Removing a site from Google's index
-
We have a site we'd like to have pulled from Google's index. Back in late June, we disallowed robot access to the site through the robots.txt file and added a robots meta tag with "no index,no follow" commands. The expectation was that Google would eventually crawl the site and remove it from the index in response to those tags. The problem is that Google hasn't come back to crawl the site since late May. Is there a way to speed up this process and communicate to Google that we want the entire site out of the index, or do we just have to wait until it's eventually crawled again?
-
ok. Not abundantly clear upon first reading. Thank you for your help.
-
Thank you for pointing that out Arlene. I do see it now.
The statement before that line is of key importance for an accurate quote. "If you own the site, you can verify your ownership in Webmaster Tools and use the verified URL removal tool to remove an entire directory from Google's search results."
It could be worded better but what they are saying is AFTER your site has already been removed from Google's index via the URL removal tool THEN you can block it with robots.txt. The URL removal tool will remove the pages and keep them out of the index for 90 days. That's when changing the robots.txt file can help.
-
"Note: To ensure your directory or site is permanently removed, you should use robots.txt to block crawler access to the directory (or, if you’re removing a site, to your whole site)."
The above is a quote from the page. You have to expand the section I referenced in my last comment. Just re-posting google's own words.
-
I thought you were offering a quote from the page. It seems that is your summarization. I apologize for my misunderstanding.
I can see how you can make that conclusion but it not accurate. Robots.txt does not ensure a page wont get indexed. I always recommend use of the noindex tag which should be 100% effective for the major search engines.
-
Go here: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=164734
Then expand the option down below that says: "<a class="zippy zippy-track zippy-collapse" name="RemoveDirectory">I want to remove an entire site or the contents of a directory from search results"</a>
They basically instruct you to block all robots in the robots.txt file, then request removal of your site. Once it's removed, the robots file will keep it from getting back into the index. They also recommend putting a "noindex" meta tag on each page to ensure nothing will get picked up. I think we have it taken care of at this point. We'll see
-
Arlene, I checked the link you offered but I could not locate the quote you offered anywhere on the page. I am sure it is referring to a different context. Using robots.txt as a blocking tool is fine BEFORE a site or page is indexed, but not after.
-
I used the removal tool and just entered a "/" which put in a request to have everything in all of my site's directories pulled from the index. And I have left "noindex" tags in place on every page. Hopefully this will get it done.
Thanks for your comments guys!
-
We blocked robots from accessing the site because Google told us to. This is straight from the webmaster tools help section:
Note: To ensure your directory or site is permanently removed, you should use robots.txt to block crawler access to the directory (or, if you’re removing a site, to your whole site).
-
I have webmaster tools setup, but I don't see an option to remove the whole site. There is a URL removal tool, but there are over 700 pages I want pulled out of the index. Is there an option in webmaster tools to have the whole site pulled from the index?
-
Actually, since you have access to the site, you can leave the robots.txt at disallowed -- if you go into Google Webmaster Tools, verify your site, and request removal of your entire site. Let me know if you'd like a link on this with more information. This will involve adding an html file or meta tag to your site to verify you have ownership.
-
Thank you. Didn't realize we were shooting ourselves in the foot.
-
Hi Arlene.
The problem is that when you blocked the site with robots.txt, you are preventing Google from re-crawling your site so they cannot see the noindex tag. If you have properly placed the noindex tag on all the pages in your site, then modify your robots.txt file to allow Google to see your site. Once that happens Google will begin crawling your site and then be able to deindex your pages.
The only other suggestion is to submit a sitemap and/or remove the "nofollow" tag. With the nofollow tag on all your pages, Google may visit your site for a single page at a time since you are telling the crawler not to follow any links it finds. You are blocking it's normal discovery of your site.
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
-
How google bot see's two the same rel canonicals?
Hi, I have a website where all the original URL's have a rel canonical back to themselves. This is kinda like a fail safe mode. It is because if a parameter occurs, then the URL with the parameter will have a canonical back to the original URL. For example this url: https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ has this canonical: https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ which is the same since it's an original URL This url https://www.example.com/something/page/1/?parameter has this canonical https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ like i said before, parameters have a rel canonical back to their original url's. SO: https://www.example.com/something/page/1/?parameter and this https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ both have the same canonical which is this https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ Im telling you all that because when roger bot tried to crawl my website, it gave back duplicates. This happened because it was reading the canonical (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/) of the original url (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/) and the canonical (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/) of the url with the parameter (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/?parameter) and saw that both were point to the same canonical (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/)... So, i would like to know if google bot treats canonicals the same way. Because if it does then im full of duplicates 😄 thanks.
Technical SEO | | dos06590 -
IT's Hurt My Rank?HELP!!!
hi,guys,john here, i just began use the MOZ service several days ago, recently i noticed one thing that one keyword on the first google search result page, but when i done some external links,the rank down from 1 to 8, i think may be the bad quality external links caused the rank down. so my question,should i delete the bad quality links or build more better quality links? which is better for me. easy to delete the bad links and hard to build high quality links. so what's your better opinion,guys? thanks John
Technical SEO | | smokstore0 -
Will a Robots.txt 'disallow' of a directory, keep Google from seeing 301 redirects for pages/files within the directory?
Hi- I have a client that had thousands of dynamic php pages indexed by Google that shouldn't have been. He has since blocked these php pages via robots.txt disallow. Unfortunately, many of those php pages were linked to by high quality sites mulitiple times (instead of the static urls) before he put up the php 'disallow'. If we create 301 redirects for some of these php URLs that area still showing high value backlinks and send them to the correct static URLs, will Google even see these 301 redirects and pass link value to the proper static URLs? Or will the robots.txt keep Google away and we lose all these high quality backlinks? I guess the same question applies if we use the canonical tag instead of the 301. Will the robots.txt keep Google from seeing the canonical tags on the php pages? Thanks very much, V
Technical SEO | | Voodak0 -
Bing is not Indexing my site.
Hi, My website is four months old and has more than 8000 pages. Bing has indexed only 8 pages till date and Google also keeps playing hide and seek with it. There was a time when google indexed almost all the pages of my site but now there are only 5000 pages indexed. Moreover when I check my site on google (by typing site:socktail.com), it shows only 26 pages. Please let me know what should I do. If somebody wants to take a look, my website is http://socktail.com Thanks
Technical SEO | | saurabh19050 -
What's the latest on Title Tags?
What is the latest on what Google is looking for? Keyword one, Keyword two? Sentences with the Keyword in them?
Technical SEO | | netviper0 -
Removing irrelevant items from Google News?
A client wants to know if it's possible to get Google to remove stories from Google News feeds if those stories have nothing to do with the client? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Technical SEO | | JamesAMartin0 -
Why hasn't my sites indexed on opensiteexplorer.org changed in weeks?
Why hasn't my sites indexed on opensiteexplorer.org changed in weeks, even though I've done link-building like crazy?
Technical SEO | | AccountKiller0 -
Url's don't want to show up in google. Please help?
Hi Mozfans 🙂 I'm doing a sitescan for a new client. http://www.vacatures.tuinbouw.nl/ It's a dutch jobsite. Now the problem is here: The url http://www.vacatures.tuinbouw.nl/vacatures/ is in google.
Technical SEO | | MaartenvandenBos
On the same page there are jobs (scroll down) with a followed link.
To a url like this: http://www.vacatures.tuinbouw.nl/vacatures/722/productie+medewerker+paprika+teelt/ The problem is that the second url don't show up in google. When i try to make a sitemap with Gsitecrawler the second url isn't in de sitemap.. :S What am i doing wrong? Thanks!0