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
-
Pages being flagged in Search Console as having a "no-index" tag, do not have a meta robots tag??
Hi, I am running a technical audit on a site which is causing me a few issues. The site is small and awkwardly built using lots of JS, animations and dynamic URL extensions (bit of a nightmare). I can see that it has only 5 pages being indexed in Google despite having over 25 pages submitted to Google via the sitemap in Search Console. The beta Search Console is telling me that there are 23 Urls marked with a 'noindex' tag, however when i go to view the page source and check the code of these pages, there are no meta robots tags at all - I have also checked the robots.txt file. Also, both Screaming Frog and Deep Crawl tools are failing to pick up these urls so i am a bit of a loss about how to find out whats going on. Inevitably i believe the creative agency who built the site had no idea about general website best practice, and that the dynamic url extensions may have something to do with the no-indexing. Any advice on this would be really appreciated. Are there any other ways of no-indexing pages which the dev / creative team might have implemented by accident? - What am i missing here? Thanks,
Technical SEO | | NickG-1230 -
Do robot.txts permanently affect websites even after they have been removed?
A client has a Wordpress blog to sit alongside their company website. They kept it hidden whilst they were developing what it looked like, keeping it un-searchable by Search Engines. It was still live, but Wordpress put a robots.txt in place. When they were ready they removed the robots.txt by clicking the "allow Search Engines to crawl this site" button. It took a month and a half for their blog to show in Search Engines once the robot.txt was removed. Google is now recognising the site (as a "site:" test has shown) however, it doesn't rank well for anything. This is despite the fact they are targeting keywords with very little organic competition. My question is - could the fact that they developed the site behind a robot.txt (rather than offline) mean the site is permanently affected by the robot.txt in the eyes of the Search Engines, even after that robot.txt has been removed? Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on the situation.
Technical SEO | | Driver720 -
Blocked jquery in Robots.txt, Any SEO impact?
I've heard that Google is now indexing links and stuff available in javascript and jquery. My webmastertools is showing that some links are blocked in robots.txt of jquery. Sorry I'm not a developer or designer. I want to know is there any impact of this on my SEO? and also how can I unblock it for the robots? Check this screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/3VDWikC.png
Technical SEO | | hammadrafique0 -
Easy Question: regarding no index meta tag vs robot.txt
This seems like a dumb question, but I'm not sure what the answer is. I have an ecommerce client who has a couple of subdirectories "gallery" and "blog". Neither directory gets a lot of traffic or really turns into much conversions, so I want to remove the pages so they don't drain my page rank from more important pages. Does this sound like a good idea? I was thinking of either disallowing the folders via robot.txt file or add a "no index" tag or 301redirect or delete them. Can you help me determine which is best. **DEINDEX: **As I understand it, the no index meta tag is going to allow the robots to still crawl the pages, but they won't be indexed. The supposed good news is that it still allows link juice to be passed through. This seems like a bad thing to me because I don't want to waste my link juice passing to these pages. The idea is to keep my page rank from being dilluted on these pages. Kind of similar question, if page rank is finite, does google still treat these pages as part of the site even if it's not indexing them? If I do deindex these pages, I think there are quite a few internal links to these pages. Even those these pages are deindexed, they still exist, so it's not as if the site would return a 404 right? ROBOTS.TXT As I understand it, this will keep the robots from crawling the page, so it won't be indexed and the link juice won't pass. I don't want to waste page rank which links to these pages, so is this a bad option? **301 redirect: **What if I just 301 redirect all these pages back to the homepage? Is this an easy answer? Part of the problem with this solution is that I'm not sure if it's permanent, but even more importantly is that currently 80% of the site is made up of blog and gallery pages and I think it would be strange to have the vast majority of the site 301 redirecting to the home page. What do you think? DELETE PAGES: Maybe I could just delete all the pages. This will keep the pages from taking link juice and will deindex, but I think there's quite a few internal links to these pages. How would you find all the internal links that point to these pages. There's hundreds of them.
Technical SEO | | Santaur0 -
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 -
How can I exclude display ads from robots.txt?
Google has stated that you can do this to get spiders to content only, and faster. Our IT guy is saying it's impossible.
Technical SEO | | GregBeddor
Do you know how to exlude display ads from robots.txt? Any help would be much appreciated.0 -
Robots.txt Syntax
Does the order of the robots.txt syntax matter in SEO? For example (are there potential problems with this format): User-agent: * Sitemap: Disallow: /form.htm Allow: / Disallow: /cgnet_directory
Technical SEO | | RodrigoStockebrand0 -
Robots.txt
My campaign hse24 (www.hse24.de) is not being crawled any more ... Do you think this can be a problem of the robots.txt? I always thought that Google and friends are interpretating the file correct, seen that he site was crawled since last week. Thanks a lot Bernd NB: Here is the robots.txt: User-Agent: * Disallow: / User-agent: Googlebot User-agent: Googlebot-Image User-agent: Googlebot-Mobile User-agent: MSNBot User-agent: Slurp User-agent: yahoo-mmcrawler User-agent: psbot Disallow: /is-bin/ Allow: /is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/HSE24-DE-Site/de_DE/-/EUR/hse24_Storefront-Start Allow: /is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/HSE24-AT-Site/de_DE/-/EUR/hse24_Storefront-Start Allow: /is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/HSE24-CH-Site/de_DE/-/CHF/hse24_Storefront-Start Allow: /is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/HSE24-DE-Site/de_DE/-/EUR/hse24_DisplayProductInformation-Start Allow: /is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/HSE24-AT-Site/de_DE/-/EUR/hse24_DisplayProductInformation-Start Allow: /is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/HSE24-CH-Site/de_DE/-/CHF/hse24_DisplayProductInformation-Start Allow: /is-bin/intershop.static/WFS/HSE24-Site/-/Editions/ Allow: /is-bin/intershop.static/WFS/HSE24-Site/-/Editions/Root%20Edition/units/HSE24/Beratung/
Technical SEO | | remino630