Twitter Robots.TXT
-
Hello Moz World,
So, I trying to wrap my head around all of the different robots.txt. I decided to dive into a site like Twitter, and look at their robot text. And now, I'm super confused. What are they telling the search engines with /hasttag/*src=. Why don't they just use:
Useragent: *
Disallow:
But, they address each search engine. Is there any benefit to this?
Thanks for all of the awesome responses!!!
B/R
Will H.
-
Thanks Martijn. That makes a lot of sense. I'm working with small websites, but hopefully I will be moving on to bigger fish
-
Thank you for the awesome response and taking the time to write this all out. It was very helpful!
-
To answer your question around why they would set-up different statements for different search engines. When huge sites become more complicated in their structure you also want to have a chance to see how different engines deal with pages and crawling some of them. By setting up the statements differently it creates a better overview in what is being crawled for a specific one and what isn't.
-
At a glance, I couldn't tell you what their motivation is to do so but it seems they're addressing individual search engines to show/block various things on a per-engine basis.
Being Twitter I'm sure they have their reasons for doing this but from the outside, it's beyond me what that motivation is!
What are they telling the search engines with /hasttag/*src=
The full line _Allow: /hashtag/*?src= _says to allow the respective engine to crawl the hashtag pages.
To better explain exactly what's going on here, let's take a look at a working example. If you click on a #SEO hashtag on Twitter (note, you have to click on one, not just search for one, that's a different string) you'll arrive at this URL:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/SEO?src=hash
A * is known as a wildcard and is essentially a variable so anything can go in that place and the statement still applies. In this particular example, it's /hashtag/SEO?src=hash. The bolded "SEO" could be replaced by any other hashtag name like the other examples below and the Allow statement would still apply.
/hashtag/Marketing?src=hash
/hashtag/SEM?src=hash
/hashtag/WebDesign?src=hash
/hashtag/Digital?src=hashAs a general rule, I'd suggest looking at more basic websites for a better example to follow - these big guys have to handle some issues that the rest of us don't so a normal Robots.txt is rarely more than 10 lines if the site is built correctly.
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 -
Robots.txt Allowed
Hello all, We want to block something that has the following at the end: http://www.domain.com/category/product/some+demo+-text-+example--writing+here So I was wondering if doing: /*example--writing+here would work?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThomasHarvey0 -
SSL and robots.txt question - confused by Google guidelines
I noticed "Don’t block your HTTPS site from crawling using robots.txt" here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal.html Does this mean you can't use robots.txt anywhere on the site - even parts of a site you want to noindex, for example?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
I have two sitemaps which partly duplicate - one is blocked by robots.txt but can't figure out why!
Hi, I've just found two sitemaps - one of them is .php and represents part of the site structure on the website. The second is a .txt file which lists every page on the website. The .txt file is blocked via robots exclusion protocol (which doesn't appear to be very logical as it's the only full sitemap). Any ideas why a developer might have done that?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Robots.txt: Syntax URL to disallow
Did someone ever experience some "collateral damages" when it's about "disallowing" some URLs? Some old URLs are still present on our website and while we are "cleaning" them off the site (which takes time), I would like to to avoid their indexation through the robots.txt file. The old URLs syntax is "/brand//13" while the new ones are "/brand/samsung/13." (note that there is 2 slash on the URL after the word "brand") Do I risk to erase from the SERPs the new good URLs if I add to the robots.txt file the line "Disallow: /brand//" ? I don't think so, but thank you to everyone who will be able to help me to clear this out 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kuantokusta0 -
Disallow my store in robots.txt?
Should I disallow my store directory in robots.txt? Here is the URL: https://www.stdtime.com/store/ Here are my reasons for suggesting this: SEOMOZ finds crawl "errors" in there that I don't care about I don't think I care if the search engines index those pages I only have one product, and it is not an impulse buy My product has a 60 day sales cycle, so price is less important than features
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | raywhite0 -
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 -
Why specify robots instead of googlebot for a Panda affected site?
Daniweb is the poster child for sites that have recovered from Panda. I know one strategy she mentioned was de-indexing all of her tagged content, fo rexample: http://www.daniweb.com/tags/database Why do you think more Panda affected sites specifying 'googlebot' rather than 'robots' to capture traffic from Bing & Yahoo?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0