New CMS system - 100,000 old urls - use robots.txt to block?
-
Hello.
My website has recently switched to a new CMS system.
Over the last 10 years or so, we've used 3 different CMS systems on our current domain. As expected, this has resulted in lots of urls.
Up until this most recent iteration, we were unable to 301 redirect or use any page-level indexation techniques like rel 'canonical'
Using SEOmoz's tools and GWMT, I've been able to locate and redirect all pertinent, page-rank bearing, "older" urls to their new counterparts..however, according to Google Webmaster tools 'Not Found' report, there are literally over 100,000 additional urls out there it's trying to find.
My question is, is there an advantage to using robots.txt to stop search engines from looking for some of these older directories? Currently, we allow everything - only using page level robots tags to disallow where necessary.
Thanks!
-
Great stuff..thanks again for your advice..much appreciated!
-
It can be really tough to gauge the impact - it depends on how suddenly the 404s popped up, how many you're seeing (webmaster tools, for Google and Bing, is probably the best place to check) and how that number compares to your overall index. In most cases, it's a temporary problem and the engines will sort it out and de-index the 404'ed pages.
I'd just make sure that all of these 404s are intentional and none are valuable pages or occurring because of issues with the new CMS itself. It's easy to overlook something when you're talking about 100K pages, and it could be more than just a big chunk of 404s.
-
Thanks for the advice! The previous website did have a robots.txt file with a few wild cards declared. A lot of the urls I'm seeing are NOT indexed anymore and haven't been for many years.
So, I think the 'stop the bleeding' method will work, and I'll just have to proceed with investigating and applying 301s as necessary.
Any idea what kind of an impact this is having on our rankings? I submitted a valid sitemap, crawl paths are good, and major 301s are in place. We've been hit particularly hard in Bing.
Thanks!
-
I've honestly had mixed luck with using Robots.txt to block pages that have already been indexed. It tends to be unreliable at a large scale (good for prevention, poor for cures). I endorsed @Optimize, though, because if Robots.txt is your only option, it can help "stop the bleeding". Sometimes, you use the best you have.
It's a bit trickier with 404s ("Not Found"). Technically, there's nothing wrong with having 404s (and it's a very valid signal for SEO), but if you create 100,000 all at once, that can sometimes give raise red flags with Google. Some kind of mass-removal may prevent problems from Google crawling thousands of not founds all at once.
If these pages are isolated in a folder, then you can use Google Webmaster Tools to remove the entire folder (after you block it). This is MUCH faster than Robots.txt alone, but you need to make sure everything in the folder can be dumped out of the index.
-
Absolutely. Not founds and no content are a concern. This will help your ranking....
-
Thanks a lot! I should have been a little more specific..but, my exact question would be, if I move the crawlers' attention away from these 'Not Found' pages, will that benefit the indexation of the now valid pages? Are the 'Not Found's' really a concern? Will this help my indexation and/or ranking?
Thanks!
-
Loaded question without knowing exactly what you are doing.....but let me offer this advice. Stop the bleeding with robots.txt. This is the easiest way to quickly resolve that many "not found".
Then you can slowly pick away at the issue and figure out if some of the "not founds" really have content and it is sending them to the wrong area....
On a recent project we had over 200,000 additional url's "not found". We stopped the bleeding and then slowly over the course of a month, spending a couple hours a week, found another 5,000 pages of content that we redirected correctly and removed the robots....
Good luck.
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
-
When using long-tail keywords, should you exactly match for the url or delete "in" "to" etc.?
long-tail keyword - "seizures in adults with no history" Should you include "in and with" in the url?
On-Page Optimization | | Moleculera0 -
Robots.txt Question for E-Commerce Sites
Hi All, I have a couple of e-commerce clients and have a question about URLs. When you perform a search on website all URLs contain a question mark, for example: /filter.aspx?search=blackout I'm not sure that I want these indexed. Could I be causing any harm/danger if I add this to the robots.txt file? /*? Any suggestions welcome! Gavin
On-Page Optimization | | IcanAgency0 -
Should I spend time going back and optimizing old blog posts for SEO or just write new posts?
The site I manage (Boutique Estate Law Firm) has at least 350 old blog post archived that were not well optimized for SEO. Would it be valuable to go through and optimize those old posts or just write new optimized posts even though they are on the same subjects? My boss loves to churn out 300 word posts.
On-Page Optimization | | SEO4leagalPA0 -
Transferring old articles to new site even if they are written horribly
OK my question for today is... If you currently have 300 articles on your current site but are building a new site would you transfer all of the articles over to the new site or focus on quality and rewrite the articles that had traffic? For example we have about 300 articles currently on our website 60 of which actually get traffic, We rewrote those articles to make sure they were written well. Someone thought that it would be best to simply transfer the other 240 articles over and rewrite them at another time to avoid 404 redirects. I would like your feedback on how you would approach this. Please be as detailed as possible explaining your thought process. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | PrintPlace.com0 -
What to do with old web pages after a re skin?
Buongiorno from foggy & wet wetherby UK 😞 Having launched a website there is a cluster of old redundant pages which i dont want to appear in the serach engines problem is they deliver search traffic. Would it be best to 301 redirect them? Or delete them & 404 Not found alert, I'm really not sure whats best 😞 Any insights welcome 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | Nightwing0 -
Robots file include sitemap
Hello, I see that google, facebook and moz... have robots.txt include sitemap at the footer.
On-Page Optimization | | JohnHuynh
Eg: http://www.google.com.vn/robots.txt Sitemap: http://www.google.com/sitemaps_webmasters.xml
Sitemap: http://www.google.com/ventures/sitemap_ventures.xml Should I include my sitemap file (sitemap.xml) at the footer of robots.txt and why should do this? Thanks,0 -
Over 12.000 302's?
Hi. I'm monitoringssystem a magento webshop. It has more 12.000 temp 302 redirects. Is it also a problem if the redirects are for a nonimportant subpage, such as an enable-cookies page?
On-Page Optimization | | Budskab0 -
New bookingsengine url, what would you do?
A client of mine is introducing a new and improved bookingsengine. They're launching it on a different url than the existing one. The existing one needs to stay online a little bit longer for affiliate purposes. The old engine url has a sitelink in the SERPS and ranks well on a few terms. I'm wondering what you would do in this case? They want the new url to rank as quickly as possible also as sitelink of course. Any help greatly appreciated. I have some thoughts of my own of course... 🙂 But to keep the discussion as wide as possible... I'll wait a bit to add m thoughts.
On-Page Optimization | | YannickVeys0