Robots.txt: Syntax URL to disallow
-
Did someone ever experience some "collateral damages" when it's about "disallowing" some URLs?
Some old URLs are still present on our website and while we are "cleaning" them off the site (which takes time), I would like to to avoid their indexation through the robots.txt file.
The old URLs syntax is "/brand//13" while the new ones are "/brand/samsung/13." (note that there is 2 slash on the URL after the word "brand")
Do I risk to erase from the SERPs the new good URLs if I add to the robots.txt file the line "Disallow: /brand//" ?
I don't think so, but thank you to everyone who will be able to help me to clear this out
-
You could inadvertently block /brand/ altogether. Just because you use a // doesn't mean Google follows the same rules when crawling.
-
"I wouldn't risk telling a spider to ignore /brand// because it might have adverse results."
Which adverse results could be expected?
-
(because of the 404 error pages being constantly found in our pages)
Think of it this way:
Which is better? Re-routing traffic when it's congested or putting up a road block to back up even more traffic?Yes, it's more work to do the 301 redirects but if you have "pages being constantly found" you should give instructions to spiders to take the different path.
Now, if you are talking about an error such as:
/brand//samsung/13 SHOULD go to
/brand/samsung/13
Then you could EASILY solve this with HTACCESS redirects. I wouldn't risk telling a spider to ignore /brand// because it might have adverse results. -
Hi guys,
Thank you for your answers
I understand (and agree) with your SEO point of view (301 redirection) but I should have mentioned that these old URLs are leading to a 404 error page for a long time now, we are not considering anymore their SEO strength anymore...
My goal right now is to find a quick and simple way to tell search engines to not consider this type of old URLs (because of the 404 error pages being constantly found in our pages) : doing the 301 redirection to the right page would be a bit more complex at the moment.
So: do you think there is a risk that the second slash won't be "considered" in the robots.txt about the "disallow" line I want to add ? (= do search engines will stop to crawl URLs like "/brand/samsung/13" if I add the line "Disallow: /brand//" ?)
-
I'll further what Highland and Alex Chan are telling you. If you are using Apache (Linux) then you can redirect your old site links using a 301 redirect and .htaccess which is a very powerful tool. Otherwise, if you are using a IIS server, web.config is what you want to use.
A really good resource for .htassess is CSS-Tricks: http://css-tricks.com/snippets/htaccess/301-redirects/
-
Yup like Highland mentioned, using your robots.txt for this isn't a good idea. The robots.txt file isn't guaranteed to work anyway. The only sure fire way to get it working is to move all the URLs from the old structure to the new one, then 301 all the old URLs into the new URLs. The 301 minimizes loss to your SEO.
-
You really don't need a robots for that. I would either 301 the old URL (preferred) or have the old URL return a 404. Both will cause the old URL to be removed from the index. A robots nofollow simply leaves it up but tells the robots not to crawl it.
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
-
Duplicate Content with URL Parameters
Moz is picking up a large quantity of duplicate content, consists mainly of URL parameters like ,pricehigh & ,pricelow etc (for page sorting). Google has indexed a large number of the pages (not sure how many), not sure how many of them are ranking for search terms we need. I have added the parameters into Google Webmaster tools And set to 'let google decide', However Google still sees it as duplicate content. Is it a problem that we need to address? Or could it do more harm than good in trying to fix it? Has anyone had any experience? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
SSL and robots.txt question - confused by Google guidelines
I noticed "Don’t block your HTTPS site from crawling using robots.txt" here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal.html Does this mean you can't use robots.txt anywhere on the site - even parts of a site you want to noindex, for example?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Why is this url redirecting to our site?
I was doing an audit on our site and searching for duplicate content using some different terms from each of our pages. I came across the following result: www.sswug.org/url/32639 redirects to our website. Is that normal? There are hundreds of these url's in google all with the exact same description. I thought it was odd. Any ideas and what is the consequence of this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Sika220 -
Canonical URL & sitemap URL mismatch
Hi We're running a Magento store which doesn't have too much stock rotation. We've implemented a plugin that will allow us to give products custom canonical URLs (basically including the category slug, which is not possible through vanilla Magento). The sitemap feature doesn't pick up on these URLs, so we're submitting URLs to Google that are available and will serve content, but actually point to a longer URL via a canonical meta tag. The content is available at each URL and is near identical (all apart from the breadcrumbs) All instances of the page point to the same canonical URL We are using the longer URL in our internal architecture/link building to show this preference My questions are; Will this harm our visibility? Aside from editing the sitemap, are there any other signals we could give Google? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tomcraig860 -
Sudden increase in number of indexed URLs. How ca I know what URLs these are?
We saw a spike in the total number of indexed URLs (17,000 to 165,000)--what would be the most efficient way to find out what the newly indexed URLs are?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Changing a url from .html to .com
Hello, I have a client that has a site with a .html plugin and I have read that its best to not have this. We currently have pages ranking with this .html plug in. However If we take the plug in out will we lose rankings? would we need a 301 or something?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEODinosaur0 -
Best way to find all url parameters?
In reference to http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/07/improved-handling-of-urls-with.html, what is the best way to find all of the parameters that need to be addressed? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Migrating a site with new URL structure
I recently redesigned a website that is now in WordPress. It was previously in some odd, custom platform that didn't work very well. The URL's for all the pages are now more search engine friendly and more concise. The problem is, now Google has all of the old pages and all of the new pages in its index. This is a duplicate problem since content is the same. I have set up a 301 redirect for every old URL to it's new counterpart. I was going to do a remove URL request in Webmaster Tools but it seems I need to have a 404 code and not a 301 on those pages to do that. Which is better to do to get the old URL's out of the index? 404 them and do a removal request or 301 them to the new URL? How long will it take Google to find these 301 redirects and keep just the new pages in the index?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DanDeceuster0