove a page from the index, or to not index it in the first place. This is different than a robots.txt directive, whcih is intended to allow or disallow crawling. Crawling does not equal indexing.
So, you could keep the pages indexable, and simply block them in your robots.txt file, if you want. If they've already been indexed, they should not disappear quickly (they might, over time though). BUT if they haven't been indexed yet, this would prevent them from being discovered.
All of that said, from reading your notes, I don't think any of this is warranted. The speed at which Google discovers pages on a website is very fast. And existing indexed pages shouldn't really get in the way of new discovery. In fact, they might help the category pages be discovered, if they contain links to the categories.
I would create a categories sitemap xml file, link to that in your robots.txt, and let that do the work of prioritizing the categories for crawling/discovery and indexation.
-
@aspenfasteners to answer your question: "do we KNOW that Google will immediately de-index URL's blocked by robots.txt?"
Google will not immediately de-index URLs that are blocked by robots.txt, based on my experience. I've dealt with very similar situation but with much greater scale - around 8M automatically generated pages that got into Google index. It may take a year or more to de-index these pages completely. Of course, every case is different, but based on my understanding, if you block these low-quality product pages, Google will slowly start re-evaluating these pages, and it will start with the ones that get some traffic.
Here is what happens when Google re-evaluates your individual product pages:
When deciding, whether to keep a page in its index or not, Google takes into account multiple factors, and one of the most important ones is how many backlinks (both internal and external) are leading to a page. Other factors - content quality, if the page is similar or duplicate to another page, Core Web Vitals score, amount of your crawl budget, and, of course, external backlinks (which is irrelevant for your case).
If you are afraid of loosing some traffic that comes to these product pages, or you have other concerns, just do a smaller experiment: take a sample of 1000-2000 pages, block them in robots.txt or by adding meta robots "noindex, follow" directive, and observe Google's reaction in 1-6 weeks, depending on your crawl budget.
Another thing to check:
If you use Screaming Frog, it has a nice feature to show internal pagerank and the number of internal incoming links that lead to every page. As a rule of thumb, if an individual product page has at least 10 internal incoming links from canonicalized pages, there is a high probability it will get indexed.
-
@terentyev - sorry, can't edit my questions once submitted and I wait for approval (why?) the statement should read my question SHOULD be very specific, whereas my original question was much more general - you answered that question very nicely. Sorry for any misunderstanding
-
@terentyev thanks for the reply. We have no reason to believe these URL's are backlinked. These aren't consumer products that individual are interested in, our site is a wholesale B2B selling very narrow categories in bulk quantities typically for manufacturing. Therefore, almost zero chance for backlinks anywhere for something as specific as a particular size/material/package quantity of a product.
We have already initiated a canonicalization project started but we are stuck between two concerns from sales, 1) we can't wait for canonicalization (which is complex) we need sales now and 2) don't touch robots.txt because MAYBE the individual products are indexed.
So that is why my question is very specific - do we KNOW that Google will immediately de-index URL's blocked by robots.txt?
-
@aspenfasteners thanks for interesting question.
to summarize my understanding:- you have ~300K individual product pages, many of them are duplicates; eg. a single product can have multiple characteristics (eg. size or quantity) but the pages are essentially the same.
- your goal is to index 200 product categories that contain a collection of these products, and remove the low-quality duplicate individual pages from Google index in the long run.
- my assumption is that these 300K product pages have been historically accumulating some backlinks, which is one of the reasons why they are indexed.
If I am right about the 1 and 2, then you should not block these individual product pages, but rather add canonical URLs to them, which should point to the respective category page that you want to get indexed.
Once you have these canonicals implemented, you should wait for a few months or more for Google to pass the link equity to your 200 product category pages, and once it is done, you are free to block them from indexing on robots.txt + meta tag on the page itself, and maybe even x-robots-tag. The way how to block them - it is a different discussion. Let me know if you want to learn more on the best approach.
So, here is my checklist for this URL migration:
- add canonicals pointing from product pages to category pages.
- make sure that all category pages are well interlinked between each other, and the individual product pages are linked to several category pages (eg. a product A should be linked to category A, and also to similar categories B & C). As a rule of thumb, make sure that each category page has at least 10 incoming links from other category pages.
- Make sure that all these category pages are linked from your homepage
- Make sure that sitemap contains only self-canonicalized pages.
- Make sure that these category pages have good core web vitals metrics, compared to your competitors on SERP.
- In 2-3 months, when you see that Google indexes the category pages, and crawling of product pages have been reduced significantly, and the ranks of the category pages have gone up, it is ok to block these 300K pages from crawling.
As to manually submitting the categories by hand, I doubt it will help, especially if the product pages have a lot of backlinks. I've seen many cases when Google disregards the robots.txt directives if a page has good backlinks and traffic.
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
-
410 or 301 after URL update?
Hi there, A site i'm working on atm has a thousand "not found" errors on google console (of course, I'm sure there are thousands more it's not showing us!). The issue is a lot of them seem to come from a URL change. Damage has been done, the URLs have been changed and I can't stop that... but as you can imagine, i'm keen to fix as many as humanly possible. I don't want to go mad with 301s - but for external links in, this seems like the best solution? On the other hand, Google is reading internal links that simply aren't there anymore. Is it better to hunt down the new page and 301-it anyway? OR should I 410 and grit my teeth while google crawls and recrawls it, warning me that this page really doesn't exist? Essentially I guess I'm asking, how many 301s are too many and will affect our DA? And what's the best solution for dealing with mass 404 errors - many of which aren't attached or linked to from any other pages anymore? Thanks for any insights 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fubra0 -
If Robots.txt have blocked an Image (Image URL) but the other page which can be indexed has this image, how is the image treated?
Hi MOZers, This probably is a dumb question but I have a case where the robots.tags has an image url blocked but this image is used on a page (lets call it Page A) which can be indexed. If the image on Page A has an Alt tags, then how is this information digested by crawlers? A) would Google totally ignore the image and the ALT tags information? OR B) Google would consider the ALT tags information? I am asking this because all the images on the website are blocked by robots.txt at the moment but I would really like website crawlers to crawl the alt tags information. Chances are that I will ask the webmaster to allow indexing of images too but I would like to understand what's happening currently. Looking forward to all your responses 🙂 Malika
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Malika11 -
URL Rewriting Best Practices
Hey Moz! I’m getting ready to implement URL rewrites on my website to improve site structure/URL readability. More specifically I want to: Improve our website structure by removing redundant directories. Replace underscores with dashes and remove file extensions for our URLs. Please see my example below: Old structure: http://www.widgets.com/widgets/commercial-widgets/small_blue_widget.htm New structure: https://www.widgets.com/commercial-widgets/small-blue-widget I've read several URL rewriting guides online, all of which seem to provide similar but overall different methods to do this. I'm looking for what's considered best practices to implement these rewrites. From what I understand, the most common method is to implement rewrites in our .htaccess file using mod_rewrite (which will find the old URLs and rewrite them according to the rewrites I implement). One question I can't seem to find a definitive answer to is when I implement the rewrite to remove file extensions/replace underscores with dashes in our URLs, do the webpage file names need to be edited to the new format? From what I understand the webpage file names must remain the same for the rewrites in the .htaccess to work. However, our internal links (including canonical links) must be changed to the new URL format. Can anyone shed light on this? Also, I'm aware that implementing URL rewriting improperly could negatively affect our SERP rankings. If I redirect our old website directory structure to our new structure using this rewrite, are my bases covered in regards to having the proper 301 redirects in place to not affect our rankings negatively? Please offer any advice/reliable guides to handle this properly. Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheDude0 -
Wildcarding Robots.txt for Particular Word in URL
Hey All, So I know that this isn't a standard robots.txt, I'm aware of how to block or wildcard certain folders but I'm wondering whether it's possible to block all URL's with a certain word in it? We have a client that was hacked a year ago and now they want us to help remove some of the pages that were being autogenerated with the word "viagra" in it. I saw this article and tried implementing it https://builtvisible.com/wildcards-in-robots-txt/ and it seems that I've been able to remove some of the URL's (although I can't confirm yet until I do a full pull of the SERPs on the domain). However, when I test certain URL's inside of WMT it still says that they are allowed which makes me think that it's not working fully or working at all. In this case these are the lines I've added to the robots.txt Disallow: /*&viagra Disallow: /*&Viagra I know I have the solution of individually requesting URL's to be removed from the index but I want to see if anybody has every had success with wildcarding URL's with a certain word in their robots.txt? The individual URL route could be very tedious. Thanks! Jon
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EvansHunt0 -
Robots.txt - Do I block Bots from crawling the non-www version if I use www.site.com ?
my site uses is set up at http://www.site.com I have my site redirected from non- www to the www in htacess file. My question is... what should my robots.txt file look like for the non-www site? Do you block robots from crawling the site like this? Or do you leave it blank? User-agent: * Disallow: / Sitemap: http://www.morganlindsayphotography.com/sitemap.xml Sitemap: http://www.morganlindsayphotography.com/video-sitemap.xml
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | morg454540 -
Should comments and feeds be disallowed in robots.txt?
Hi My robots file is currently set up as listed below. From an SEO point of view is it good to disallow feeds, rss and comments? I feel allowing comments would be a good thing because it's new content that may rank in the search engines as the comments left on my blog often refer to questions or companies folks are searching for more information on. And the comments are added regularly. What's your take? I'm also concerned about the /page being blocked. Not sure how that benefits my blog from an SEO point of view as well. Look forward to your feedback. Thanks. Eddy User-agent: Googlebot Crawl-delay: 10 Allow: /* User-agent: * Crawl-delay: 10 Disallow: /wp- Disallow: /feed/ Disallow: /trackback/ Disallow: /rss/ Disallow: /comments/feed/ Disallow: /page/ Disallow: /date/ Disallow: /comments/ # Allow Everything Allow: /*
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | workathomecareers0 -
Changing a url from .html to .com
Hello, I have a client that has a site with a .html plugin and I have read that its best to not have this. We currently have pages ranking with this .html plug in. However If we take the plug in out will we lose rankings? would we need a 301 or something?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEODinosaur0 -
Blocking Pages Via Robots, Can Images On Those Pages Be Included In Image Search
Hi! I have pages within my forum where visitors can upload photos. When they upload photos they provide a simple statement about the photo but no real information about the image,definitely not enough for the page to be deemed worthy of being indexed. The industry however is one that really leans on images and having the images in Google Image search is important to us. The url structure is like such: domain.com/community/photos/~username~/picture111111.aspx I wish to block the whole folder from Googlebot to prevent these low quality pages from being added to Google's main SERP results. This would be something like this: User-agent: googlebot Disallow: /community/photos/ Can I disallow Googlebot specifically rather than just using User-agent: * which would then allow googlebot-image to pick up the photos? I plan on configuring a way to add meaningful alt attributes and image names to assist in visibility, but the actual act of blocking the pages and getting the images picked up... Is this possible? Thanks! Leona
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HD_Leona0