Robots.txt and robots meta
-
I have an odd situation. I have a CMS that has a global robots.txt which has the generic
User-Agent: *
Allow: /I also have one CMS site that needs to not be indexed ever. I've read in various pages (like http://www.jesterwebster.com/robots-txt-vs-meta-tag-which-has-precedence/22 ) that robots.txt always wins over meta, but I have also read that robots.txt indicates spiderability whereas meta can control indexation. I just want the site to not be indexed. Can I leave the robots.txt as is and still put NOINDEX in the robots meta?
-
I see. Have you considered putting it behind an htpasswd?
-
I can control it (it's a custom piece of software) but it's not as easy a fix as adding a meta to the template.
The main problem is we have a junk TLD we use to test some new ideas off the live server (lets clients give us feedback) but it gets spidered and indexed and starts ranking for client sites before they're ready to live in their own TLD. This means we have to compete against ourselves (even with a 301). There's nothing sensitive or it would live behind a password.
-
Do you need to control access to the site beyond the SERPS? I would not rely on robots.txt to shield any sensitive data.
For a breakdown of robots.txt and robots meta-tags checkout: http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html and http://www.searchtools.com/robots/robots-meta.html/, and for a great post on using these standards in SEO check out: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/serious-robotstxt-misuse-high-impact-solutions
I am also concerned that you are unable to control your robots.txt! If your CMS doesn't let you do that and overwrites it when you change it manually, you have some major control problems on your hands that you should remedy.
-
Blocking it at the robots.txt will not guarantee that your site will not appear at Google's index. I think you can use meta robots NOINDEX to guarantee that Google will not show your pages when someone try to Google it.
It is important to say that Googlebot and other spiders will continue to visit your page.
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
-
Google is Still Blocking Pages Unblocked 1 Month ago in Robots
I manage a large site over 200K indexed pages. We recently added a new vertical to the site that was 20K pages. We initially blocked the pages using Robots.txt while we were developing/testing. We unblocked the pages 1 month ago. The pages are still not indexed at this point. 1 page will show up in the index with an omitted results link. Upon clicking the link you can see the remaining un-indexed pages. Looking for some suggestions. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Tyler1230 -
Forum post multiple pages gives meta description duplicate.
My website has a forum that is using the title of the posts as a Meta Description.The problem is that when a posts becomes long and separates in pages Google tells me that i have duplicate meta description issues because the 2nd page and the 3rd page are using the same meta description.What is the best course of action here?
Technical SEO | | Angelos_Savvaidis0 -
3,511 Pages Indexed and 3,331 Pages Blocked by Robots
Morning, So I checked our site's index status on WMT, and I'm being told that Google is indexing 3,511 pages and the robots are blocking 3,331. This seems slightly odd as we're only disallowing 24 pages on the robots.txt file. In light of this, I have the following queries: Do these figures mean that Google is indexing 3,511 pages and blocking 3,331 other pages? Or does it mean that it's blocking 3,331 pages of the 3,511 indexed? As there are only 24 URLs being disallowed on robots.text, why are 3,331 pages being blocked? Will these be variations of the URLs we've submitted? Currently, we don't have a sitemap. I know, I know, it's pretty unforgivable but the old one didn't really work and the developers are working on the new one. Once submitted, will this help? I think I know the answer to this, but is there any way to ascertain which pages are being blocked? Thanks in advance! Lewis
Technical SEO | | PeaSoupDigital0 -
Will an XML sitemap override a robots.txt
I have a client that has a robots.txt file that is blocking an entire subdomain, entirely by accident. Their original solution, not realizing the robots.txt error, was to submit an xml sitemap to get their pages indexed. I did not think this tactic would work, as the robots.txt would take precedent over the xmls sitemap. But it worked... I have no explanation as to how or why. Does anyone have an answer to this? or any experience with a website that has had a clear Disallow: / for months , that somehow has pages in the index?
Technical SEO | | KCBackofen0 -
Why Google not picking My META Description? Google itself populate the description.. How to control this Search Snippets??
Why Google not picking My META Description? Google itself populate the description.. How to control this Search Snippets??
Technical SEO | | greyniumseo0 -
For Google + purposes, should the author's name appear in the Meta description or title tag of my web site just as you would your key search phrase?
Relative to Cyrus Shepard's article on January 4th regarding Google's Superior SEO strategy, if I'm the primary author of all blog articles and web site content, and I have a link showing authorship going back to Google Plus, is a site wide link from the home page enough or should that show up on all blog posts etc and editorial comment pages etc? Conversely, should the author's name appear in the Meta description or title tag of my web site just as you would your key search phrase since Google appears to be trying to make a solid connection with my name, and all content?
Technical SEO | | lwnickens0 -
What are your thoughts on security of placing CMS-related folders in a robots.txt file?
So I was just about to add a whole heap of CMS-related folders to my robots.txt file to exclude them from search, and thought "hey, I'm publicly telling people where my admin folders are"...surely that's not right?! Should I leave them out of the robots.txt file, and hope for the best that they never get indexed? Should I use noindex meta data on every page? What are people's thoughts? Thanks, James PS. I know this is similar to lots of other discussions around meta noindex vs. robots.txt, but I'm after specific thoughts around the security aspect of listing your admin folders in a robots.txt file...
Technical SEO | | James-Distinction0