What's wrong with this robots.txt
-
Hi. really struggling with the robots.txt file
this is it:User-agent: *
Disallow: /product/#old sitemap
Disallow: /media/name.xmlWhen testing in w3c.org everything looks good, testing is okay, but when uploading it to the server, Google webmaster tools gives 3 errors. Checked it with my collegue we both don't know what's wrong.
Can someone take a look at this and give me the solution.
Thanx in advance!Leonie
-
I think thats a great Idea .net is not my thing.
All the best!
Tom
-
Ah thanks, it's an Azure platform, so no SFTP, SSH or .htaccess. but i'll give the stack link to the technical guys then they have to translate it to our environment ( .net)
-
Believe me it took me plenty of time to realize how to do this but if you're handy with SFTP or SSH you can change the
And for the ultimate in ease if you're using WordPress there is actually a plug-in for 410s so it wasn't something anyone found easy to do.
https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-410/
Sincerely,
Thomas
-
Hi Leonie,
That's very kind of you I am very happy that you got it working correctly.
All the best,
Thomas
-
Hi ,
i got it working with a proper sitemap. Special thanks to Thomas for the great effort in his answers!
-
Hi, Thanx for your reply, i'm not sure i understand you by "please note you are disallowing more than just media"
the thing with this is the xml file is an old file but somewhere in the google archive. i tried do remove it with the wmt, but returns. It's not on the server anymore. the directory "media" doesn't exist anymore, also from an old website.
Because the file still returns in wmt i thought let's try it with the robots.txt
new robots.txt not tested waiting for deployment
Oh call me stupid, but how do i make a 410?
Grtz, Leonie
-
By the way here is an outdated site map that has when it looks like errors that really is telling me the protocol for putting a site map inside a robots.txt file is not endorsed by Google or Bing however I truly feel it is helpful so I do it. I've also added extra video site maps from an external host which is what's throwing out the errors the red color of the disallows is not a error it is just letting you know they are being blocked. Hopefully this will be of help
bigger photo is right here as well please give me a look at what errors are getting
http://i.imgur.com/Xg7EXwO.png
http status: 200
Syntax check robots.txt on http://www.blueprintmarketing.com/robots.txt (359 bytes)
| Line | Severity | Code |
| 6 | Warning | The official standard does not include Sitemap support even though major crawlers (Google and Bing) support it. It is still nonstandard. |
| 7 | Warning | The official standard does not include Sitemap support even though major crawlers (Google and Bing) support it. It is still nonstandard. |
| 8 | Warning | The official standard does not include Sitemap support even though major crawlers (Google and Bing) support it. It is still nonstandard. |
| 9 | Warning | The official standard does not include Sitemap support even though major crawlers (Google and Bing) support it. It is still nonstandard. |
| 10 | Warning | The official standard does not include Sitemap support even though major crawlers (Google and Bing) support it. It is still nonstandard. |Warnings Detected: 5
Errors Detected: 0
robots.txt source code for http://
| Line | Code |
| <a name="line-1"></a>1 | User-agent: * |
| <a name="line-2"></a>2 | Disallow: /wp-content/plugins/ |
| <a name="line-3"></a>3 | Disallow: /wp-admin/ |
| <a name="line-4"></a>4 | Disallow: /wp-includes/ |
| <a name="line-5"></a>5 | |
| <a name="line-6"></a>6 | Sitemap: http://www.blueprintmarketing.com/sitemap_index.xml |
| <a name="line-7"></a>7 | Sitemap: http://app.wistia.com/sitemaps/11323.xml |
| <a name="line-8"></a>8 | Sitemap: http://app.wistia.com/sitemaps/4339.xml |
| <a name="line-9"></a>9 | Sitemap: http://app.wistia.com/sitemaps/14213.xml |
| <a name="line-10"></a>10 | Sitemap: http://app.wistia.com/sitemaps/23283.xml | -
Hi Leonie,
I believe that you should create a robots.txt file that allows for a user agent disallow a folder /media/ and /.xml file. make the Unwanted xml file a 410 it will be dead to Google. however I think I have come up with a solution below please try pasting that in if it does not work.
A another tool for building robots.txt files and comparing them to the existing file from the same company believe it or not is right here.
http://www.internetmarketingninjas.com/seo-tools/robots-txt-generator/
please note you are disallowing more than just media you are disallowing something that should be more like this is for the xml sitemap why not just set it to a 410 killing the link in Google's eyes then you will not have to Disallow.
User-agent: *
Disallow: /product/
Disallow: /media/
Disallow: /bcc.xmlSitemap: http://example.com/sitemap_index.xml
putting your new site map in where I have placed a site map or where the rule above will give you the spot to put it will help you tell Google where your new site map resides along with of course submitting it to Google Webmaster tools and fetching it as a Google bot.
I would like to look at the architecture of your site if you're getting errors with what you showed me you can send me a private message and I promise I will respond if you are not comfortable showing the URL on Q&A.
I hope this is of help,
Thomas
-
Hi Dean happy to be of help!
-
Thanx for the url: it gives a warning on
Disallow: /product/
and
Disallow: /media/bcc.xmli wonder why?
-
Thomas,
That's an awesome tool, thank you for sharing.
-
if you want to find out anything that could possibly be wrong with that this tool is the holy grail of finding out what's wrong with robots.txt issues in my opinion just expect a lot more info than a simple response from it.
http://tools.seochat.com/tools/robots-txt-validator/
Sincerely,
Thomas
-
if i test the blocked url's they are blocked so it looks like the file is doing what's supposed to do. but still is strange i got these errors.
@Dean Andrews, thanx i will test it without empty lines, though have to wait for another deployment
-
Okay i got these errors in webmaster tools, very strange it is
-
Sounds more like a bug in the tool that you're as I tested the syntax just now in Google Webmaster Tools and it's not causing any issues there.
-
Hi, Lines containing only a comment are discarded completely, and therefore do not indicate a record boundary however you may need to remove the line break (not 100% sure but worth testing): User-agent: * Disallow: /product/ Disallow: /media/bcc.xml
-
Hi, sorry forgot to mention that
syntax error @ User-agent: *
no user agent @ Disallow: /product/
no user agent @ Disallow: /media/name.xml
Thanx, Leonie
-
Hi Leonie, what are the 3 errors as it seems that the robots.txt file syntax is correct.
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
-
Robot.txt : How to block a specific file type in several subdirectories ?
Hello everyone ! I need help setting up a robot.txt. I'm trying to block all pdf files in particular directories so I'm using this command. In the example below the line is blocking all .gif in the entire site. Block files of a specific file type (for example, .gif) | Disallow: /*.gif$ 2 questions : Can I use this command to specify one particular directory in which I want to block pdf files ? Will this line be recognized by googlebots ? Disallow: /fileadmin/xxxxxxx/xxx/xxxxxxx/*.pdf$ Then I realized that I would have to write as many lines as many directories there are in which I want to block pdf files. Let's say I want to block pdf files in all these 3 directories /fileadmin/directory1 /fileadmin/directory1/sub1 /fileadmin/directory1/sub1/pdf Is there a pattern-matching rule I could use to blocks access to pdf files in all subdirectories instead of writing 3x the above line for each subdirectory ? For exemple : Disallow: /fileadmin/directory1*/ Many thanks in advance for any insight you may have.
Technical SEO | | LabeliumUSA0 -
Will a Robots.txt 'disallow' of a directory, keep Google from seeing 301 redirects for pages/files within the directory?
Hi- I have a client that had thousands of dynamic php pages indexed by Google that shouldn't have been. He has since blocked these php pages via robots.txt disallow. Unfortunately, many of those php pages were linked to by high quality sites mulitiple times (instead of the static urls) before he put up the php 'disallow'. If we create 301 redirects for some of these php URLs that area still showing high value backlinks and send them to the correct static URLs, will Google even see these 301 redirects and pass link value to the proper static URLs? Or will the robots.txt keep Google away and we lose all these high quality backlinks? I guess the same question applies if we use the canonical tag instead of the 301. Will the robots.txt keep Google from seeing the canonical tags on the php pages? Thanks very much, V
Technical SEO | | Voodak0 -
Robots.txt and joomla
Hello, I use joomla for my website and automatically all those files are blocked is that good or bad, so I remove anything and if so why ? User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | seoanalytics
Disallow: /administrator/
Disallow: /cache/
Disallow: /components/
Disallow: /images/
Disallow: /includes/
Disallow: /installation/
Disallow: /language/
Disallow: /libraries/
Disallow: /media/
Disallow: /modules/
Disallow: /plugins/
Disallow: /templates/
Disallow: /tmp/
Disallow: /xmlrpc/ I also added to my robots.txt files my email address ( is that useful, I am afraid google passes PR to the email address )
and a javascript: void (0) because I have tabs on my webpage ( is that useful )
as well as a .pdf ( is it also useful ) any comments ? does anything need to be changed or is it ok ? Thank you,0 -
Internal search : rel=canonical vs noindex vs robots.txt
Hi everyone, I have a website with a lot of internal search results pages indexed. I'm not asking if they should be indexed or not, I know they should not according to Google's guidelines. And they make a bunch of duplicated pages so I want to solve this problem. The thing is, if I noindex them, the site is gonna lose a non-negligible chunk of traffic : nearly 13% according to google analytics !!! I thought of blocking them in robots.txt. This solution would not keep them out of the index. But the pages appearing in GG SERPS would then look empty (no title, no description), thus their CTR would plummet and I would lose a bit of traffic too... The last idea I had was to use a rel=canonical tag pointing to the original search page (that is empty, without results), but it would probably have the same effect as noindexing them, wouldn't it ? (never tried so I'm not sure of this) Of course I did some research on the subject, but each of my finding recommanded one of the 3 methods only ! One even recommanded noindex+robots.txt block which is stupid because the noindex would then be useless... Is there somebody who can tell me which option is the best to keep this traffic ? Thanks a million
Technical SEO | | JohannCR0 -
Replacing H1's with images
We host a few Japanese sites and Japanese fonts tend to look a bit scruffy the larger they are. I was wondering if image replacement for H1 is risky or not? eg in short... spiders see: Some header text optimized for seo then in the css h1 {
Technical SEO | | -Al-
text-indent: -9999px;
} h1.header_1{ background:url(/images/bg_h1.jpg) no-repeat 0 0; } We are considering this technique, I thought I should get some advise before potentially jeopardising anything, especially as we are dealing with one of the most important on page elements. In my opinion any attempt to hide text could be seen as keyword stuffing, is it a case that in moderation it is acceptable? Cheers0 -
Robots.txt question
Hello, What does the following command mean - User-agent: * Allow: / Does it mean that we are blocking all spiders ? Is Allow supported in robots.txt ? Thanks
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
From your perspective, what's wrong with this site such that it has a Panda Penalty?
www.duhaime.org For more background, please see: http://www.seomoz.org/q/advice-regarding-panda http://www.seomoz.org/q/when-panda-s-attack (hoping the third time's the charm here)
Technical SEO | | sprynewmedia0 -
Is robots.txt a must-have for 150 page well-structured site?
By looking in my logs I see dozens of 404 errors each day from different bots trying to load robots.txt. I have a small site (150 pages) with clean navigation that allows the bots to index the whole site (which they are doing). There are no secret areas I don't want the bots to find (the secret areas are behind a Login so the bots won't see them). I have used rel=nofollow for internal links that point to my Login page. Is there any reason to include a generic robots.txt file that contains "user-agent: *"? I have a minor reason: to stop getting 404 errors and clean up my error logs so I can find other issues that may exist. But I'm wondering if not having a robots.txt file is the same as some default blank file (or 1-line file giving all bots all access)?
Technical SEO | | scanlin0