Does It Really Matter to Restrict Dynamic URLs by Robots.txt?
-
Today, I was checking Google webmaster tools and found that, there are 117 dynamic URLs are restrict by Robots.txt. I have added following syntax in my Robots.txt You can get more idea by following excel sheet.
#Dynamic URLs
Disallow: /?osCsidDisallow: /?q=
Disallow: /?dir=Disallow: /?p=
Disallow: /*?limit=
Disallow: /*review-form
I have concern for following kind of pages.
Shorting by specification:
http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?dir=asc&order=name
Iterms per page:
http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?dir=asc&limit=60&order=name
Numbering page of products:
http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?p=2
Will it create resistance in organic performance of my category pages?
-
I am quite late to add my reply on this question. Because, I was busy to fix issue regarding dynamic URLs.
I have made following changes on my website.
- I have re-write all dynamic URLs and make it static one exclude session ID and internal search option. Because, I have restricted both version via Robots.txt.
- I have set canonical to near duplicate pages which Dr.Pete described in Duplicate content in post panda world.
I want to give one live example to know more about it.
Base URL: http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas
Dynamic URLs: It was dynamic but, I have re-write to make it static one. But canonical tag to base URL is available on each near duplicate pages which are as follow.
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/limit-100
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/lift-method-search-manual-lift
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/manufacturer-fiberbuilt-umbrellas-llc
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/price-2,100
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/canopy-fabric-search-sunbrella
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/canopy-shape-search-hexagonal
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/canopy-size-search-7-ft-to-8-ft
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/color-search-blue
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/finish-search-black
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/p-2
http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas/shopby/dir-desc/order-positionNow, I am looking forward towards Google crawling and How Google treat all canonical pages. I am quite excited to see changes in organic ranking with distribution of page rank in website. Thanks for your insightful reply.
-
Robots.txt isn't the best solution for dynamic URLs. Depending on the type of URL, there are a number of other solutions available.
1. As blurbpoint mentions, Google Webmaster Tools allows you to specify URL handling. They actually do a decent job of this automatically, but also allow you the option to change the settings yourself.
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1235687
2. Identical pages with different parameters can create duplicate content, which is often best handled with canonical tags.
3. Parameters that result in pagination may require slightly nuanced solutions. I won't get into them all here but Adam Audette gives a good overview of pagination solutions here: http://searchengineland.com/the-latest-greatest-on-seo-pagination-114284
Hope this helps. Best of luck with your SEO!
-
Hi,
Instead of blocking those URLs, You can use "URL parameter" setting in Google webmaster tool. You will get parameters like "?dir" & "?p" in it, select appropriate option from that like what actually happens when this parameter come into picture.
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 should you determine the preferred URL structure?
Hi Guys, When migrating to a new CMS which include new pages how should you determine the URL structure, specifically: So should we include www. or without it? Should the URL have a trailing slash? How would you determine the answer to these questions? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kayl870 -
If I block a URL via the robots.txt - how long will it take for Google to stop indexing that URL?
If I block a URL via the robots.txt - how long will it take for Google to stop indexing that URL?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gabriele_Layoutweb0 -
Duplicate URLs ending with #!
Hi guys, Does anyone know why a site can contain duplicate URLs ending with hastag & exclamation mark e.g. https://site.com.au/#! We are finding a lot of these URLs (as duplicates) and i was wondering what they are from developer standpoint? And do you think it's worth the time and effort adding a rel canonical tag or 301 to these URLs eventhough they're not getting indexed by Google? Cheers, Chris
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jayoliverwright0 -
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 -
Should I disallow all URL query strings/parameters in Robots.txt?
Webmaster Tools correctly identifies the query strings/parameters used in my URLs, but still reports duplicate title tags and meta descriptions for the original URL and the versions with parameters. For example, Webmaster Tools would report duplicates for the following URLs, despite it correctly identifying the "cat_id" and "kw" parameters: /Mulligan-Practitioner-CD-ROM
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jmorehouse
/Mulligan-Practitioner-CD-ROM?cat_id=87
/Mulligan-Practitioner-CD-ROM?kw=CROM Additionally, theses pages have self-referential canonical tags, so I would think I'd be covered, but I recently read that another Mozzer saw a great improvement after disallowing all query/parameter URLs, despite Webmaster Tools not reporting any errors. As I see it, I have two options: Manually tell Google that these parameters have no effect on page content via the URL Parameters section in Webmaster Tools (in case Google is unable to automatically detect this, and I am being penalized as a result). Add "Disallow: *?" to hide all query/parameter URLs from Google. My concern here is that most backlinks include the parameters, and in some cases these parameter URLs outrank the original. Any thoughts?0 -
Our Robots.txt and Reconsideration Request Journey and Success
We have asked a few questions related to this process on Moz and wanted to give a breakdown of our journey as it will likely be helpful to others! A couple of months ago, we updated our robots.txt file with several pages that we did not want to be indexed. At the time, we weren't checking WMT as regularly as we should have been and in a few weeks, we found that apparently one of the robots.txt files we were blocking was a dynamic file that led to the blocking of over 950,000 of our pages according to webmaster tools. Which page was causing this is still a mystery, but we quickly removed all of the entries. From research, most people say that things normalize in a few weeks, so we waited. A few weeks passed and things did not normalize. We searched, we asked and the number of "blocked" pages in WMT which had increased at a rate of a few hundred thousand a week were decreasing at a rate of a thousand a week. At this rate it would be a year or more before the pages were unblocked. This did not change. Two months later and we were still at 840,000 pages blocked. We posted on the Google Webmaster Forum and one of the mods there said that it would just take a long time to normalize. Very frustrating indeed considering how quickly the pages had been blocked. We found a few places on the interwebs that suggested that if you have an issue/mistake with robots.txt that you can submit a reconsideration request. This seemed to be our only hope. So, we put together a detailed reconsideration request asking for help with our blocked pages issue. A few days later, to our horror, we did not get a message offering help with our robots.txt problem. Instead, we received a message saying that we had received a penalty for inbound links that violate Google's terms of use. Major backfire. We used an SEO company years ago that posted a hundred or so blog posts for us. To our knowledge, the links didn't even exist anymore. They did.... So, we signed up for an account with removeem.com. We quickly found many of the links posted by the SEO firm as they were easily recognizable via the anchor text. We began the process of using removem to contact the owners of the blogs. To our surprise, we got a number of removals right away! Others we had to contact another time and many did not respond at all. Those we could not find an email for, we tried posting comments on the blog. Once we felt we had removed as many as possible, we added the rest to a disavow list and uploaded it using the disavow tool in WMT. Then we waited... A few days later, we already had a response. DENIED. In our request, we specifically asked that if the request were to be denied that Google provide some example links. When they denied our request, they sent us an email and including a sample link. It was an interesting example. We actually already had this blog in removem. The issue in this case was, our version was a domain name, i.e. www.domainname.com and the version google had was a wordpress sub domain, i.e. www.subdomain.wordpress.com. So, we went back to the drawing board. This time we signed up for majestic SEO and tied it in with removem. That added a few more links. We also had records from the old SEO company we were able to go through and locate a number of new links. We repeated the previous process, contacting site owners and keeping track of our progress. We also went through the "sample links" in WMT as best as we could (we have a lot of them) to try to pinpoint any other potentials. We removed what we could and again, disavowed the rest. A few days later, we had a message in WMT. DENIED AGAIN! This time it was very discouraging as it just didn't seem there were any more links to remove. The difference this time, was that there was NOT an email from Google. Only a message in WMT. So, while we didn't know if we would receive a response, we responded to the original email asking for more example links, so we could better understand what the issue was. Several days passed we received an email back saying that THE PENALTY HAD BEEN LIFTED! This was of course very good news and it appeared that our email to Google was reviewed and received well. So, the final hurdle was the reason that we originally contacted Google. Our robots.txt issue. We did not receive any information from Google related to the robots.txt issue we originally filed the reconsideration request for. We didn't know if it had just been ignored, or if there was something that might be done about it. So, as a last ditch final effort, we responded to the email once again and requested help as we did the other times with the robots.txt issue. The weekend passed and on Monday we checked WMT again. The number of blocked pages had dropped over the weekend from 840,000 to 440,000! Success! We are still waiting and hoping that number will continue downward back to zero. So, some thoughts: 1. Was our site manually penalized from the beginning, yet without a message in WMT? Or, when we filed the reconsideration request, did the reviewer take a closer look at our site, see the old paid links and add the penalty at that time? If the latter is the case then... 2. Did our reconsideration request backfire? Or, was it ultimately for the best? 3. When asking for reconsideration, make your requests known? If you want example links, ask for them. It never hurts to ask! If you want to be connected with Google via email, ask to be! 4. If you receive an email from Google, don't be afraid to respond to it. I wouldn't over do this or spam them. Keep it to the bare minimum and don't pester them, but if you have something pertinent to say that you have not already said, then don't be afraid to ask. Hopefully our journey might help others who have similar issues and feel free to ask any further questions. Thanks for reading! TheCraig
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheCraig5 -
How to fix duplicated urls
I have an issue with duplicated pages. Should I use cannonical tag and if so, how? Or should change the page titles? This is causing my pages to compete with each other in the SERPs. 'Paradisus All Inclusive Luxury Resorts - Book your stay at Paradisus Resorts' is also used on http://www.paradisus.com/booking-template.php | http://www.paradisus.com/booking-template.php?codigoHotel=5889 line 9 | | http://www.paradisus.com/booking-template.php?codigoHotel=5891 line 9 | | http://www.paradisus.com/booking-template.php?codigoHotel=5910 line 9 | | http://www.paradisus.com/booking-template.php?codigoHotel=5911 line 9 |
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Melia0 -
Subdomains - duplicate content - robots.txt
Our corporate site provides MLS data to users, with the end goal of generating leads. Each registered lead is assigned to an agent, essentially in a round robin fashion. However we also give each agent a domain of their choosing that points to our corporate website. The domain can be whatever they want, but upon loading it is immediately directed to a subdomain. For example, www.agentsmith.com would be redirected to agentsmith.corporatedomain.com. Finally, any leads generated from agentsmith.easystreetrealty-indy.com are always assigned to Agent Smith instead of the agent pool (by parsing the current host name). In order to avoid being penalized for duplicate content, any page that is viewed on one of the agent subdomains always has a canonical link pointing to the corporate host name (www.corporatedomain.com). The only content difference between our corporate site and an agent subdomain is the phone number and contact email address where applicable. Two questions: Can/should we use robots.txt or robot meta tags to tell crawlers to ignore these subdomains, but obviously not the corporate domain? If question 1 is yes, would it be better for SEO to do that, or leave it how it is?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EasyStreet0
