Temporarily suspend Googlebot without blocking users
-
We'll soon be launching a redesign, on a new platform, migrating millions of pages to new URLs.
How can I tell Google (and other crawlers) to temporarily (a day or two) ignore my site? We're hoping to buy ourselves a small bit of time to verify redirects and live functionality before allowing Google to crawl and index the new architecture.
GWT's recommendation is to 503 all pages - including robots.txt, but that also makes the site invisible to real site visitors, resulting in significant business loss. Bad answer.
I've heard some recommendations to disallow all user agents in robots.txt. Any answer that puts the millions of pages we already have indexed at risk is also a bad answer.
Thanks
-
So it seems like we've gone full circle.
The initial question was, "How can I tell Google (and other crawlers) to temporarily (a day or two) ignore my site? We're hoping to buy ourselves a small bit of time to verify redirects and live functionality before allowing Google to crawl and index the new architecture."
Sounds like the answer is, 'that's not possible'.
-
Putting a noindex/nofollow on an index url will remove it from SERPs, although some ulrs will still show for direct search (using the url itself as a KW) but even then they will appear as clear links without any TItle/Description details.
Using a 301 redirect will remove the old page from index, regardless of noindex/nofollow.
If you are using a noindex/nofollow for the new url - both will not show.
-
Thank you, Ruth!
Can I ask a clarifying question?
If I put a noindex/nofollow on the new urls, wouldn't the result be the same as if I put noindex/nofollow on the indexed urls? There is only one instance of each page - and all of the millions of indexed URLs will be redirecting to new urls.
Here is my assumption: if I put noindex/nofollow on the new urls - a search bot will crawl the old url, follow the redirect to the new url, detect the noindex/nofollow, and then drop the old, indexed url from their index. Is that the wrong assumption?
-
I would use robots.txt to noindex the whole website as well - but just the new pages, not the old ones. Then when you're ready to be crawled, remove the robots.txt entry and Fetch as Googlebot to get re-crawled. You may fall out of the index for a day or two but should quickly be re-indexed.
Another solution would be to use the meta robots tag to individually noindex each page (if there's a way to do that in your CMS, obviously adding them by hand wouldn't be scalable), and then remove. That may increase your chances of getting re-crawled and re-indexed sooner.
-
Thanks for the response, Mark.
It sounds as if you tried this on a few new pages.
I'm talking about millions of existing pages.
Would you robots.txt noindex your entire website? Seems like you'd run a huge risk of being dumped from the index entirely.
-
I recommend robots text noindex, nofollow.
That way people can still see the pages they just aren't indexed in Google yet.
As we developed some new pages on one of our sites we did this and we could still view pages and send folks there that we wanted to see the content for feedback - but no one else knew they were there.
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
-
Hi! I first wrote an article on my medium blog but am now launching my site. a) how can I get a canonical tag on medium without importing and b) any issue with claiming blog is original when medium was posted first?
Hi! As above, I wrote this article on my medium blog but am now launching my site, UnderstandingJiuJitsu.com. I have the post saved as a draft because I don't want to get pinged by google. a) how can I get a canonical tag on medium without importing and b) any issue with claiming the UJJ.com post is original when medium was posted first? Thanks and health, Elliott
Technical SEO | | OpenMat0 -
CSS user select and any potential affect on SEO
Hi everyone and thank you in advance for your helpful comments. We have a client who is concerned about copying of content from their site because it has happened a few times in the last few years. We have explained that the content is essentially publicly available and that using the CSS selector user-select to prevent selection of text will really only prevent the technically limited users from working out how to get the text. He is happy that it will at least stop some people. So the question is would there be any way that this would have an affect on SEO? We would make an assumption that it doesnt but putting it out there for some feedback. Cheers Eddie
Technical SEO | | vital_hike0 -
Can I Block https URLs using Host directive in robots.txt?
Hello Moz Community, Recently, I have found that Google bots has started crawling HTTPs urls of my website which is increasing the number of duplicate pages at our website. Instead of creating a separate robots.txt file for https version of my website, can I use Host directive in the robots.txt to suggest Google bots which is the original version of the website. Host: http://www.example.com I was wondering if this method will work and suggest Google bots that HTTPs URLs are the mirror of this website. Thanks for all of the great responses! Regards,
Technical SEO | | TJC.co.uk
Ramendra0 -
Is 307 the best way to handle temporarily disabled items ?
I was wondering what would be the best way to handle temporarily disabled items. There is 302 and 307 and from what I understand 307 redirect is the HTTP 1.1 successor of the 302 redirect. Any one has any experience on how Google handles 307? I am thinking I 307 the temp disabled pages to a generic page like site.com/we-are-adding-some-final-touches-to-this.html where we will explain to users why an item would be disabled and will give them an option to get notification when it goes back up. Finally when it goes back up I remove the 307 redirect and make the page live.
Technical SEO | | Saijo.George0 -
Help - we're blocking SEOmoz cawlers
We have a fairly stringent blacklist and by the looks of our crawl reports we've begin unintentionally blocking the SEOmoz crawler. can you guys let me know the useragent string and anything else I need to enable mak sure you're crawlers are whitelisted? Cheers!
Technical SEO | | linklater0 -
How to allow googlebot past paywall
Does anyone know of any ways or ideas to allow Google/Bing etc. to index your content, but have it behind a paywall for users?
Technical SEO | | MirandaP0 -
Search engines have been blocked by robots.txt., how do I find and fix it?
My client site royaloakshomesfl.com is coming up in my dashboard as having Search engines have been blocked by robots.txt, only I have no idea where to find it and fix the problem. Please help! I do have access to webmaster tools and this site is a WP site, if that helps.
Technical SEO | | LeslieVS0 -
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there. They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content. Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content. I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form. From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case. So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way? (They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.) Thank you!
Technical SEO | | TimBarlow0