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
-
No index detected in robots meta tag GSC issue_Help Please
Hi Everyone, We just did a site migration ( URL structure change, site redesign, CMS change). During migration, dev team messed up badly on a few things including SEO. The old site had pages canonicalized and self canonicalized <> New site doesn't have anything (CMS dev error) so we are working retroactively to add canonicalization mechanism The legacy site had URL’s ending with a trailing slash “/” <> new site got redirected to Set of url’s without “/” New site action : All robots are allowed: A new sitemap is submitted to google search console So here is my problem (it been a long 24hr night for me 🙂 ) 1. Now when I look at GSC homepage URL it says that old page is self canonicalized and currently in index (old page with a trailing slash at the end of URL). 2. When I try to perform a live URL test, I get the message "No: 'noindex' detected in 'robots' meta tag" , so indexation cant be done. I have no idea where noindex is coming from. 3. Robots.txt in search console still showing old file ( no noindex there ) I tried to submit new file but old one still coming up. When I click on "See live robots.txt" I get current robots. 4. I see that old page is still canonicalized and attempting to index redirected old page might be confusing google Hope someone can help to get the new page indexed! I really need it 🙂 Please ping me if you need more clarification. Thank you ! Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bgvsiteadmin1 -
What a PBN is? please describe how you use them for SEO.
what a PBN is? please describe how you use them for SEO.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Green.landon0 -
Hreflang doubt use correctly
Hello,I have a question, I want to know which option is best for implementing a multi languages. We have a client whose website will have English and Spanish languages, both languages have the same content but English we focus on the US and UK, and Spanish only for the country Spain, the question arises what is the correct nomenclature we use or would it be the best value.**Option 1:****Option 2:**Or any of the two options is correct What would be the correct ?. Another question, if a German user is in Spain, and do a search on (Google Spain), what will be the best option that should be implemented, / is-de / or single / de /, which one will position before ( provided that the statement I is correct). A greeting and thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | omar-moscat0 -
Meta Tags (again)
Hey, I know this has been discussed to death but look back through previous postings there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the exact Meta tags that an eCommerce site should include, specifically whether to remove the keyword tag or not since it is believed that Yahoo potentially still makes use of it. Currently our homepage has the following Meta Tags: <title>Buy Printer Cartridges | Ink and Toner Cartridge for Inkjet and Laser Printers</title> Description" content="<a class="attribute-value">Visit Refresh Cartridges for great prices on ink cartridges, toner cartridges, ink, printers and accessories.</a>" /> Keywords" content="<a class="attribute-value">ink cartridges, cheap cartridges, inkjet cartridges, inkjet ink cartridges, ink cartridge, printer ink cartridges, laser cartridges, toner, laser printers</a>" /> Content-Type" content="<a class="attribute-value">text/html; charset=iso-8859-1</a>"/> author" content="<a class="attribute-value">Ink Cartridges, Inkjet Cartridge, Printer Cartridge, Toner Cartridges Refresh Cartridges</a>" /> expires" content="<a class="attribute-value">0</a>" /> robots" content="<a class="attribute-value">noodp,index,follow</a>" /> Language" content="<a class="attribute-value">English</a>" /> Cache-Control" content="<a class="attribute-value">Public</a>" /> verify-v1" content="<a class="attribute-value">sJXqAAWP6ar/LTEOMyUgG6nqothxk62tJTid+ryBJxo=</a>" /> viewport" content="<a class="attribute-value">width=1024</a>" /> This is too messy but before I do something drastic that I'll possibly regret please can you confirm that, in your opinion, I am best to remove everything with the exception of this: <title>Buy Printer Cartridges | Ink and Toner Cartridge for Inkjet and Laser Printers</title> Description" content="<a class="attribute-value">Visit Refresh Cartridges for great prices on ink cartridges, toner cartridges, ink, printers and accessories.</a>" /> Content-Type" content="<a class="attribute-value">text/html; charset=iso-8859-1</a>"/>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ChrisHolgate
viewport" content="<a class="attribute-value">width=1024</a>" /> I realise there is a verify-v1 tag in there but this can be done through a file on our server so while cleaning up that might as well go. Would there be an argument for keeping any of the other tags or are they all pretty much redundant now? Many thanks! Chris0 -
Short Url vs Medium Urls ?
Hello Moooooooooooz ! I got a SEO fight today and though the best would be to involve more people into the fight ! 😛 Do you think it's better to get A- company.com/services/service1.html or B- company/service1.html I was for A as services is also googled to find the service1. I also think that it's better to help google to understand where the service is on the website My friend was for B as URL has to stay as short as possible What do you think ? ps: I can create the URL I want using Joomla and Sh404. The websites has 4 different categoies: /about, /services/ products, /projects Tks ! 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AymanH0 -
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 -
Robots.txt disallow subdomain
Hi all, I have a development subdomain, which gets copied to the live domain. Because I don't want this dev domain to get crawled, I'd like to implement a robots.txt for this domain only. The problem is that I don't want this robots.txt to disallow the live domain. Is there a way to create a robots.txt for this development subdomain only? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Partouter0 -
Robots.txt: Link Juice vs. Crawl Budget vs. Content 'Depth'
I run a quality vertical search engine. About 6 months ago we had a problem with our sitemaps, which resulted in most of our pages getting tossed out of Google's index. As part of the response, we put a bunch of robots.txt restrictions in place in our search results to prevent Google from crawling through pagination links and other parameter based variants of our results (sort order, etc). The idea was to 'preserve crawl budget' in order to speed the rate at which Google could get our millions of pages back in the index by focusing attention/resources on the right pages. The pages are back in the index now (and have been for a while), and the restrictions have stayed in place since that time. But, in doing a little SEOMoz reading this morning, I came to wonder whether that approach may now be harming us... http://www.seomoz.org/blog/restricting-robot-access-for-improved-seo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kurus
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/serious-robotstxt-misuse-high-impact-solutions Specifically, I'm concerned that a) we're blocking the flow of link juice and that b) by preventing Google from crawling the full depth of our search results (i.e. pages >1), we may be making our site wrongfully look 'thin'. With respect to b), we've been hit by Panda and have been implementing plenty of changes to improve engagement, eliminate inadvertently low quality pages, etc, but we have yet to find 'the fix'... Thoughts? Kurus0