Spider Indexed Disallowed URLs
-
Hi there,
In order to reduce the huge amount of duplicate content and titles for a cliënt, we have disallowed all spiders for some areas of the site in August via the robots.txt-file. This was followed by a huge decrease in errors in our SEOmoz crawl report, which, of course, made us satisfied.
In the meanwhile, we haven't changed anything in the back-end, robots.txt-file, FTP, website or anything. But our crawl report came in this November and all of a sudden all the errors where back. We've checked the errors and noticed URLs that are definitly disallowed. The disallowment of these URLs is also verified by our Google Webmaster Tools, other robots.txt-checkers and when we search for a disallowed URL in Google, it says that it's blocked for spiders. Where did these errors came from? Was it the SEOmoz spider that broke our disallowment or something? You can see the drop and the increase in errors in the attached image.
Thanks in advance.
[
](<a href=)" target="_blank">a> [](<a href=)" target="_blank">a> LAAFj.jpg -
This was what I was looking for! The pages are indexed by Google, yes, but they aren't being crawled by the Googlebot (as my Webmaster Tool and the Matt Cutts Video is telling me), but they are occasionally being crawled by the Rogerbot probably (not monthly). Thank you very much!
-
Yes yes, canonicalization or meta noindex-tag would be better of course to pass the possible link juice, but we aren't worried about that. I was worried Google would still see the pages as duplicates. (couldn't really distile that out of the article, although it was useful!) Barry Smith answered that last issue in the answer below, but i do want to thank you for your insight.
-
The directives issued in a robots.txt file are just a suggestion to bots. One that Google does follow though.
Malicious bots will ignore them and occasionally even bots that follow the directives may mess up (probably what's happened here).
Google may also index pages that you've blocked as they've found them via a link as explained here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBdEwpRQRD0 - or for an overview of what Google does with robots.txt files you can read here - http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156449
I'd suggest you look at other ways of fixing the problem than just blocking 1500 pages but I see you've considered what would be required to fix the issues without removing the pages from a crawl and decided the value isn't there.
If WMT is telling you the pages are blocked from being crawled I'd believe that.
Try searching for a url that should be blocked in Google and see if it's indexed or do site:http://yoursitehere.com and see if blocked pages come up.
-
The assumptions of what to expect from using robots.txt may not be in line with the realities. Crawling a page isn't the same thing as indexing the content to appear in SERPs and even with robots, your pages can be crawled.
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/serious-robotstxt-misuse-high-impact-solutions
-
Thanks mister Goyal. Of course we have been thinking about ways and figured out some options in doing so, but implementing these solutions would be disastreous from a time/financial perspective. The pages that we have blocked from the spiders aren't needed for visibility in the search engines and don't carry much link juice, they are only there for the visitors, so we decided we don't really need them for our SEO-efforts in a positive way. But when these pages do get crawled and the engines notice the huge amount of duplicates, i recogn this would have a negative influence on our site as a whole.
So, the problem we have is focused on the doubts we have on the legitimacy of the report. If SEOMoz can crawl it, the Googlebot could probably too, right, since we've used: User-agent: *
-
Mark
Are you blocking all your bots to spider these erroneous URLs ? Is there a way for you to fix these such that either they don't exist or they are not duplicate anymore.
I'd just recommend looking from that perspective as well. Not just the intent of making those errors disappear from the SEOMoz report.
I hope this helps.
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
-
Over 500 thin URLs indexed from dynamically created pages (for lightboxes)
I have a client who has a resources section. This section is primarily devoted to definitions of terms in the industry. These definitions appear in colored boxes that, when you click on them, turn into a lightbox with their own unique URL. Example URL: /resources/?resource=dlna The information for these lightboxes is pulled from a standard page: /resources/dlna. Both are indexed, resulting in over 500 indexed pages that are either a simple lightbox or a full page with very minimal content. My question is this: Should they be de-indexed? Another option I'm knocking around is working with the client to create Skyscraper pages, but this is obviously a massive undertaking given how many they have. Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Alces0 -
Hidden text and mobile indexing
Hello, I believe mobile indexing 1 st is in place. Since then, does google give the same value to content that is hidden behind a tab (for example a question where you need to click on the + to see the answer) as content that would be directly visible ? Thank you,
Technical SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
URL redirect question
Hi all, Just wondering whether anybody has experience of CMSs that do a double redirect and what affect that has on rankings. here's the example /page.htm is 301 redirected to /page.html which is 301 redirected to /page As Google has stated that 301 redirects pass on benefits to the new page, would a double redirect do the same? Looking forward to hearing your views.
Technical SEO | | A_Q0 -
Structure of urls
**Hallo from Athens, Greece. We have to implement the following project and i need your help: ** We will build a company guide for the whole country and company local guides for each city for the same client. **Information of the country guide is the sum of information of local guides, so when a user is at the country guide he sees information from companies from all cities and when the user is at city guide he sees info only for the city. ** The problem is the structure of the url we should have. Should the page of presentation of each company should have structure as domain.gr/id/company? or city.domain.gr/id/company and the one to be canonical to the other? is this good for seo? Should both urls be included in the sitemap? Thank you
Technical SEO | | herculesopa0 -
Long URL
I am using seomoz software as a trial, it has crawled my site and a report is telling me that the URL for my forum is to long: <dl> <dt>Title</dt> <dd>Healthy Living Community</dd> <dt>Meta Description</dt> <dd>Healthy life discussion forum chatting about all aspects of healthy living including nutrition, fitness, motivation and much more.</dd> <dt>Meta Robots</dt> <dd>noodp, noydir</dd> <dt>Meta Refresh</dt> <dd>Not present/empty</dd> <dd> 1 Warning Long URL (> 115 characters) Found about 17 hours ago <dl> <dt>Number of characters</dt> <dd>135 (over by 21)</dd> <dt>Description</dt> <dd>A good URL is descriptive and concise. Although not a high priority, we recommend a URL that is shorter than 75 characters.</dd> </dl> </dd> <dd> URL: http://www.goodhealthword.com/forum/reprogramming-health/welcome-to-the-forum-for-discussing-the-4-steps-for-reprogramming-ones-health/ The problem is when I check the page via edit or in the admin section of wordpress, the url is a s follows: http://www.goodhealthword.com/forum/ My question is where is I cannot see where this long url is located, it appears to be a valid page but I cant find it. Thanks Pete </dd> </dl>
Technical SEO | | petemarko0 -
How to find original URLS after Hosting Company added canonical URLs, URL rewrites and duplicate content.
We recently changed hosting companies for our ecommerce website. The hosting company added some functionality such that duplicate content and/or mirrored pages appear in the search engines. To fix this problem, the hosting company created both canonical URLs and URL rewrites. Now, we have page A (which is the original page with all the link juice) and page B (which is the new page with no link juice or SEO value). Both pages have the same content, with different URLs. I understand that a canonical URL is the way to tell the search engines which page is the preferred page in cases of duplicate content and mirrored pages. I also understand that canonical URLs tell the search engine that page B is a copy of page A, but page A is the preferred page to index. The problem we now face is that the hosting company made page A a copy of page B, rather than the other way around. But page A is the original page with the seo value and link juice, while page B is the new page with no value. As a result, the search engines are now prioritizing the newly created page over the original one. I believe the solution is to reverse this and make it so that page B (the new page) is a copy of page A (the original page). Now, I would simply need to put the original URL as the canonical URL for the duplicate pages. The problem is, with all the rewrites and changes in functionality, I no longer know which URLs have the backlinks that are creating this SEO value. I figure if I can find the back links to the original page, then I can find out the original web address of the original pages. My question is, how can I search for back links on the web in such a way that I can figure out the URL that all of these back links are pointing to in order to make that URL the canonical URL for all the new, duplicate pages.
Technical SEO | | CABLES0 -
Duplicate pages, overly dynamic URL’s and long URL’s in Magento
Hi there, I’ve just completed the first crawl of my Magento site and SEOMOZ has picked up 1,000’s of duplicate pages, overly dynamic URL’s and long URL’s due to the sort function which appends URL’s with variables when sorting products (e.g. www.example.com?dir=asc&order=duration). I’m not particularly concerned that this will affect our rankings as Google has stated that they are familiar with the structure of popular CMS’s and Magento is pretty popular. However it completely dominates my crawl diagnostics so I can’t see if there are any real underlying issues. Does anyone know a way of preventing this? Cheers,
Technical SEO | | WendyWuTours
Al.1 -
About Google Spider
Hello, people! I have some questions regarding on Google spider. Many people are saying that "Google spiders only have US IP address." Is this really true? But I also saw video from Google's offical blog and it said "Google spider come from all around the world." At this point I am really confused. Q1) I researched and it seems like Google spiders have only US IP address. THen what does exactly mean by "Google spider come from all around the world."? Q2) If Google spider have only US IP address, what happen to site which use IP delivery? Is this means that Google spider always redirect to us site since they only have US IP? Can anyone help me to understand?? One more questions! When Google analyzing for cloaking issue, do you think Google analyze when spider crawls the site or after they crawled the site?
Technical SEO | | Artience0