Using Meta Header vs Robots.txt
-
Hey Mozzers,
I am working on a site that has search-friendly parameters for their faceted navigation, however this makes it difficult to identify the parameters in a robots.txt file. I know that using the robots.txt file is highly recommended and powerful, but I am not sure how to do this when facets are using common words such as sizes.
For example, a filtered url may look like www.website.com/category/brand/small.html Brand and size are both facets. Brand is a great filter, and size is very relevant for shoppers, but many products include "small" in the url, so it is tough to isolate that filter in the robots.txt. (I hope that makes sense).
I am able to identify problematic pages and edit the Meta Head so I can add on any page that is causing these duplicate issues. My question is, is this a good idea? I want bots to crawl the facets, but indexing all of the facets causes duplicate issues.
Thoughts?
-
"there is no penalty for have duplicates of your own content"
Alan,
I must respectfully disagree with this statement. Perhaps google will not penalize you directly, but it is easy to self-canabalize key terms if one has many facets that only differ slightly. I have seen this on a site where they don't rank on the first page, but they have 3-4 pages on the second page or SERPs. This is the exact issue that I am trying to resolve.
Evan
ps. sorry I hit the wrong button, but you got a good answer out of it
-
Hey Craig,
I agree with you regarding the robots.txt, however, how does one isolate parameters that are commonly used within product names, thus being the the product url as well. We are using a plugin the makes the urls more user friendly, but it makes it tough to isolate "small" or "blue" because the parameters don't include a "?sort=" or "color=" prefix anymore.
This is why I am considering using the meta header in order to control help with the issues of the duplicate content and crawl allowance?
Since I can edit the meta headers on a variety of pages, is it a viable option to use NOINDEX,FOLLOW?
-
As mentioned initially, the CMS doesn't allow me to edit canonicals for individual pages that are created via facets. The other question I had about canonicals is that a rel canonical is meant to help bots understand that different variations of the same page are, in fact, the same page: example.com = example.com/. But, for the user (which ultimately bots care about), example.com/sony/50 may not always be the same as example.com/sony.
Anyways, that is a little beside the point. I have visited the options of canonicals, but I am not sure it can be done.
-
This sounds like a job for a canonical tag.
-
Hey Craig,
Thanks for your response. This is the common answer that I have found. Here is the challenge I am having (I will use your example above):
Let's say that example.com/tv/sony is the main category page for this brand, but I only carry a few Sony tvs. Therefore, the only difference between that page and this page: example.com/tv/sony/50 is a category description that disappears when further facets are chosen.
When I search in the SERPS for "Sony TVs", rather than ranking well for one of these pages, both rank moderately well, but not well enough for first page results, and I would think this is confusing to customers as well to find two very closely related pages side by side.
So, while I agree that robots.txt is a tool that I can apply for limiting search engines from getting dizzy with the facets by limiting them to (say) 4, is NOINDEX the best solution for controlling duplicate content issues that are not that deep, and more case-by-case?
One more thing I might add is that these issues don't happen site-wide. If I carry many products from Samsung, than example.com/tv/samsung and example.com/tv/samsung/50 and even example.com/tv/samsung/50/HD will produce very different results. The issue usually occurs where there are few products for a brand, and they filter the same way with many facets.
Does that make sense? I agree with you whole heartedly, I am just trying to figure out how to deal with the shallow duplicate issues.
Cheers,
-
they will be linked to by internal links,
There is no penalty for have duplicates of your own content, but having links pouring away link juice is a self imposed penalty.
-
Hi Alan, I understand that, but the problem Evan is describing seems to be related to duplicate content and crawl allowance. There's no perfect answer but in my experience the types of pages that Evan is describing aren't often linked to. Taking that into consideration, IMO robots.txt is the correct solution.
-
The problem with robots text is that any link pointing to a no-indexed page is passing link juice that will never be returned, it is wasted. robots.txt is the last resort, IMO its should never be used.
-
Hi Even, this is quite a common problem. There are a couple of things to consider when deciding if Noindex is the solution rather than robots.txt.
Unless there is a reason the pages need to be crawled (like there are pages on the site that are only linked to from those pages) I would use robots.txt. Noindex doesn't stop search engines crawling those pages, only from putting them in the index. So in theory, search engines could spend all there time crawling pages that you don't want to be in the index.
Here's what I'd do:
Decide on a reasonable number of facets, for example, if you're selling TVs people might search for:
- Sony TV (Brand search)
- 50 inch sony tv (size + brand)
- Sony 50 inch HD TV (brand + size + specification)
But past 3 facets tends to get very little search volume (do keyword research for your own market)
In this case I'd create a rule that appends something to the URL after 3 facets hat would make it easy to block in robots.txt. For example I might make my structure:
But as soon as I add a 4th facet, for example 'colour'- I add in the filter subfolder
- example.com**/filter/**tv/sony/50/HD/white
I can then easily block all these pages in robots.txt using:
Disallow: /filter/
I hope this helps.
-
It is a problem in the SERPS because if I run a query for the brand, I can see faceted variations of that brand (say "brand" "blue") is ranking right below, but neither of them are ranking on the first page. I won't NOINDEX all pages, just those that don't provide value for customers searching, and those that are competing with competitive terms that are causing the preferred page to rank lower.
It was brought to my attention through Moz analytics, and once I began to investigate it further, I found many sources mentioning that this is very common for e-commerce. Common practice is robots.txt and a plugin, but we are using a different plugin. So, for this reason, I am trying to figure out if NOINDEX meta headers are a good option.
Does that make sense?
-
I'm not sure you have a problem, why not let them all get indexed?
-
Hey Alan,
Again, I thank you for your feedback. Unfortunately rel prev/next are not relevant in this circumstance. Also, it is all unique content on my client's own site, and I know that it is a duplicate content problem because I have 2 similar pages with slightly different facets ranking 14 and 15 in SERPS. If search engines were to choose one over the other, they would not rank them back to back.
For clarification, this is an e-commerce application with faceted navigation. Not a pagination issue.
Thanks for your input.
-
I would look at canonical and rel previous next,
Also I would establish do you have a problem?
duplicate content is not always a problem, if it is duplicate content on your own site then there is not a lot to worry about, google will rank just one page. There is no penalty for DC itself, if you are screen scaping then you may have a problem,
-
Hey Alan,
Thanks for your feedback. I guess I am not sure what "other solutions there are for this circumstance. The CMS does allow me to use rel=canonicals for individual pages with facets, I definitely don't think 301s are the way to go. I figured the NOINDEX, FOLLOW is best because it blocks bots from confusing duplicate content, but can still take advantage of some link juice. Mind you, these are faceted pages, not top level pages.
Thoughts?
-
robotx.txt is a bad way to do things, because any links pointing to a noindexed page wastes its link juice. using noindex,follow is a better way as it allows the links to be followed and link juice to return to your indexed pages.
but best not to noindex at all, and find another solution if posible
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
-
Robots.txt Blocking - Best Practices
Hi All, We have a web provider who's not willing to remove the wildcard line of code blocking all agents from crawling our client's site (user-agent: *, Disallow: /). They have other lines allowing certain bots to crawl the site but we're wondering if they're missing out on organic traffic by having this main blocking line. It's also a pain because we're unable to set up Moz Pro, potentially because of this first line. We've researched and haven't found a ton of best practices regarding blocking all bots, then allowing certain ones. What do you think is a best practice for these files? Thanks! User-agent: * Disallow: / User-agent: Googlebot Disallow: Crawl-delay: 5 User-agent: Yahoo-slurp Disallow: User-agent: bingbot Disallow: User-agent: rogerbot Disallow: User-agent: * Crawl-delay: 5 Disallow: /new_vehicle_detail.asp Disallow: /new_vehicle_compare.asp Disallow: /news_article.asp Disallow: /new_model_detail_print.asp Disallow: /used_bikes/ Disallow: /default.asp?page=xCompareModels Disallow: /fiche_section_detail.asp
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ReunionMarketing0 -
Error Meta Description
(adult website) https://www.google.com.br/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=robertinha Why Google is not reading my description of Yoast plugin? Vídeos de sexo - Vídeos porno
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stroke
www.robertinha.com.br/
Robertinha.com.br. lupa. facebook twitter plus. Página Inicial; Última Atualização: terça, 14 abril 2015. Página Inicial. Categorias. Amadoras (227) · Coroas (6) ... If I site: meusite.com.br work, he read correctly, but the site search not.
I do not understand https://www.google.com.br/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:robertinha.com.br Vídeos de sexo - Vídeos porno
www.robertinha.com.br/
Vídeos de sexo grátis: assista agora mesmo vídeos porno com gatas, gostosas, safadas fazendo muito sexo.0 -
Description vs meta description
I have an e-commerce website and am trying to create product category pages. I am under the impression that Description is the text that would appear under the title on a google search and I believe the meta description is just what google reads? Is having BOTH important or just description? Is it ok to duplicate the description for the meta description? I know its not good to duplicate descriptions on other products and pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nchachula0 -
Robots.txt vs noindex
I recently started working on a site that has thousands of member pages that are currently robots.txt'd out. Most pages of the site have 1 to 6 links to these member pages, accumulating into what I regard as something of link juice cul-d-sac. The pages themselves have little to no unique content or other relevant search play and for other reasons still want them kept out of search. Wouldn't it be better to "noindex, follow" these pages and remove the robots.txt block from this url type? At least that way Google could crawl these pages and pass the link juice on to still other pages vs flushing it into a black hole. BTW, the site is currently dealing with a hit from Panda 4.0 last month. Thanks! Best... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
If i disallow unfriendly URL via robots.txt, will its friendly counterpart still be indexed?
Our not-so-lovely CMS loves to render pages regardless of the URL structure, just as long as the page name itself is correct. For example, it will render the following as the same page: example.com/123.html example.com/dumb/123.html example.com/really/dumb/duplicative/URL/123.html To help combat this, we are creating mod rewrites with friendly urls, so all of the above would simply render as example.com/123 I understand robots.txt respects the wildcard (*), so I was considering adding this to our robots.txt: Disallow: */123.html If I move forward, will this block all of the potential permutations of the directories preceding 123.html yet not block our friendly example.com/123? Oh, and yes, we do use the canonical tag religiously - we're just mucking with the robots.txt as an added safety net.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mrwestern0 -
Using PushState for Meta Data?
Wondering if anyone has had any experience using pushstate to update meta data on a AJAX page. What we are trying to is have one really long page that users can scroll through to see different portfolio pieces. We want each portfolio piece to be represented in Google as a separate page when they are technically all on the same page. An example of how the page will work is here:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lsujoe
http://www.scozzese.com/2011/en/#annasafroncik If you notice you scroll down and the url will update for the next piece but you are still on the same page. So if we do this for meta title, meta description - will Google be able to recognize it? Any help to achieve quality results would be helpful! If I didn't explain anything clearly please let me know!0 -
Why are new pages not being indexed, and old pages (now in robots.txt) remain in the index?
I currently have a site that was recently restructured, causing much of its content to be reposted, creating new URL's for each page. To avoid duplicates, all of the existing pages were added to the robots file. That said, it has now been over a week - I know Google has recrawled the site - and when I search for term X, it is stil the old page that is ranking, with the new one nowhere to be seen. I'm assuming it's a cached version, but why are so many of the old pages still appearing in the index? Furthermore, all "tags" pages (it's a Q&A site, like this one) were also added to the robots a few months ago, yet I think they are all still appearing in the index. Anyone got any ideas about why this is happening, and how I can get my new pages indexed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | corp08030 -
.co vs .com
hello Mozzers. question - does it make a big difference between having a .co vs a .com . I am tryign to get a URL, with the actual keywords in the URL . for example blackboots.com/ I see that the .com is taken but the .co is available, is it a good idea to buy it? also what about hyphens in urls - do they hurt or help if you actually have the keywords in the url. thanks much - you rock, V
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vijayvasu0