What happens to crawled URLs subsequently blocked by robots.txt?
-
We have a very large store with 278,146 individual product pages. Since these are all various sizes and packaging quantities of less than 200 product categories my feeling is that Google would be better off making sure our category pages are indexed.
I would like to block all product pages via robots.txt until we are sure all category pages are indexed, then unblock them. Our product pages rarely change, no ratings or product reviews so there is little reason for a search engine to revisit a product page.
The sales team is afraid blocking a previously indexed product page will result in in it being removed from the Google index and would prefer to submit the categories by hand, 10 per day via requested crawling.
Which is the better practice?
-
@aspenfasteners To my understanding, disallowing a page or folder in robots.txt does not remove pages from Google's index. It merely gives a directive to not crawl those pages/folders. In fact, when pages are accidentally indexed and one wants to remove them from the index, it is important to actually NOT disallow them in robots.txt, so that Google can crawl those pages and discover the meta NOINDEX tags on the pages. The meta NOINDEX tags are the directive to remove a page from the index, or to not index it in the first place. This is different than a robots.txt directive, whcih is intended to allow or disallow crawling. Crawling does not equal indexing.
So, you could keep the pages indexable, and simply block them in your robots.txt file, if you want. If they've already been indexed, they should not disappear quickly (they might, over time though). BUT if they haven't been indexed yet, this would prevent them from being discovered.
All of that said, from reading your notes, I don't think any of this is warranted. The speed at which Google discovers pages on a website is very fast. And existing indexed pages shouldn't really get in the way of new discovery. In fact, they might help the category pages be discovered, if they contain links to the categories.
I would create a categories sitemap xml file, link to that in your robots.txt, and let that do the work of prioritizing the categories for crawling/discovery and indexation.
-
@aspenfasteners to answer your question: "do we KNOW that Google will immediately de-index URL's blocked by robots.txt?"
Google will not immediately de-index URLs that are blocked by robots.txt, based on my experience. I've dealt with very similar situation but with much greater scale - around 8M automatically generated pages that got into Google index. It may take a year or more to de-index these pages completely. Of course, every case is different, but based on my understanding, if you block these low-quality product pages, Google will slowly start re-evaluating these pages, and it will start with the ones that get some traffic.
Here is what happens when Google re-evaluates your individual product pages:
When deciding, whether to keep a page in its index or not, Google takes into account multiple factors, and one of the most important ones is how many backlinks (both internal and external) are leading to a page. Other factors - content quality, if the page is similar or duplicate to another page, Core Web Vitals score, amount of your crawl budget, and, of course, external backlinks (which is irrelevant for your case).
If you are afraid of loosing some traffic that comes to these product pages, or you have other concerns, just do a smaller experiment: take a sample of 1000-2000 pages, block them in robots.txt or by adding meta robots "noindex, follow" directive, and observe Google's reaction in 1-6 weeks, depending on your crawl budget.
Another thing to check:
If you use Screaming Frog, it has a nice feature to show internal pagerank and the number of internal incoming links that lead to every page. As a rule of thumb, if an individual product page has at least 10 internal incoming links from canonicalized pages, there is a high probability it will get indexed.
-
@terentyev - sorry, can't edit my questions once submitted and I wait for approval (why?) the statement should read my question SHOULD be very specific, whereas my original question was much more general - you answered that question very nicely. Sorry for any misunderstanding
-
@terentyev thanks for the reply. We have no reason to believe these URL's are backlinked. These aren't consumer products that individual are interested in, our site is a wholesale B2B selling very narrow categories in bulk quantities typically for manufacturing. Therefore, almost zero chance for backlinks anywhere for something as specific as a particular size/material/package quantity of a product.
We have already initiated a canonicalization project started but we are stuck between two concerns from sales, 1) we can't wait for canonicalization (which is complex) we need sales now and 2) don't touch robots.txt because MAYBE the individual products are indexed.
So that is why my question is very specific - do we KNOW that Google will immediately de-index URL's blocked by robots.txt?
-
@aspenfasteners thanks for interesting question.
to summarize my understanding:- you have ~300K individual product pages, many of them are duplicates; eg. a single product can have multiple characteristics (eg. size or quantity) but the pages are essentially the same.
- your goal is to index 200 product categories that contain a collection of these products, and remove the low-quality duplicate individual pages from Google index in the long run.
- my assumption is that these 300K product pages have been historically accumulating some backlinks, which is one of the reasons why they are indexed.
If I am right about the 1 and 2, then you should not block these individual product pages, but rather add canonical URLs to them, which should point to the respective category page that you want to get indexed.
Once you have these canonicals implemented, you should wait for a few months or more for Google to pass the link equity to your 200 product category pages, and once it is done, you are free to block them from indexing on robots.txt + meta tag on the page itself, and maybe even x-robots-tag. The way how to block them - it is a different discussion. Let me know if you want to learn more on the best approach.
So, here is my checklist for this URL migration:
- add canonicals pointing from product pages to category pages.
- make sure that all category pages are well interlinked between each other, and the individual product pages are linked to several category pages (eg. a product A should be linked to category A, and also to similar categories B & C). As a rule of thumb, make sure that each category page has at least 10 incoming links from other category pages.
- Make sure that all these category pages are linked from your homepage
- Make sure that sitemap contains only self-canonicalized pages.
- Make sure that these category pages have good core web vitals metrics, compared to your competitors on SERP.
- In 2-3 months, when you see that Google indexes the category pages, and crawling of product pages have been reduced significantly, and the ranks of the category pages have gone up, it is ok to block these 300K pages from crawling.
As to manually submitting the categories by hand, I doubt it will help, especially if the product pages have a lot of backlinks. I've seen many cases when Google disregards the robots.txt directives if a page has good backlinks and traffic.
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
-
URL indexed but not submitted in sitemap, however the URL is in the sitemap
Dear Community, I have the following problem and would be super helpful if you guys would be able to help. Cheers Symptoms : On the search console, Google says that some of our old URLs are indexed but not submitted in sitemap However, those URLs are in the sitemap Also the sitemap as been successfully submitted. No error message Potential explanation : We have an automatic cache clearing process within the company once a day. In the sitemap, we use this as last modification date. Let's imagine url www.example.com/hello was modified last time in 2017. But because the cache is cleared daily, in the sitemap we will have last modified : yesterday, even if the content of the page did not changed since 2017. We have a Z after sitemap time, can it be that the bot does not understands the time format ? We have in the sitemap only http URL. And our HTTPS URLs are not in the sitemap What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ZozoMe0 -
Trailing Slashes on URLs
Hi we currently have a site on Wordpress which has two version of each URL trailing slash on URLs and one without it. Example: www.domain.com/page (preferred version - based on link data) www.domain.com/page**/** The non-slash version of the URL has most of the external links pointing to them, so we are going to pick that as the preferred version. However, currently, each version of every URL has rel canonical tag pointing to the non-preferred version. E.g. www.domain.com/page the rel canonical tag is: www.domain.com/page/ What would be the best way to clean up this setup? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cathywix0 -
Something happened within the last 2 weeks on our WordPress-hosted site that created "duplicates" by counting www.company.com/example and company.com/example (without the 'www.') as separate pages. Any idea what could have happened, and how to fix it?
Our website is running through WordPress. We've been running Moz for over a month now. Only recently, within the past 2 weeks, have we been alerted to over 100 duplicate pages. It appears something happened that created a duplicate of every single page on our site; "www.company.com/example" and "company.com/example." Again, according to our MOZ, this is a recent issue. I'm almost certain that prior to a couple of weeks ago, there existed both forms of the URL that directed to the same page without be counting as a duplicate. Thanks for you help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wzimmer0 -
Should /node/ URLs be 301 redirect to Clean URLs
Hi All! We are in the process of migrating to Drupal and I know that I want to block any instance of /node/ URLs with my robots.txt file to prevent search engines from indexing them. My question is, should we set 301 redirects on the /node/ versions of the URLs to redirect to their corresponding "clean" URL, or should the robots.txt blocking and canonical link element be enough? My gut tells me to ask for the 301 redirects, but I just want to hear additional opinions. Thank you! MS
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MargaritaS0 -
HTML for URL markup
Hi, We are changing our URLs to be more SEO friendly. Is there any negative impact or pitfall of using <base> HTML-tag? Our developers are considering it as a possible solution for relative URLs inside HTML-markup in the Friendly URL context.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theLotter0 -
Website Crawl problems
I have a feeling that Google doesn't crawl my website. E.g. this blogpost - I copy a sentence from it and paste it to Google. The page that shows up in search results is www.silvamethodlife.com/page/9/ - which is just a blog page with all the articles listed, not the link to the article itself! Did anyone ever have this problem? It's definitely some technical issue. Any advice will be deeply appreciated Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexey_mindvalley0 -
Crawl questions
My first website crawl indicating many issues. I corrected the issues, requested another crawl and received the results. After viewing the excel file I have some questions. 1. There are many pages with missing Titles and Meta Descriptions in the Excel file. An example is http://www.terapvp.com/threads/help-us-decide-on-terapvp-com-logo.25/page-2 That page clearly has a meta description and title. It is a forum thread. My forum software does a solid job of always providing those tags. Why would my crawl report not show this information? This occurs on numerous pages. 2. I believe all my canonical URLs are properly set. My crawl report has 3k+ records, largely due to there being 10 records for many pages. These extra records are various sort orders and style differences for the same page i.e. ?direction=asc. My need for a crawl report is to provide actionable data so I can easily make SEO improvements to my site where necessary. These extra records don't provide any benefit. IF the crawl report determined there was not a clear canonical URL, then I could understand. But that is not the case. An example is http://www.terapvp.com/forums/news/ If you look at the source you will clearly see Where is the benefit to including the 10 other records in the Crawl report which show this same page in various sort orders? Am I missing anything? 3. My robots.txt appropriately blocks many pages that I do not wish to be crawled. What is the benefit to including these many pages in the crawl report? Perhaps I am over analyzing this report. I have read many articles on SEO, but now that I have found SEOmoz, I can see I will need to "unlearn what I have learned". Many things such as setting meta keyword tags are clearly not helpful. I wish to focus my energy and I was looking to the crawl report as my starting point. Either I am missing something, or the report design needs improvement.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RyanKent0 -
URL Length or Exact Breadcrumb Navigation URL? What's More Important
Basically my question is as follows, what's better: www.romancingdiamonds.com/gemstone-rings/amethyst-rings/purple-amethyst-ring-14k-white-gold (this would fully match the breadcrumbs). or www.romancingdiamonds.com/amethyst-rings/purple-amethyst-ring-14k-white-gold (cutting out the first level folder to keep the url shorter and the important keywords are closer to the root domain). In this question http://www.seomoz.org/qa/discuss/37982/url-length-vs-url-keywords I was consulted to drop a folder in my url because it may be to long. That's why I'm hesitant to keep the bradcrumb structure the same. To the best of your knowldege do you think it's best to drop a folder in the URL to keep it shorter and sweeter, or to have a longer URL and have it match the breadcrumb structure? Please advise, Shawn
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Romancing0