No index tag robots.txt
-
Hi Mozzers,
A client's website has a lot of internal directories defined as /node/*.
I already added the rule 'Disallow: /node/*' to the robots.txt file to prevents bots from crawling these pages.
However, the pages are already indexed and appear in the search results.
In an article of Deepcrawl, they say you can simply add the rule 'Noindex: /node/*' to the robots.txt file, but other sources claim the only way is to add a noindex directive in the meta robots tag of every page.
Can someone tell me which is the best way to prevent these pages from getting indexed? Small note: there are more than 100 pages.
Thanks!
Jens -
Hi Jens
I don't know Drupal but if it's like Wordpress it will add a noindex tag to the page.
Do it for one page then take a look at the code.
Go to the page: right click > View Source
Then go to the three dots top right in chrome and search noindex. It will look like this attached. (ignore the red line crossed out piece)
Best Regards Nigel
-
Hi Guys,
In Drupal between the advanced tags (meta tags), there is an option:
' Prevents search engines from indexing this page 'Do you happen to know whether these tags are seen as valid by Searchbots?
Thanks again guys!
-
For the sake of balance, probably worth mentioning that I'm with David in that I've seen a robots.txt noindex work. It has been relatively recently used by a large publisher when they had an article they had to take down but which Google was holding on to. That's irrelevant nuance in this situation but I think David deserves more credit than he got here.
In terms of this specific fix I agree with Nigel - remove the Disallow and add a noindex (prompt Google to crawl the pages, with a sitemap if they don't seem to be shifting). You can re-add the Disallow if you think it's necessary but once all of the appropriate pages have a noindex tag they should stay out of the index and if they are heavily linked to on the site disallowing them could result in a loss of link equity (it'll stop with the link to the disallowed pages). So if you think you can achieve this with just a noindex you might want to leave it at that.
-
Hi David
I'd rather listen to John Mueller - he has specifically said to not use it:
https://www.seroundtable.com/google-do-not-use-noindex-in-robots-txt-20873.html
I wouldn't be advising people to use it on that basis whether it has worked for you this time or not. It's not best practice.
That's all. (Sorry Jens!)
Regards
Nigel
-
Thanks a lot for your answers guys!
-
Hi Nigel,
I agreed that what you said is the best solution in this case but noindex can definitely be done in robots.txt.
I'm not sure of the questionable sites you've seen it mentioned on, but I'd consider Stone Temple and Deep Crawl to be reputable sources.
That said, I always like to test things for myself!
I tried robots.txt noindex on one of my own big sports news websites a little while ago because I didn't want to manually set thousands of old posts to noindex. The robots.txt noindex worked fine.
Cheers,
David
-
Hi Jens/David
You should not use a noindex in Robots.txt. You can put it on the page as a robots tag, but not in Robots.txt
I have never ever seen it used in the Robots.txt - I have seen it mentioned a few times on some questionable sites and the odd mention many years ago but it's bad practice in my opinion.
Read more about Robots.txt here: https://moz.com/learn/seo/robotstxt
If you follow what I have said, that is the correct solution.
Regards Nigel
-
Hi Nigel and Jens,
Just to clarify - noindex is valid in robots.txt for Google but it's not recognized by Bing.
Here's a case study by Stone Temple on using noindex in robots.txt: https://www.stonetemple.com/does-google-respect-robots-txt-noindex-and-should-you-use-it/
From their case study, it was found to be pretty effective, but not 100%. It would be a good solution for large websites, but if you're only looking at 100+ pages I would do as Nigel said above and implement the meta robots noindex tags.
Cheers,
David
-
Hi Jens
You can't add a noindex in the Robots.txt file.
Firstly you need to add a noindex tag to all of the pages in the /node/ directory.
Then remove the nofollow directive in the Robots.txtYou need to do this for Google to see the noindex tags!
If you have a noindex tag and a nofollow then the directory is blocked so Google can't see the tags!
Once all the pages have gone from search then add the nofollow back to the Robots.txt file so that Google doesn't waste crawl budget trying to index them.
This will solve your problem.
Regards
Nigel
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
-
2 sitemaps on my robots.txt?
Hi, I thought that I just could link one sitemap from my site's robots.txt but... I may be wrong. So, I need to confirm if this kind of implementation is right or wrong: robots.txt for Magento Community and Enterprise ...
Technical SEO | | Webicultors
Sitemap: http://www.mysite.es/media/sitemap/es.xml
Sitemap: http://www.mysite.pt/media/sitemap/pt.xml Thanks in advance,0 -
Website is not indexed in Google
Hi Guys, I have a problem with a website from a customer. His website is not indexed in Google (except for the homepage). I could not find anything that can possibly be the cause. I already checked the robots.txt, sitemap, and plugins on the website. In the HTML code i also couldn't find anything which makes indexing harder than usual. This is the website i am talking about: http://www.xxxx.nl/ (Dutch) The only thing that i am guessing now is the Google sandbox, but even that is quite unlikely. I hope you guys discover something i could not find! Thanks in advance 🙂
Technical SEO | | B.Great0 -
Indexing Issue
Hi, I am working on www.stjohnswaydentalpractice.co.uk Google only seems to be indexing two of the pages when i search site:www.stjohnswaydentalpractice.co.uk I have added the site to webmaster tools and created a new sitemap which is showing that it has only submitted two of the pages. Can anyone shed any light for why these pages are not being indexed? Thanks Faye
Technical SEO | | dentaldesign0 -
Confirming Robots.txt code deep Directories
Just want to make sure I understand exactly what I am doing If I place this in my Robots.txt Disallow: /root/this/that By doing this I want to make sure that I am ONLY blocking the directory /that/ and anything in front of that. I want to make sure that /root/this/ still stays in the index, its just the that directory I want gone. Am I correct in understanding this?
Technical SEO | | cbielich0 -
Noindex Pages indexed
I'm having problem that gogole is index my search results pages even though i have added the "noindex" metatag. Is the best thing to block the robot from crawling that file using robots.txt?
Technical SEO | | Tedred0 -
Tags and Duplicate Content
Just wondering - for a lot of our sites we use tags as a way of re-grouping articles / news / blogs so all of the info on say 'government grants' can be found on one page. These /tag pages often come up with duplicate content errors, is it a big issue, how can we minimnise that?
Technical SEO | | salemtas0 -
Dealing with indexable Ajax
Hello there, My site is basically an Ajax application. We assume lots of people link into deep pages on the site, but bots won't be able to read past the hashmarks, meaning all links appear to go to our home page. So, we have decided to form our Ajax for indexing. And so many questions remain. First, only Google handles indexable Ajax, so we need to keep our static "SEO" pages up for Bing and Yahoo. Bummer, dude, more to manage. 1. How do others deal with the differences here? 2. If we have indexable Ajax and static pages, can these be perceived as duplicate content? Maybe the answer is to disallow google bot from indexing the static pages we made. 3. What does your canonical URL become? Can you tell different search engines to read different canonical URLs? So many more questions, but I'll stop there. Curious if anyone here has thoughts (or experience) on the matter. Erin
Technical SEO | | ErinTM2 -
Google News not indexing .index.html pages
Hi all, we've been asked by a blog to help them better indexing and ranking on Google News (with the site being already included in Google News with poor results) The blog had a chronicle URL duplication problem with each post existing with 3 different URLs: #1) www.domain.com/post.html (currently in noindex for editorial choices as showing all the comments) #2) www.domain.com/post/index.html (currently indexed showing only top comments) #3) www.domain.com/post/ (very same as #2) We've chosen URL #2 (/index.html) as canonical URL, and included a rel=canonical tag on URL #3 (/) linking to URL #2.
Technical SEO | | H-FARM
Also we've submitted yesterday a Google News sitemap including consistently the list of URLs #2 from the last 48h . The sitemap has been properly "digested" by Google and shows that all URLs have been sent and indexed. However if we use the site:domain.com command on Google News we see something completely different: Google News has indexed actually only some news and more specifically only the URLs #3 type (ending with the trailing slash instead of /index.html). Why ? What's wrong ? a) Does Google News bot have problems indexing URLs ending with .index.html ? While figuring out what's wrong we've found out that http://news.google.it/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=inurl%3Aindex.html gives no results...it seems that Google News index overall does not include any URLs ending with /index.html b) Does Google News bot recognise rel=canonical tag ? c) Is it just a matter of time and then Google News will pick up the right URLs (/index.html) and/or shall we communicate Google News team any changes ? d) Any suggestions ? OR Shall we do the other way around. meaning make URL #3 the canonical one ? While Google News is showing these problems, Google Web search has actually well received the changes, so we don't know what to do. Thanks for your help, Matteo0