Medium sizes forum with 1000's of thin content gallery pages. Disallow or noindex?
-
I have a forum at http://www.onedirection.net/forums/ which contains a gallery with 1000's of very thin-content pages. We've currently got these photo pages disallowed from the main googlebot via robots.txt, but we do all the Google images crawler access.
Now I've been reading that we shouldn't really use disallow, and instead should add a noindex tag on the page itself.
It's a little awkward to edit the source of the gallery pages (and keeping any amends the next time the forum software gets updated).
Whats the best way of handling this?
Chris.
-
Hey Chris,
I agree that your current implementation, while not ideal, is perfectly adequate for the purposes of ensuring you don't have duplicate content or cannibalisation problems - but still allows Google to index the UCG images.
You're also preventing Googlebot from seeing the user profile pages, which is a good idea, since many of them are very thin and mostly duplicate.
So, from a pure SEO perspective, I think you've done a good job.
However... I think you should also consider the ethical implications of potentially blocking the image googlebot as well. By preventing Google from indexing all those images of young girls fawning over the vacuous runners up of a televised talent show, you would undoubtedly be doing the world a great service.
-
Hi Chris, I second Jarno's opinion in this regard. If it is going to be a huge overhead to add the page level blocking, you can rely on your current robots.txt setup. There is a small catch here though. Even if you block using robots.txt file, if Google finds a reference to the blocked content elsewhere on the Internet, then it would index the blocked content. In situations like this, page level content blocking is the way forward. So to fully restrict Google bot indexing your content, you should ideally be using the page level robots meta tag or x-robots-tag.
Here you go for more: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/156449?hl=en
Hope it helps.
Best,
Devanur Rafi.
-
Chris,
is the disallow meta update is too complicated for you to add due to software issues etc. then I feel that your current method is the right way to go. Normally you would be absolutely right for the simple reason that page level overrules the robots.txt. But if a software update overrules the rules places in your code then you have to manually add it after each and every update and i'm not sure you want to do that.
regards
Jarno
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
-
How to use Google search console's 'Name change' tool?
Hi There, I'm having trouble performing a 'Name change' for a new website (rebrand and domain change) in Google Search console. Because the 301 redirects are in place (a requirement of the name change tool), Google can no longer verify the site, which means I can't complete the name change? To me, step two (301 redirect) conflicts with step there (site verification) - or is there a way to perform a 301 redirect and have the tool verify the old site? Any pointers in the right direction would be much appreciated. Cheers Ben
Technical SEO | | cmscss0 -
Community Discussion - What's been your experience with accessibility?
When Laura Lippay came to me with the idea to write a series of posts on the Moz blog about SEO and accessibility, it really got my gears turning. As the blog manager, I realized I'd been thinking about all sorts of ways to make the blog the best it can be, but accessibility was one place I had yet to explore in-depth. While I have my own goals and projects around this topic churning along in the background, I'd love to hear what the community's done to be inclusive to all users of the Internet. What've you struggled with in terms of making sites you've worked on accessible -- both technically and as an initiative in general? What's often missing that you've become passionate about including? Do you have any big wins you're especially proud of and want to share? Looking forward to reading your thoughts and stories, folks! 🙂
Technical SEO | | FeliciaCrawford1 -
What to do about removing pages for the 'offseason' (IE the same URL will be brought back in 6-7 months)?
I manage a site for an event that runs annually, and now that the event has concluded we would like to remove some of the pages (schedule, event info, TV schedule, etc.) that won't be relevant again until next year's event. That said, if we simply remove those pages from the web, I'm afraid that we'll lose out on valuable backlinks that already exist, and when those pages return they will have the same URLs as before. Is there a best course of action here? Should I redirect the removed pages to the homepage for the time being using a 302? Is there any risk there if the 'temporary' period is ~7 months? Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | KTY550 -
Similar pages: noindex or rel:canonical or disregard parameters?!
Hey all! We have a hotel booking website that has search results pages per destinations (e.g. hotels in NYC is dayguest.com/nyc). Pages are also generated for destinations depending on various parameters, that can be star rating, amenities, style of the properties, etc. (e.g. dayguest.com/nyc/4stars, dayguest.com/nyc/luggagestorage, dayguest.com/nyc/luxury, etc.). In general, all of these pages are very similar, as for example, there might be 10 hotels in NYC and all of them will offer luggage storage. Pages can be nearly identical. Come the problems of duplicate content and loss of juice by dilution. I was wondering what was the best practice in such a situation: should I just put all pages except the most important ones (e.g. dayguest.com/nyc) as noindex? Or set it as canonical page for all variations? Or in google webmaster tool ask google to disregard the URLs for various parameters? Or do something else altogether?! Thanks for the help!
Technical SEO | | Philoups0 -
Diagnostics say I'm missing Page titles... but I am not?
I've been running a crawl of one of our new site builds for a couple of weeks. The Diagnostics picked up a couple of issues, which was great, but it's saying we're missing Page Titles and Descriptions on pages that we have Page Titles and Descriptions. Anyone come across this before?
Technical SEO | | niamhomahony0 -
Blank pages in Google's webcache
Hello all, Is anybody experiencing blanck page's in Google's 'Cached' view? I'm seeing just the page background and none of the content for a couple of my pages but when I click 'View Text Only' all of teh content is there. Strange! I'd love to hear if anyone else is experiencing the same. Perhaps this is something to do with the roll out of Google's updates last week?! Thanks,
Technical SEO | | A_Q
Elias0 -
Additional product information: the product's sales page or a blog post?
I want to go in-depth about different customizations for custom caps, which is one of the products we offer. I just don't know whether it would be better--from an SEO perspective--to expand the caps sales page we already have or to write a blog post to give the site another valuable indexed page. From a user standpoint, I don't think it's as important, because if I do it the blog way, I can't just put a link on the page saying, Want more customizations? Visit our blog post. Any opinions?
Technical SEO | | UnderRugSwept1 -
Where to put content on the page? - technical
The new algo update says any images at the top of the page negatively affect user experience if they are adverts? how does google know if its an advert or relevant banner? When trying to put text as far up as possible on the page, is it ok to make it appear higher in the code but appear further down using css? Or does Google not go from the code top to bottom when working this out, more how it renders? Any advice much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | pauledwards0