Robots.txt
-
Google Webmaster Tools say our website's have low-quality pages, so we have created a robots.txt file and listed all URL’s that we want to remove from Google index.
Is this enough for the solve problem?
-
Ah, it's difficult to see anything on the page because i can't read Turkish.
The only thing you should know is that every single page in a website should have unique content. So if two pages are exactly or almost exactly the same then Google will think it's duplicate content.
-
Yeah that's definitely a duplicate content issue you're facing.
However, did you know that each of your pages have this little tag right at the top of them? name="robots" content="noindex" />
...Seems like it's already done.
-
Thank You Wesley,
Here our pages but language is Turkish,
http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/besiktas-basaksehir-ev-esyasi-tasinma-6495
http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/ev-tasima-6503
http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/evden-eve-nakliyat-6471
Our site is a home to home moving listing portal. Consumers who wants to move his home fills a form so that moving companies can cote prices. We were generating listing page URL’s by using the title submitted by customer. Unfortunately we have understood by now that many customers have entered same content.
-
Well now I'm confused on the problem.. If the issue is duplicate content then the answer is definitely to block them with robots and/or use a rel=canonical tag on each.
However, the Google notice you are referencing has nothing to do with duplicate content notices to my knowledge.
There is always a way to improve your content. Filling out a form auto-generates a page, per my understanding. Great. Have it auto-generate a better looking page!
-my 2 cents. hope it's helpful.
-
I agree with Jesse and Allen.
Of course the problems in Google Webmaster Tools will disappear by no-indexing it.
Low quality pages isn't a good thing for visitors either.It's difficult to give you any other advice then the very broad advise: Improve the quality of the pages.
If you could give us some links to let us know which website and which pages we're talking about then we could give you a better advice on how exactly you can improve those pages. -
Our site is a home to home moving listing portal. Consumers who wants to move his home fills a form so that moving companies can cote prices. We were generating listing page URL’s by using the title submitted by customer. Unfortunately we have understood by now that many customers have entered same content.
-
Iskender.
Our experience has been YES. Google does follow your Robots.txt file and will ignore indexing those pages. If they have a problem, the problem will disappear.
My concern is, what is causing the "Low-quality" error message? In the long run, wouldn't it be better to correct the page to improve the quality? I look at each page as a way to qualify for a greater number of keywords, hence attracting more attention for your website.
We have had several pages flagged as duplicate content, when we never wanted the duplicate page indexed anyway. Once we included the page in the Robots.txt file the flagged error disappeared.
-
Why not improve the pages, instead?
If Google says they are low quality, what makes you think any viewer will stick around? Bet the bounce rate is exceptionally high on those pages, maybe even site-wide.
Always remember to design pages for readers and not Google. If Google tells you your pages suck, they are probably just trying to help you and give you a hint that it's time to improve your site.
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
-
Website URL, Robots.txt and Google Search Console (www. vs non www.)
Hi MOZ Community,
Technical SEO | | Badiuzz
I would like to request your kind assistance on domain URLs - www. VS non www. Recently, my team have moved to a new website where a 301 Redirection has been done. Original URL : https://www.example.com.my/ (with www.) New URL : https://example.com.my/ (without www.) Our current robots.txt sitemap : https://www.example.com.my/sitemap.xml (with www.)
Our Google Search Console property : https://www.example.com.my/ (with www.) Question:
1. How/Should I standardize these so that Google crawler can effectively crawl my website?
2. Do I have to change back my website URLs to (with www.) or I just need to update my robots.txt?
3. How can I update my Google Search Console property to reflect accordingly (without www.), because I cannot see the options in the dashboard.
4. Is there any to dos such as Canonicalization needed, or should I wait for Google to automatically detect and change it, especially in GSC property? Really appreciate your kind assistance. Thank you,
Badiuzz0 -
Robots.txt | any SEO advantage to having one vs not having one?
Neither of my sites has a robots.txt file. I guess I have never been bothered by any particular bot enough to exclude it. Is there any SEO advantage to having one anyways?
Technical SEO | | GregB1230 -
Two META Robots tags on a page - which will win?
Hi, Does anybody know which meta-robots tag will "win" if there is more than one on a page? The situation:
Technical SEO | | jmueller
our CMS is not very flexible and so we have segments of META-Tags on the page that originate from templates.
Now any author can add any meta-tag from within his article-editor.
The logic delivering the pages does not care if there might be more than one meta-robots tag present (one from template, one from within the article). Now we could end up with something like this: Which one will be regarded by google & co?
First?
Last?
None? Thanks a lot,
Jan0 -
Robots.txt - What is the correct syntax?
Hello everyone I have the following link: http://mywebshop.dk/index.php?option=com_redshop&view=send_friend&pid=39&tmpl=component&Itemid=167 I want to prevent google from indiexing everything that is related to "view=send_friend" The problem is that its giving me dublicate content, and the content of the links has no SEO value of any sort. My problem is how i disallow it correctly via robots.txt I tried this syntax: Disallow: /view=send_friend/ However after doing a crawl on request the 200+ dublicate links that contains view=send_friend is still present in the CSV crawl report. What is the correct syntax if i want to prevent google from indexing everything that is related to this kind of link?
Technical SEO | | teleman0 -
Using Robots.txt
I want to Block or prevent pages being accessed or indexed by googlebot. Please tell me if googlebot will NOT Access any URL that begins with my domain name, followed by a question mark,followed by any string by using Robots.txt below. Sample URL http://mydomain.com/?example User-agent: Googlebot Disallow: /?
Technical SEO | | semer0 -
Robots.txt Showing in SERP Results
Currently doing a technical audit for a website and when I search "Site:website.com -www" the only result is website.com/robots.txt I was wondering if anyone else has come across this before -- or what this may mean from a technical audit standpoint. Thank you!
Technical SEO | | vectormedia0 -
Robots.txt Sitemap with Relative Path
Hi Everyone, In robots.txt, can the sitemap be indicated with a relative path? I'm trying to roll out a robots file to ~200 websites, and they all have the same relative path for a sitemap but each is hosted on its own domain. Basically I'm trying to avoid needing to create 200 different robots.txt files just to change the domain. If I do need to do that, though, is there an easier way than just trudging through it?
Technical SEO | | MRCSearch0 -
Is blocking RSS Feeds with robots.txt necessary?
Is it necessary to block an rss feed with robots.txt? It seems they are automatically not indexed (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/taking-feeds-out-of-our-web-search.html) And, google says here that it's important not to block RSS feeds (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/10/using-rssatom-feeds-to-discover-new.html) I'm just checking!
Technical SEO | | nicole.healthline0