Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
How to exclude URL filter searches in robots.txt
-
When I look through my MOZ reports I can see it's included 'pages' which it shouldn't have included i.e. adding filtering rules such as this one http://www.mydomain.com/brands?color=364&manufacturer=505
How can I exclude all of these filters in the robots.txt? I think it'll be:
Disallow: /*?color=$
Is that the correct syntax with the $ sign in it? Thanks!
-
Unless you're specifically calling out Bing or Baidu... in your Robots.txt file they should follow the same directives as Google so testing with Google's Robots.txt file tester should suffice for all of them.
-
Yes, but what about bing and rest of Search Engine?
-
Adrian,
I agree that there certainly is a right answer to the question posted, as the question asks specifically about one way to manage the issue, being a block of filters in the robots.txt file. What I was getting at is that this may or may not necessarily be the "best" way, and that I'd need to look at your site and your unique situation to figure our which would be the best solution for your needs.
It is very likely that with these parameters a robots.txt file block is the best approach, assuming the parameters aren't added by default into category page or category pagination page navigational links, as then it would affect the bot's ability to crawl the site. Also, if people are linking to those URLs (highly unlikely though) you may consider a robots meta noindex,follow tag instead so the pagerank could flow to other pages.
And I'm not entirely sure the code you provided above will work if the blocked parameter is the first one in the string (e.g. domain.com/category/?color=red) as there is the additional wildcard between the ? and the parameter. I would advise testing this in Google Webmaster Tools first.
- On the Webmaster Tools Home page, click the site you want.
- Under Crawl, click Blocked URLs.
- If it's not already selected, click the Test robots.txt tab.
- Copy the content of your robots.txt file, and paste it into the first box.
- In the URLs box, list the site to test against.
- In the User-agents list, select the user-agents you want (e.g. Googlebot)
-
There certainly is a right answer to my question - I already posted it here earlier today:
Disallow: /*?color=
Disallow: /?*manufacturer=Without the $ at the end which would otherwise denote the end of the URL.
-
Hello Adrian,
The Moz reports are meant to help you uncover issues like this. If you're seeing non-canonical URLs in the Moz report then there is a potential issue for Google, Bing and other search engines as well.
Google does respect wildcards (*) in the robots.txt file, though it can easily be done wrong. There is not right or wrong answer to the issue of using filters or faceted navigation, as each circumstance is going to be different. However, I hope some of these articles will help you identify the best approach for your needs:
(Note: Faceted Navigation is not exactly the same as category filters, but the issues and possible solutions are very similar
)Building Faceted Navigation That Doesn't Suck Faceted Navigation Whiteboard Friday
Duplicate Content: Block, Redirect or Canonical
Guide to eCommerce Facets, Filters and Categories
Rel Canonical How To and Why Not
Moz.com Guide to Duplicate ContentI don't know how your store handles these (e.g. does it add the filter automatically, or only when a user selects a filter?) so I can't give you the answer, but I promise if you read those articles above you will have a very good understanding of all of the options so you can choose which is best for you. That might end up being as simple as blocking the filters in your robots.txt file, or you may opt for rel canonical, noindex meta tag, ajax, Google parameter handling, etc...
Good luck!
-
It's not Google's index that I'm interested in in this case, it's for the MOZ reports. Moz was including over 10,000 'pages' because it was indexing these URLs. Now I know how to edit the robots.txt Moz will be prevented from indexing them again (we only have around 2,000 real pages, not 10,000)
-
I sought out the answer from a developer and got the following reply, so posting here in case it helps someone else:
To exclude pages with color or manufacture in them you can use
Disallow: /*?color=
Disallow: /?*manufacturer=A question mark in your try should be omitted as it denotes the end of the url
-
Hi
I would recommend excluding these in Google Webmaster Tools. Once logged in to your account under the "Crawl" menu you will find "URL Parameters". Find the relevant parameter in the list on this page and you can tell Google not to index these pages.
Hope this helps.
Steve
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
-
Review snippets not shown on google search results
Hi, In Moz it shows that we have a review snippet for a keyword/page, but it is not shown on google SERP. Can anyone explain why it isnt shown on Google search results, and what we should do in order to get it shown ?
On-Page Optimization | | jensatlieto0 -
Virtual URL Google not indexing?
Dear all, We have two URLs: The main URL which is crawled both by GSC and where Moz assigns our keywords is: https://andipaeditions.com/banksy/ The second one is called a virtual url by our developpers: https://andipaeditions.com/banksy/signedandunsignedprintsforsale/ This is currently not indexed by Google. We have been linking to the second URL and I am unable to see if this is passing juice/anything on to the main one /banksy/ Is it a canonical? The /banksy/ is the one that is being picked up in serps/by Moz and worry that the two similar URLs are splitting the signal. Should I redirect from the second to the first? Thank you
On-Page Optimization | | TAT1000 -
URL keyword separator best practice
Hello. Wanted to reach out see what the consensus is re-keyword separators So just taken on a new client and all their urls are structured like /buybbqpacks rather than buy-bbq-packs - my understanding is that it comes down to readability, which influences click through, rather than search impact on the keyword. So we usually advise on a hyphen, but the guy's going to have to change ALLOT of pages & setup redirects to change it all wasn't sure if it was worth it? Thanks! Stu
On-Page Optimization | | bloomletsgrow0 -
Home page keyword in url
I have been looking into SEO for a few weeks now trying to perfect a homepage. Going through various sources on MOZ, and other examples out there on the internet, I keep seeing that you should have your keyword in the URL of the page. The homepage is the page most people want to rank the highest in google searches, however, you cannot put the keyword in the URL as most home page URLs are simply /. Should I actually make the home like this: www.example.com/key-word-example? I would imagine this would not be the normal for many users and would seem like it's not the home page.
On-Page Optimization | | Matthew_smart0 -
ECommerce Filtering Affect on SEO
I'm building an eCommerce website which has an advanced filter on the left hand side of the category pages. It allows users to tick boxes for colours, sizes, materials, and so on. When they've made their choices they submit (this will likely be an AJAX thing in a future release, but isn't at time of writing). The new filtered page has a new URL, which is made up of the IDs of the filter's they've ticked - it's a bit like /department/2/17-7-4/10/ My concern is that the filtered pages are, on the most part, going to be the same as the parent. Which may lead to duplicate content. My other concern is that these two URLs would lead to the exact same page (although the system would never generate the 'wrong' URL) /department/2/17-7-4/10/ /department/2/**10/**17-7-4/ But I can't think of a way of canonicalising that automatically. Tricky. So the meat of the question is this: should I worry about this causing issues with the SEO - or can I have trust in Google to work it out?
On-Page Optimization | | AndieF0 -
URL for location pages
Hello all We would like to create clean, easy URLs for our large list of Location pages. If there are a few URLs for each of the pages, am I right when I'm saying we would like this to be the canonical? Right now we would like the URL to be: For example
On-Page Optimization | | Ferguson
Domain.com/locations/Columbus I have found some instances where there might be 2,3 or more locations in the same city,zip. My conclusion for these would be: adding their Branch id's on to the URL
Domain.com/locations/Columbus/0304 Is this an okay approach? We are unsure if the URL should have city,State,zip for SEO purposes?
The pages will have all of this info in it's content
BUT what would be best for SEO and ranking for a given location? Thank you for any info!0 -
URL best practices, use folders or not ?
Hi I have a question about URLs. Client have all URL written after domain and have only one / slash in all URLs. Is this best practice or i need to use categories,folders? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | 77Agency0 -
How long is too long for domain URL length?
I noticed one of the negatively correlated ranking factors was length of URL. I'm building a page from scratch, we are trying to rank for 'Minneapolis Fitness' and 'Minneapolis Massage'. Is www.minnnepolismassageandfitness.com just ridiculously long? Or does the exact match outweigh the penalty for URL length?
On-Page Optimization | | JesseCWalker2
