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
-
Crawl solutions for landing pages that don't contain a robots.txt file?
My site (www.nomader.com) is currently built on Instapage, which does not offer the ability to add a robots.txt file. I plan to migrate to a Shopify site in the coming months, but for now the Instapage site is my primary website. In the interim, would you suggest that I manually request a Google crawl through the search console tool? If so, how often? Any other suggestions for countering this Meta Noindex issue?
Technical SEO | | Nomader1 -
Robots.txt Disallow: / in Search Console
Two days ago I found out through search console that my website's Robots.txt has changed to User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | RAN_SEO
Disallow: / When I check the robots.txt in the website it looks fine - I see its blocked just in search console( in the robots.txt tester). when I try to do fetch as google to the homepage I see its blocked. Any ideas why would robots.txt block my website? it was fine until the weekend. before that, in the last 3 months I saw I had blocked resources in the website and I brought back pages with fetch as google. Any ideas?0 -
Can I Block https URLs using Host directive in robots.txt?
Hello Moz Community, Recently, I have found that Google bots has started crawling HTTPs urls of my website which is increasing the number of duplicate pages at our website. Instead of creating a separate robots.txt file for https version of my website, can I use Host directive in the robots.txt to suggest Google bots which is the original version of the website. Host: http://www.example.com I was wondering if this method will work and suggest Google bots that HTTPs URLs are the mirror of this website. Thanks for all of the great responses! Regards,
Technical SEO | | TJC.co.uk
Ramendra0 -
WEBMASTER console: increase in the number of URLs we were blocked from crawling due to authorization permission errors.
Hi guys,I received this warning in my webmaster console: "Google detected a significant increase in the number of URLs we were blocked from crawling due to authorization permission errors." So i went to "Crawl Errors" section and i found such errors under "Access denied" status: ?page_name=Cheap+Viagra+Gold+Online&id=471 ?page_name=Cheapest+Viagra+Us+Licensed+Pharmacies&id=1603 and many happy URLs like these. Does anybody know what this is and where it comes from? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | odmsoft0 -
Robots.txt
Hello, My client has a robots.txt file which says this: User-agent: * Crawl-delay: 2 I put it through a robots checker which said that it must have a **disallow command**. So should it say this: User-agent: * Disallow: crawl-delay: 2 What effect (if any) would not having a disallow command make? Thanks
Technical SEO | | AL123al0 -
IIS 7.5 - Duplicate Content and Totally Wrong robot.txt
Well here goes! My very first post to SEOmoz. I have two clients that are hosted by the same hosting company. Both sites have major duplicate content issues and appear to have no internal links. I have checked this both here with our awesome SEOmoz Tools and with the IIS SEO Tool Kit. After much waiting I have heard back from the hosting company and they say that they have "implemented redirects in IIS7.5 to avoid duplicate content" based on the following article: http://blog.whitesites.com/How-to-setup-301-Redirects-in-IIS-7-for-good-SEO__634569104292703828_blog.htm. In my mind this article covers things better: www.seomoz.org/blog/what-every-seo-should-know-about-iis. What do you guys think? Next issue, both clients (as well as other sites hosted by this company) have a robot.txt file that is not their own. It appears that they have taken one client's robot.txt file and used it as a template for other client sites. I could be wrong but I believe this is causing the internal links to not be indexed. There is also a site map, again not for each client, but rather for the client that the original robot.txt file was created for. Again any input on this would be great. I have asked that the files just be deleted but that has not occurred yet. Sorry for the messy post...I'm at the hospital waiting to pick up my bro and could be called to get him any minute. Thanks so much, Tiff
Technical SEO | | TiffenyPapuc0 -
Fix or Block Webmaster Tools URL Errors Not Found Linked from a certain domain?
RE: Webmaster Tool "Not Found" URL Errors are strange links from webstatsdomain.com Should I continue to fix 404 errors for strange links from a website called webstatsdomain.com or is there a way to ask Google Webmaster Tools to ignore them? Most of Webmaster Tools "URL Not Found errors" I find for our website are from this domain. They refer to pages that never existed. For example, one was to www.mydomain.com/virtual. Thanks for your help.
Technical SEO | | zharriet0 -
Should I block robots from URLs containing query strings?
I'm about to block off all URLs that have a query string using robots.txt. They're mostly URLs with coremetrics tags and other referrer info. I figured that search engines don't need to see these as they're always better off with the original URL. Might there be any downside to this that I need to consider? Appreciate your help / experiences on this one. Thanks Jenni
Technical SEO | | ShearingsGroup0