Robots
-
I have just noticed this in my code
name="robots" content="noindex">
And have noticed some of my keywords have dropped, could this be the reason?
-
It was everypage on the site.
I also noticed the pages that are not indexed no longer, they have no PR, is that expected?
-
Was the homepage one of the pages that included the noindex meta tag?
Even if it was, pages will not all be crawled at the same time or in a particular order. The homepage may have already been crawled before the change was made on your site, your homepage may not have even be crawled at all today if it was visited yesterday for example.
Crawling results can vary hugely based on a number of factors.
-
The only thing that does not make sense to me is if the sitemap was processes today, why is the homepage still indexed?
-
Yes because that is what caused them to take notice of the meta noindex and drop your pages from their search results.
Best of luck with it, feel free to send me a PM if your pages haven't reappeared in Google's search engine over the next few days.
-
Oh! I also noticed that in Webmaster tools that the sitemap was processed today, does that mean Googlebot has visited the website today?
-
Thanks Geoff, will do what you recommended.
I noticed in Google webmaster tools this:
Blocked URLs - 193
Downloaded - 13 hours ago
Status - 200 (success)
-
Hi Gary,
If the pages dropped from Google's index that quickly, then chances are, they will be back again almost as quick. If your website has an XML sitemap, you could try pinging this to the search engines to alert them to revisit your site as soon as possible again.
It's bad luck that the meta tag was inserted and this caused immediate negative effects, but it will be recoverable, and likely your pages should re-enter the index at the same positions as they were prior to today.
The key is to just bring Google's bot back to your website as soon as possible to recrawl, publishing a blog post could do this, creating a backlink from a high traffic site (a forum is a good example for this) are some methods of encouraging this.
Hope that helps.
-
Hi Geoff,
The developer had said it got added this morning when we rolled out a discount feature on our website, I think it was the CMS adding it automatically, however now a lot of the keywords that were ranking top 3 are no longer indexed, is it just bad luck? will Google come back?
-
If you are using a content management system, these additional meta tags can often be controlled within your administration panel.
If the meta tag is hard coded into your website header, this will appearing on every page of your website and will subsequently result in you not having any pages indexed in search engines.
As Ben points out, the noindex directive instructs search engine robots not to index that particular page. It would recommended to address this issue as quickly as possible, especially if you have a high traffic website that is getting crawled frequently.
-
Thanks for your quick reply Ben.
It does not seem to be all my pages that have fallen off, just some, the developer said that it only got added this morning by mistake.
I actually typed in the full URL into Google and it does not appear anymore, I was ranked no.2 for that particular keyword, receiving about 150 click per day, not happy!
-
Actually on second thoughts - YES. Yes it probably is the reason your terms are dropping.
-
Could be.
That's a directive that tells search engines no to include that page in their indexes.
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
-
Internal search pages (and faceted navigation) solutions for 2018! Canonical or meta robots "noindex,follow"?
There seems to conflicting information on how best to handle internal search results pages. To recap - they are problematic because these pages generally result in lots of query parameters being appended to the URL string for every kind of search - whilst the title, meta-description and general framework of the page remain the same - which is flagged in Moz Pro Site Crawl - as duplicate, meta descriptions/h1s etc. The general advice these days is NOT to disallow these pages in robots.txt anymore - because there is still value in their being crawled for all the links that appear on the page. But in order to handle the duplicate issues - the advice varies into two camps on what to do: 1. Add meta robots tag - with "noindex,follow" to the page
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SWEMII
This means the page will not be indexed with all it's myriad queries and parameters. And so takes care of any duplicate meta /markup issues - but any other links from the page can still be crawled and indexed = better crawling, indexing of the site, however you lose any value the page itself might bring.
This is the advice Yoast recommends in 2017 : https://yoast.com/blocking-your-sites-search-results/ - who are adamant that Google just doesn't like or want to serve this kind of page anyway... 2. Just add a canonical link tag - this will ensure that the search results page is still indexed as well.
All the different query string URLs, and the array of results they serve - are 'canonicalised' as the same.
However - this seems a bit duplicitous as the results in the page body could all be very different. Also - all the paginated results pages - would be 'canonicalised' to the main search page - which we know Google states is not correct implementation of canonical tag
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html this picks up on this older discussion here from 2012
https://moz.com/community/q/internal-search-rel-canonical-vs-noindex-vs-robots-txt
Where the advice was leaning towards using canonicals because the user was seeing a percentage of inbound into these search result pages - but i wonder if it will still be the case ? As the older discussion is now 6 years old - just wondering if there is any new approach or how others have chosen to handle internal search I think a lot of the same issues occur with faceted navigation as discussed here in 2017
https://moz.com/blog/large-site-seo-basics-faceted-navigation1 -
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 -
Robots.txt - blocking JavaScript and CSS, best practice for Magento
Hi Mozzers, I'm looking for some feedback regarding best practices for setting up Robots.txt file in Magento. I'm concerned we are blocking bots from crawling essential information for page rank. My main concern comes with blocking JavaScript and CSS, are you supposed to block JavaScript and CSS or not? You can view our robots.txt file here Thanks, Blake
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LeapOfBelief0 -
Pages getting into Google Index, blocked by Robots.txt??
Hi all, So yesterday we set up to Remove URL's that got into the Google index that were not supposed to be there, due to faceted navigation... We searched for the URL's by using this in Google Search.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs2010
site:www.sekretza.com inurl:price=
site:www.sekretza.com inurl:artists= So it brings up a list of "duplicate" pages, and they have the usual: "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more." So we removed them all, and google removed them all, every single one. This morning I do a check, and I find that more are creeping in - If i take one of the suspecting dupes to the Robots.txt tester, Google tells me it's Blocked. - and yet it's appearing in their index?? I'm confused as to why a path that is blocked is able to get into the index?? I'm thinking of lifting the Robots block so that Google can see that these pages also have a Meta NOINDEX,FOLLOW tag on - but surely that will waste my crawl budget on unnecessary pages? Any ideas? thanks.0 -
Robot.txt File Not Appearing, but seems to be working?
Hi Mozzers, I am conducting a site audit for a client, and I am confused with what they are doing with their robot.txt file. It shows in GWT that there is a file and it is blocking about 12K URLs (image attached). It also shows in GWT that the file was downloaded 10 hours ago successfully. However, when I go to the robot.txt file link, the page is blank. Would they be doing something advanced to be blocking URLs to hide it it from users? It appears to correctly be blocking log-ins, but I would like to know for sure that it is working correctly. Any advice on this would be most appreciated. Thanks! Jared ihgNxN7
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | J-Banz0 -
Robots.txt: how to exclude sub-directories correctly?
Hello here, I am trying to figure out the correct way to tell SEs to crawls this: http://www.mysite.com/directory/ But not this: http://www.mysite.com/directory/sub-directory/ or this: http://www.mysite.com/directory/sub-directory2/sub-directory/... But with the fact I have thousands of sub-directories with almost infinite combinations, I can't put the following definitions in a manageable way: disallow: /directory/sub-directory/ disallow: /directory/sub-directory2/ disallow: /directory/sub-directory/sub-directory/ disallow: /directory/sub-directory2/subdirectory/ etc... I would end up having thousands of definitions to disallow all the possible sub-directory combinations. So, is the following way a correct, better and shorter way to define what I want above: allow: /directory/$ disallow: /directory/* Would the above work? Any thoughts are very welcome! Thank you in advance. Best, Fab.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau1 -
Robots.txt, does it need preceding directory structure?
Do you need the entire preceding path in robots.txt for it to match? e.g: I know if i add Disallow: /fish to robots.txt it will block /fish
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Milian
/fish.html
/fish/salmon.html
/fishheads
/fishheads/yummy.html
/fish.php?id=anything But would it block?: en/fish
en/fish.html
en/fish/salmon.html
en/fishheads
en/fishheads/yummy.html
**en/fish.php?id=anything (taken from Robots.txt Specifications)** I'm hoping it actually wont match, that way writing this particular robots.txt will be much easier! As basically I'm wanting to block many URL that have BTS- in such as: http://www.example.com/BTS-something
http://www.example.com/BTS-somethingelse
http://www.example.com/BTS-thingybob But have other pages that I do not want blocked, in subfolders that also have BTS- in, such as: http://www.example.com/somesubfolder/BTS-thingy
http://www.example.com/anothersubfolder/BTS-otherthingy Thanks for listening0 -
Negative impact on crawling after upload robots.txt file on HTTPS pages
I experienced negative impact on crawling after upload robots.txt file on HTTPS pages. You can find out both URLs as follow. Robots.txt File for HTTP: http://www.vistastores.com/robots.txt Robots.txt File for HTTPS: https://www.vistastores.com/robots.txt I have disallowed all crawlers for HTTPS pages with following syntax. User-agent: *
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommercePundit
Disallow: / Does it matter for that? If I have done any thing wrong so give me more idea to fix this issue.0