Blocked by robots
-
my client GWT has a number of notices for "blocked by meta-robots" - these are all either blog posts/categories/or tags
his former seo told him this: "We've activated following settings:
- Use noindex for Categories
- Use noindex for Archives
- Use noindex for Tag Archives
to reduce keyword stuffing & duplicate post tags
Disabling all 3 noindex settings above may remove google blocks but also will send too many similar tags, post archives/category. "is this guy correct?
what would be the problem with indexing these?
am i correct in thinking they should be indexed?
thanks
-
As far as the upgrading of php on a server - this is for a different client, I seem to recall?
I would have a real problem with a developer saying they weren't going to upgrade because it might break things. Of course it might break things, but there are industry-standard approaches to dealing with this
For example, create a duplicate version of the site on a server instance that is using the newer version of php, and do a full Quality Assurance analysis on the dev site to find and fix anything that has issues with the new php version. Then deploy back to the live site with the php upgrade.
This is standard operating procedure and is necessary because there will come a time when any older server software will no longer be supported and therefore becomes a security risk as it will be unpatched. Planning for these kinds of upgrades should be included in any website operational plan.
Also, their solution to move WordPress to a subdomain is no protection whatsoever for the fact they have an extremely vulnerable, version.
First, the site is just as vulnerable to being hacked again as it is still unpatched. Being on a subdomain has no effect on this. Also, they have ruined the SEO value of that blog by moving it to a subdomain instead of fixing the issue and keeping it as a subdirectory of the prime site. And depending on the type of vulnerability exploited, it may still be possible for a hacker to get into the server via the vulnerable WP, then traverse from the subdomain to the prime site and cause harm there as well.
In the short term, if there truly aren't resources to properly do QA (Quality Assurance) on a dev site running an updated version of PHP, the alternative would be to move the WordPress install to it's own server or VPS running a current version of PHP, upgrade it and security patch it, then use a reverse proxy setup to have it show up as blog.domain.com (or even move it back to domain,com/blog).
This would at least allow for a properly secured WordPress that could also use current and new plugins. This would, however be at the expense of a slightly more complicated setup of the reverse proxy.
Hope that answers your question?
Paul
-
Sorry, Erik - I didn't' forget about you, but was dealing with an ethical dilemma.
Unfortunately, the business of the site you're dealing with is so completely against the terms of service of the Search Engines and against what I believe to be good, sustainable SEO, that I've decided I can't, in good conscience, do anything to help them.
Sorry this leaves you no assistance, but I would suggest strongly you not rely heavily on this client for ongoing revenues. They are just begging to get hammered by Google, if that's not what's happening already.
Paul
-
i'm happy for all the help so i'm not complaining here but i think you forgot about me paul.
also i need to know why my client is so adamant about not wanting to upgrade his php from 5.1.6 to 5..2.4 saying it could hinder his sites overall functionality. any idea why?
i want to update his WP to newest version and it requires php to be updated so we are running old plugins and old WP - his blog was hacked so his webguys moved the location from site.com/blog to blog.site.com
i feel handcuffed - no reason to run WP if you cant use plugins right?
-
Sorry I missed this, Erik. Happy to have a look in the next day or two.
Paul
-
First, to be clear, the Webmaster Tools notifications are just that. Google isn't indicating any kind of a problem, Erik. It's just declaring what it has found in the site's robot.txt file.
There's no way to give a definitive answer without seeing the actual website structure, but in general, it is VERY common and good practice to no-index the categories and tags on CMS-based websites. Usually, you want some form of the archives to be indexed, but it's usually the individual pages that are most important. (e.g. not date-based archives.)
The problem with allowing all of these to be indexed is that to a search engine, they will all look like duplicate content of other pages on the website. This will cause the search engine crawler to have to work much harder to find all the content on your website, and ad a result may quit part way though.
In addition,much of the content it finds it will consider to be duplicative of other pages on the website, and therefore will have a hard time knowing which version is actually the most valuable result to return. And as a result will split the authority of each of the pages, making them MUCH harder to rank.
This is a standard challenge of any CMS based website, because they display the same content organized by what are referred to as different taxonomies (different ways of categorizing or linking the same information).
Again, without seeing the actual site I can't say for sure, but short answer is that those three directives are very common for CMS- based websites and are very likely correct.
Hope that helps?
Paul
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
-
Robots.txt allows wp-admin/admin-ajax.php
Hello, Mozzers!
Technical SEO | | AndyKubrin
I noticed something peculiar in the robots.txt used by one of my clients: Allow: /wp-admin/admin-ajax.php What would be the purpose of allowing a search engine to crawl this file?
Is it OK? Should I do something about it?
Everything else on /wp-admin/ is disallowed.
Thanks in advance for your help.
-AK:2 -
Robots.txt - "File does not appear to be valid"
Good afternoon Mozzers! I've got a weird problem with one of the sites I'm dealing with. For some reason, one of the developers changed the robots.txt file to disavow every site on the page - not a wise move! To rectify this, we uploaded the new robots.txt file to the domain's root as per Webmaster Tool's instructions. The live file is: User-agent: * (http://www.savistobathrooms.co.uk/robots.txt) I've submitted the new file in Webmaster Tools and it's pulling it through correctly in the editor. However, Webmaster Tools is not happy with it, for some reason. I've attached an image of the error. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm managing another site with the exact same robots.txt file and there are no issues. Cheers, Lewis FNcK2YQ
Technical SEO | | PeaSoupDigital0 -
Can't find mistake in robots.txt
Hi all, we recently filled our robots.txt file to prevent some directories from crawling. Looks like: User-agent: * Disallow: /Views/ Disallow: /login/ Disallow: /routing/ Disallow: /Profiler/ Disallow: /LILLYPROFILER/ Disallow: /EventRweKompaktProfiler/ Disallow: /AccessIntProfiler/ Disallow: /KellyIntProfiler/ Disallow: /lilly/ now, as Google Webmaster Tools hasn't updated our robots.txt yet, I checked our robots.txt in some ckeckers. They tell me that the User agent: * contains an error. **Example:** **Line 1: Syntax error! Expected <field>:</field> <value></value> 1: User-agent: *** **`I checked other robots.txt written the same way --> they work,`** accordign to the checkers... **`Where the .... is the mistake???`** ```
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0 -
Magento Robots & overly dynamic URL-s
How can i block all URL-s on a Magento store that have 2 or more dynamic parameters in it, since all the parameters have attribute name in it and not some uniform ID Would something like: Disallow: /?&* work? Since the only thing that is constant throughout all the custom parameters is that they are separated with "&" Thanks 🙂
Technical SEO | | tilenkrivec0 -
Question about Robot.txt
I just started my own e-commerce website and I hosted it to one of the popular e-commerce platform Pinnacle Cart. It has a lot of functions like, page sorting, mobile website, etc. After adjusting the URL parameters in Google webmaster last 3 weeks ago, I still get the same duplicate errors on meta titles and descriptions based from Google Crawl and SEOMOZ crawl. I am not sure if I made a mistake of choosing pinnacle cart because it is not that flexible in terms of editing the core website pages. There is now way to adjust the canonical, to insert robot.txt on every pages etc. however it has a function to submit just one page of robot.txt. and edit the .htcaccess. The website pages is in PHP format. For example this URL: www.mycompany.com has a duplicate title and description with www.mycompany.com/site-map.html (there is no way of editing the title and description of my sitemap) Another error is www.mycompany.com has a duplicate title and description with http://www.mycompany.com/brands?url=brands Is it possible to exclude those website with "url=" and my "sitemap.html" in the robot.txt? or the URL parameters from Google is enough and it just takes a lot of time. Can somebody help me on the format of Robot.txt. Please? thanks
Technical SEO | | paumer800 -
Wordpress Robots.txt Sitemap submission?
Alright, my question comes directly from this article by SEOmoz http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/r... Yes, I have submitted the sitemap to google, bing's webmaster tools and and I want to add the location of our site's sitemaps and does it mean that I erase everything in the robots.txt right now and replace it with? <code>User-agent: * Disallow: Sitemap: http://www.example.com/none-standard-location/sitemap.xml</code> <code>???</code> because Wordpress comes with some default disallows like wp-admin, trackback, plugins. I have also read this, but was wondering if this is the correct way to add sitemap on Wordpress Robots.txt. [http://www.seomoz.org/q/removing-...](http://www.seomoz.org/q/removing-robots-txt-on-wordpress-site-problem) I am using Multisite with Yoast plugin so I have more than one sitemap.xml to submit Do I erase everything in Robots.txt and replace it with how SEOmoz recommended? hmm that sounds not right. like <code> <code>
Technical SEO | | joony2008
<code>User-agent: *
Disallow: </code> Sitemap: http://www.example.com/sitemap_index.xml</code> <code>``` Sitemap: http://www.example.com/sub/sitemap_index.xml ```</code> <code>?????????</code> ```</code>0 -
Robots.txt question
Hello, What does the following command mean - User-agent: * Allow: / Does it mean that we are blocking all spiders ? Is Allow supported in robots.txt ? Thanks
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
Should I Block Tag, Category, Author Pages
Just finished reviewing the first crawl of my first SEOmoz campaign for a site that I am working on. The site I"m working on uses Wordpress as a CMS, and most if not all of the warnings and notices have to do with author, category, and tag pages. Should I block these from being indexed? Why or why not?
Technical SEO | | Falconberg0