Issue with Robots.txt file blocking meta description
-
Hi,
Can you please tell me why the following error is showing up in the serps for a website that was just re-launched 7 days ago with new pages (301 redirects are built in)?
A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more.
Once we noticed it yesterday, we made some changed to the file and removed the amount of items in the disallow list.
Here is the current Robots.txt file:
# XML Sitemap & Google News Feeds version 4.2 - http://status301.net/wordpress-plugins/xml-sitemap-feed/ Sitemap: http://www.website.com/sitemap.xml Sitemap: http://www.website.com/sitemap-news.xml User-agent: * Disallow: /wp-admin/ Disallow: /wp-includes/ Other notes... the site was developed in WordPress and uses that followign plugins:
- WooCommerce All-in-One SEO Pack
- Google Analytics for WordPress
- XML Sitemap
- Google News Feeds
Currently, in the SERPs, it keeps jumping back and forth between showing the meta description for the www domain and showing the error message (above).
Originally, WP Super Cache was installed and has since been deactivated, removed from WP-config.php and deleted permanently.
One other thing to note, we noticed yesterday that there was an old xml sitemap still on file, which we have since removed and resubmitted a new one via WMT. Also, the old pages are still showing up in the SERPs.
Could it just be that this will take time, to review the new sitemap and re-index the new site?
If so, what kind of timeframes are you seeing these days for the new pages to show up in SERPs? Days, weeks? Thanks, Erin ```
-
At the moment, it doesn't seem that rel=publisher is doing all that much for sites (aside from sometimes showing better info ion the knowledge graph listing on Brand searches) but personally I believe it's functionality and influence are going to be greatly expanded fairly soon, so well worth doing. As far as it contributing anything to help speed up indexing... doubt it.
P.
-
Paul,
Thanks... you hit upon my hunch, that we will just have to wait.
Much of the information in the SERPs (metadescriptions, titles and urls) are still old,even though they redirect to the new pages when I click.
Thanks for the tip... and about social media.
Do you think it will help to get the rel=publisher link to the Google+ page on the site?
Erin
-
A lot of people, especially WP users use modules that may block certain spiders crawling your site, but in your case, you don't seem to have any.
-
If you just changed the robots.txt file yesterday, my guess is you're going to have to be patient while the site gets recrawled, Erin. Any of the pages that are in the index and were cached before yesterday's robots update will still include the directive not to include the metadescription (since that's the condition they were under when they were cached.)
I suspect the pages you're seeing with metadescriptions were crawled since the robots update. Are you seeing the same page change whether it shows metadescription or not?
As far as old pages showing in the SERPs, again they'll all have to be crawled before the 301 redirects can be discovered and the SEs can begin to understand they should be dropped. (Even then it can take days to weeks for the originals to drop out.)
Another very effective way to help get the new site indexed faster is to attract some good-quality new links to the new pages. Social Media can be especially effective for this, Google+ in particular.
Paul
-
Thanks!
What do I need to look for in the .htaccess file?
Here is what is there... and the rest (not shown) are redirects:
BEGIN WordPress <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^index.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L]</ifmodule> # END WordPress
BEGIN WordPress <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^index.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L]</ifmodule> # END WordPress
-
Thanks for the tips! Let me check it out.
-
I'd also insure its not something to do with your .htacess file.
-
Make sure the pages aren't blocked with meta robots noindex tag
Fetch as Google in WMT to request a full site recrawl.
Run brokenlinkcheck.com and see if their crawler is successfully crawling or if it's blocked.
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
-
Meta Description
Hello, For example let say I do hiking tour in different regions and all my pages are presented the same way with the highlights, hotels, what is included, the price, the level and the dates. I guess that across my pages the meta description is going to be the same, the only thing that is going to change is the destination. Is it ok to do it this way ? I know it isn't recommend to do duplicate but in this type of configuration I have no idea on have to do different meta knowing all the pages present the same things. Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
How much is the importance of grammar and formation of sentence in Meta Title and Description in SEO
We are having, say around 100 products, cakes to be specific, with different flavors, available in more than 100000 areas of 200 plus cities. Now to make it SEO friendly, we have an algorithm which creates a unique page for each cake name, with area name, and few keywords, so that if customer is searching for cake delivery in any specific area of specific city, the user will easily find the right page. Now the thing is - when creating such unique pages for different combinations of cake, city and areas, it is also creating some content. So we wanted to know how much is the importance given to Grammatically correct statement compared to incorrect statement in ranking a page. for example: there is 1Kg Chocolate Cake, available in Satellite Area of Ahmedabad city, which one of the following Page title will have higher ranking? Case A: Send 1Kg chocolate cake to satellite area ahmedabad online Case B: Online 1kg Chocolate Cake delivery in Satellite Ahmedabad In Case A: the statement contains all keywords, but there are some grammatical mistakes in formation of statement as well as Capital Characters are not used for Satellite (Area name) and Ahmedabad (City name) In Case B: the statement is grammatical proper, as well as capital characters are used for Area name and City name. Does all search engine also have their algorithm designed to analyze the grammatical structure of page title or it just scans the keywords? Thanks in advance. Team Midnightcake
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | midnightcake1 -
Syndicated content with meta robots 'noindex, nofollow': safe?
Hello, I manage, with a dedicated team, the development of a big news portal, with thousands of unique articles. To expand our audiences, we syndicate content to a number of partner websites. They can publish some of our articles, as long as (1) they put a rel=canonical in their duplicated article, pointing to our original article OR (2) they put a meta robots 'noindex, follow' in their duplicated article + a dofollow link to our original article. A new prospect, to partner with with us, wants to follow a different path: republish the articles with a meta robots 'noindex, nofollow' in each duplicated article + a dofollow link to our original article. This is because he doesn't want to pass pagerank/link authority to our website (as it is not explicitly included in the contract). In terms of visibility we'd have some advantages with this partnership (even without link authority to our site) so I would accept. My question is: considering that the partner website is much authoritative than ours, could this approach damage in some way the ranking of our articles? I know that the duplicated articles published on the partner website wouldn't be indexed (because of the meta robots noindex, nofollow). But Google crawler could still reach them. And, since they have no rel=canonical and the link to our original article wouldn't be followed, I don't know if this may cause confusion about the original source of the articles. In your opinion, is this approach safe from an SEO point of view? Do we have to take some measures to protect our content? Hope I explained myself well, any help would be very appreciated, Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fabio80
Fab0 -
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 -
Drop of 11 places - server issues?
Hi all, I have experienced a drop of 11 places for our main keyword since our last Moz rankings report which means page 2 to page 3. I have also received an error 904 in my weekly crawl report two weeks in a row and think this may be the reason for the drop. Could this result in a drop of 11 places? Last week I also tweeked the H1 tags on my main landing pages, nothing major just a reordering of the words. Could this result in such a major drop? Final question is does anyone know of any major algorithm update last week that could have affected rankings so drastically? Thanks all
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gavinr
Gavin0 -
C Block IP Links Strategy
Hi guys i run a web design company and have around 50 sites that i have designed most dont have links but to us i was considering adding a footer link that will link to a blog page within that site, each post on each site will have unique content about the project and about us as a design company. As you can see most of my ip address are c blocks, any advice here please, thanks in advance Example Ip list
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Will_Craig
abc.32.230.1
def.20.252.37
ghi.48.68.82
zz.32.229.131
zz.32.231.208
zz.32.253.87
xx.170.40.170
xx.170.40.172
xx.170.40.232
xx.170.40.247
xx.170.40.32
xx.170.43.200
xx.170.44.103
xx.170.44.105
xx.170.44.108
xx.170.44.111
xx.170.44.127
xx.170.44.137
xx.170.44.146
xx.170.44.157
xx.170.44.77
xx.170.44.81
xx.170.44.86
xx.170.44.95
xx.170.44.96 [question edited by staff to remove full IP addresses]0 -
Meta tag description Usage
Do i wanna put meta tags as separate description that is not in the particular web page ,Normally i put meta description as 155 character from first paragraph of the web page .so do i need put a unique meta description ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | innofidelity0 -
Robots.txt: Link Juice vs. Crawl Budget vs. Content 'Depth'
I run a quality vertical search engine. About 6 months ago we had a problem with our sitemaps, which resulted in most of our pages getting tossed out of Google's index. As part of the response, we put a bunch of robots.txt restrictions in place in our search results to prevent Google from crawling through pagination links and other parameter based variants of our results (sort order, etc). The idea was to 'preserve crawl budget' in order to speed the rate at which Google could get our millions of pages back in the index by focusing attention/resources on the right pages. The pages are back in the index now (and have been for a while), and the restrictions have stayed in place since that time. But, in doing a little SEOMoz reading this morning, I came to wonder whether that approach may now be harming us... http://www.seomoz.org/blog/restricting-robot-access-for-improved-seo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kurus
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/serious-robotstxt-misuse-high-impact-solutions Specifically, I'm concerned that a) we're blocking the flow of link juice and that b) by preventing Google from crawling the full depth of our search results (i.e. pages >1), we may be making our site wrongfully look 'thin'. With respect to b), we've been hit by Panda and have been implementing plenty of changes to improve engagement, eliminate inadvertently low quality pages, etc, but we have yet to find 'the fix'... Thoughts? Kurus0