Restricted by robots.txt does this cause problems?
-
I have restricted around 1,500 links which are links to retailers website and links that affiliate links accorsing to webmaster tools
Is this the right approach as I thought it would affect the link juice? or should I take the no follow out of the restricted by robots.txt file
-
Hello Ocelot,
I am assuming you have a site that has affiliate links and you want to keep Google from crawling those affiliate links. If I am wrong, please let me know. Going forward with that assumption then...
That is one way to do it. So perhaps you first send all of those links through a redirect via a folder called /out/ or /links/ or whatever, and you have blocked that folder in the robots.txt file. Correct? If so, this is how many affiliate sites handle the situation.
I would not rely on rel nofollow alone, though I would use that in addition to the robots.txt block.
There are many other ways to handle this. For instance, you could make all affilaite links javascript links instead of href links. Then you could put the javascript into a folder called /js/ or something like that, and block that in the robots.txt file. This works less and less now that Google Preview Bot seems to be ignoring the disallow statement in those situations.
You could make it all the same URL with a unique identifyer of some sort that tells your database where to redirect the click. For example:
www.yoursite.com/outlink/mylink#123
or
www.yoursite.com/mylink?link-id=123
In which case you could then block /mylink in the robots.txt file and tell Google to ignore the link-ID parameter via Webmaster Tools.
As you can see, there is more than one way to skin this cat. The problem is always going to be doing it without looking like you're trying to "fool" Google - because they WILL catch up with any tactic like that eventually.
Good luck!
Everett
-
From a coding perspective, applying the nofollow to the links is the best way to go.
With the robots.txt file, only the top tier search engines respect the information contained within, so lesser known bots or spammers might check your robots.txt file to see what you don't want listed, and that info will give them a starting point to look deeper into 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
-
Website URL, Robots.txt and Google Search Console (www. vs non www.)
Hi MOZ Community,
Technical SEO | | Badiuzz
I would like to request your kind assistance on domain URLs - www. VS non www. Recently, my team have moved to a new website where a 301 Redirection has been done. Original URL : https://www.example.com.my/ (with www.) New URL : https://example.com.my/ (without www.) Our current robots.txt sitemap : https://www.example.com.my/sitemap.xml (with www.)
Our Google Search Console property : https://www.example.com.my/ (with www.) Question:
1. How/Should I standardize these so that Google crawler can effectively crawl my website?
2. Do I have to change back my website URLs to (with www.) or I just need to update my robots.txt?
3. How can I update my Google Search Console property to reflect accordingly (without www.), because I cannot see the options in the dashboard.
4. Is there any to dos such as Canonicalization needed, or should I wait for Google to automatically detect and change it, especially in GSC property? Really appreciate your kind assistance. Thank you,
Badiuzz0 -
X-robots tag causing no index issues
I have an interesting problem with a site which has an x-robot tag blocking the site from being indexed, the site is in Wordpress, there are no issues with the robots.txt or at the page level, I cant find the noindex anywhere. I removed the SEO plug-in which was there and installed Yoast but it made no difference. this is the url: https://www.cotswoldflatroofing.com/ Its coming up with a HTTP error: x-robots tag noindex, nofollow, noarchive
Technical SEO | | Donsimong0 -
Has anyone had problems with Wordpress plugins on their blog causing payment issues on the main site?
Looking to migrate a subdomain Wordpress site onto the main domain, but the payment system breaks based on one or more of the plugins used on the blog having been linked with spammy activity in the past. Need to isolate the plugin and remove before migrating or it'll break the site! Has anyone had any similar issues with some of the following plugins? Akismet Wordfence Security Subscribe2 Timber Backup Buddy
Technical SEO | | Amelia.Coleby0 -
On-Page Problem
Hello Mozzers, A friend has a business website and the on-page stuff is done really bad. He wants to rank for: conference room furnishing, video conference, digital signage. (Don't worry about the keywords, it's just made up for an example.) For these three services he has a page: hiswebsite.com/av AV stands for audio and video and is the h1. If you click on one of the service, the url doesn't change. Like if you click on video conference, just the text changes, the url stays /av. All his targeted pages got an F Grade, I am not surprised, the services titles are in . Wouldn't it be a lot better to make an own page for every service with a targeted keyword, like hiswebsite.com/video-conference All this stuff is on /av, how will a 301 resirect work to all the service pages, does this make sense? Any help is appreciated! Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | grobro1 -
Are W3C Validators too strict? Do errors create SEO problems?
I ran a HTML markup validation tool (http://validator.w3.org) on a website. There were 140+ errors and 40+ warnings. IT says "W3C Validators are overly strict and would deny many modern constructs that browsers and search engines understand." What a browser can understand and display to visitors is one thing, but what search engines can read has everything to do with the code. I ask this: If the search engine crawler is reading thru the code and comes upon an error like this: …ext/javascript" src="javaScript/mainNavMenuTime-ios.js"> </script>');}
Technical SEO | | INCart
The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed. This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a "style" element
in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two elements that overlap (which is not allowed).
One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can create
cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the parser to infer
the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the "body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported error). and this... <code class="input">…t("?");document.write('>');}</code> ✉ The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed. This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a "style" element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two elements that overlap (which is not allowed). One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the parser to infer the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the "body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported error). Does this mean that the crawlers don't know where the code ends and the body text begins; what it should be focusing on and not?0 -
Google insists robots.txt is blocking... but it isn't.
I recently launched a new website. During development, I'd enabled the option in WordPress to prevent search engines from indexing the site. When the site went public (over 24 hours ago), I cleared that option. At that point, I added a specific robots.txt file that only disallowed a couple directories of files. You can view the robots.txt at http://photogeardeals.com/robots.txt Google (via Webmaster tools) is insisting that my robots.txt file contains a "Disallow: /" on line 2 and that it's preventing Google from indexing the site and preventing me from submitting a sitemap. These errors are showing both in the sitemap section of Webmaster tools as well as the Blocked URLs section. Bing's webmaster tools are able to read the site and sitemap just fine. Any idea why Google insists I'm disallowing everything even after telling it to re-fetch?
Technical SEO | | ahockley0 -
is pointing to the same page that it is already on, is this a problem?
So we have a wordpress site with the all-in-one-seo-pack installed. I have just noticed in our crawl diagnostics that a canonical tag has been put in place on every single one of our pages, but they are all pointing to the pages that they are already on. Is this a problem? Should I be worried about this and delve more deeply to figure out as to why this has happened and get it removed? Thanks
Technical SEO | | cttgroup0 -
Advice on strange URL problem
I'm considering doing some pro bono work for a local non-profit and upon initial review they have a number of serious issues but there is one in particular I'd like to check my thinking on. The developer who set up the site some years ago implemented a javascript redirect on their root domain so that it redirects to: http://domain.com/wordpress This is wrong for all kinds of reasons and I want to recommend eliminating this redirect and getting rid of the 'wordpress' part of the path altogether. However, the site is quite established with good PR and they would take a hit by changing the path. I'd do 301 redirects to the new URLs that would not have 'wordpress' in the path in addition to other remediation. My question - is my thinking here good? It's worth it, right? The other option is just get rid of the weird redirect and keep 'wordpress' in the path but this seems unacceptable to me. Any opinions?
Technical SEO | | friendlymachine0
