Using Meta Header vs Robots.txt
-
Hey Mozzers,
I am working on a site that has search-friendly parameters for their faceted navigation, however this makes it difficult to identify the parameters in a robots.txt file. I know that using the robots.txt file is highly recommended and powerful, but I am not sure how to do this when facets are using common words such as sizes.
For example, a filtered url may look like www.website.com/category/brand/small.html Brand and size are both facets. Brand is a great filter, and size is very relevant for shoppers, but many products include "small" in the url, so it is tough to isolate that filter in the robots.txt. (I hope that makes sense).
I am able to identify problematic pages and edit the Meta Head so I can add on any page that is causing these duplicate issues. My question is, is this a good idea? I want bots to crawl the facets, but indexing all of the facets causes duplicate issues.
Thoughts?
-
"there is no penalty for have duplicates of your own content"
Alan,
I must respectfully disagree with this statement. Perhaps google will not penalize you directly, but it is easy to self-canabalize key terms if one has many facets that only differ slightly. I have seen this on a site where they don't rank on the first page, but they have 3-4 pages on the second page or SERPs. This is the exact issue that I am trying to resolve.
Evan
ps. sorry I hit the wrong button, but you got a good answer out of it
-
Hey Craig,
I agree with you regarding the robots.txt, however, how does one isolate parameters that are commonly used within product names, thus being the the product url as well. We are using a plugin the makes the urls more user friendly, but it makes it tough to isolate "small" or "blue" because the parameters don't include a "?sort=" or "color=" prefix anymore.
This is why I am considering using the meta header in order to control help with the issues of the duplicate content and crawl allowance?
Since I can edit the meta headers on a variety of pages, is it a viable option to use NOINDEX,FOLLOW?
-
As mentioned initially, the CMS doesn't allow me to edit canonicals for individual pages that are created via facets. The other question I had about canonicals is that a rel canonical is meant to help bots understand that different variations of the same page are, in fact, the same page: example.com = example.com/. But, for the user (which ultimately bots care about), example.com/sony/50 may not always be the same as example.com/sony.
Anyways, that is a little beside the point. I have visited the options of canonicals, but I am not sure it can be done.
-
This sounds like a job for a canonical tag.
-
Hey Craig,
Thanks for your response. This is the common answer that I have found. Here is the challenge I am having (I will use your example above):
Let's say that example.com/tv/sony is the main category page for this brand, but I only carry a few Sony tvs. Therefore, the only difference between that page and this page: example.com/tv/sony/50 is a category description that disappears when further facets are chosen.
When I search in the SERPS for "Sony TVs", rather than ranking well for one of these pages, both rank moderately well, but not well enough for first page results, and I would think this is confusing to customers as well to find two very closely related pages side by side.
So, while I agree that robots.txt is a tool that I can apply for limiting search engines from getting dizzy with the facets by limiting them to (say) 4, is NOINDEX the best solution for controlling duplicate content issues that are not that deep, and more case-by-case?
One more thing I might add is that these issues don't happen site-wide. If I carry many products from Samsung, than example.com/tv/samsung and example.com/tv/samsung/50 and even example.com/tv/samsung/50/HD will produce very different results. The issue usually occurs where there are few products for a brand, and they filter the same way with many facets.
Does that make sense? I agree with you whole heartedly, I am just trying to figure out how to deal with the shallow duplicate issues.
Cheers,
-
they will be linked to by internal links,
There is no penalty for have duplicates of your own content, but having links pouring away link juice is a self imposed penalty.
-
Hi Alan, I understand that, but the problem Evan is describing seems to be related to duplicate content and crawl allowance. There's no perfect answer but in my experience the types of pages that Evan is describing aren't often linked to. Taking that into consideration, IMO robots.txt is the correct solution.
-
The problem with robots text is that any link pointing to a no-indexed page is passing link juice that will never be returned, it is wasted. robots.txt is the last resort, IMO its should never be used.
-
Hi Even, this is quite a common problem. There are a couple of things to consider when deciding if Noindex is the solution rather than robots.txt.
Unless there is a reason the pages need to be crawled (like there are pages on the site that are only linked to from those pages) I would use robots.txt. Noindex doesn't stop search engines crawling those pages, only from putting them in the index. So in theory, search engines could spend all there time crawling pages that you don't want to be in the index.
Here's what I'd do:
Decide on a reasonable number of facets, for example, if you're selling TVs people might search for:
- Sony TV (Brand search)
- 50 inch sony tv (size + brand)
- Sony 50 inch HD TV (brand + size + specification)
But past 3 facets tends to get very little search volume (do keyword research for your own market)
In this case I'd create a rule that appends something to the URL after 3 facets hat would make it easy to block in robots.txt. For example I might make my structure:
But as soon as I add a 4th facet, for example 'colour'- I add in the filter subfolder
- example.com**/filter/**tv/sony/50/HD/white
I can then easily block all these pages in robots.txt using:
Disallow: /filter/
I hope this helps.
-
It is a problem in the SERPS because if I run a query for the brand, I can see faceted variations of that brand (say "brand" "blue") is ranking right below, but neither of them are ranking on the first page. I won't NOINDEX all pages, just those that don't provide value for customers searching, and those that are competing with competitive terms that are causing the preferred page to rank lower.
It was brought to my attention through Moz analytics, and once I began to investigate it further, I found many sources mentioning that this is very common for e-commerce. Common practice is robots.txt and a plugin, but we are using a different plugin. So, for this reason, I am trying to figure out if NOINDEX meta headers are a good option.
Does that make sense?
-
I'm not sure you have a problem, why not let them all get indexed?
-
Hey Alan,
Again, I thank you for your feedback. Unfortunately rel prev/next are not relevant in this circumstance. Also, it is all unique content on my client's own site, and I know that it is a duplicate content problem because I have 2 similar pages with slightly different facets ranking 14 and 15 in SERPS. If search engines were to choose one over the other, they would not rank them back to back.
For clarification, this is an e-commerce application with faceted navigation. Not a pagination issue.
Thanks for your input.
-
I would look at canonical and rel previous next,
Also I would establish do you have a problem?
duplicate content is not always a problem, if it is duplicate content on your own site then there is not a lot to worry about, google will rank just one page. There is no penalty for DC itself, if you are screen scaping then you may have a problem,
-
Hey Alan,
Thanks for your feedback. I guess I am not sure what "other solutions there are for this circumstance. The CMS does allow me to use rel=canonicals for individual pages with facets, I definitely don't think 301s are the way to go. I figured the NOINDEX, FOLLOW is best because it blocks bots from confusing duplicate content, but can still take advantage of some link juice. Mind you, these are faceted pages, not top level pages.
Thoughts?
-
robotx.txt is a bad way to do things, because any links pointing to a noindexed page wastes its link juice. using noindex,follow is a better way as it allows the links to be followed and link juice to return to your indexed pages.
but best not to noindex at all, and find another solution if posible
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
-
Absolute vs. Relative Canonical Links
Hi Moz Community, I have a client using relative links for their canonicals (vs. absolute) Google appears to be following this just fine, but bing, etc. are still sending organic traffic to the non-canonical links. It's a drupal setup. Anyone have advice? Should I recommend that all canonical links be absolute? They are strapped for resources, so this would be a PITA if it won't make a difference. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SimpleSearch1 -
Robots.txt and redirected backlinks
Hey there, since a client's global website has a very complex structure which lead to big duplicate content problems, we decided to disallow crawler access and instead allow access to only a few relevant subdirectories. While indexing has improved since this I was wondering if we might have cut off link juice. Since several backlinks point to the disallowed root directory and are from there redirected (301) to the allowed directory I was wondering if this could cause any problems? Example: If there is a backlink pointing to example.com (disallowed in robots.txt) and is redirected from there to example.com/uk/en (allowed in robots.txt). Would this cut off the link juice? Thanks a lot for your thoughts on this. Regards, Jochen
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Online-Marketing-Guy0 -
Question about Syntax in Robots.txt
So if I want to block any URL from being indexed that contains a particular parameter what is the best way to put this in the robots.txt file? Currently I have-
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt
Disallow: /attachment_id Where "attachment_id" is the parameter. Problem is I still see these URL's indexed and this has been in the robots now for over a month. I am wondering if I should just do Disallow: attachment_id or Disallow: attachment_id= but figured I would ask you guys first. Thanks!0 -
Canonical Vs No Follow for Duplicate Products
I am in the process of migrating a site from Volusion to BigCommerce. There is a limitation on the ability to display one product in 2 different ways. Here is the situation. One of the manufacturers will not allow us to display products to customers who are not logged in. We have convinced them to let us display the products with no prices. Then we created an Exclusive Contractor section that will allow users to see the price and be able to purchase the products online. Originally we were going to just direct users to call to make purchases like our competitors are doing. Because we have a large amount of purchasers online we wanted to manipulate the system to be able to allow online purchases. Since these products will have duplicates with no pricing I was thinking that Canonical tags would be kind of best practice. However, everything will be behind a firewall with a message directing people to log in. Since this will undoubtedly create a high bounce rate I feel like I need to no follow those links. This is a rather large site, over 5000 pages. The 250 no follow URLs most likely won't have a large impact on the overall performance of the site. Or so I hope anyway. My gut tells me if these products are going to technically be hidden from the searcher they should also be hidden from the engines. Does Disallowing these URLs seem like a better way to do this than simply using the Canonical tags? Any thoughts or suggestions would be really helpful!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MonicaOConnor0 -
Duplicate meta descriptions
Hi All Does having quite a few Duplicate meta descriptions hurt SEO. I am worried that I have too many and thinking this could be the reason for my recent drop in search visibility. Thanks in Advance. Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Andy-Halliday0 -
Using disavow tool for 404s
Hey Community, Got a question about the disavow tool for you. My site is getting thousands of 404 errors from old blog/coupon/you name it sites linking to our old URL structure (which used underscores and ended in .jsp). It seems like the webmasters of these sites aren't answering back or haven't updated their sites in ages so it's returning 404 errors. If I disavow these domains and/or links will it clear out these 404 errors in Google? I read the GWT help page on it, but it didn't seem to answer this question. Feel free to ask any questions that may help you understand the issue more. Thanks for your help,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IceIcebaby
-Reed0 -
Blocking out specific URLs with robots.txt
I've been trying to block out a few URLs using robots.txt, but I can't seem to get the specific one I'm trying to block. Here is an example. I'm trying to block something.com/cats but not block something.com/cats-and-dogs It seems if it setup my robots.txt as so.. Disallow: /cats It's blocking both urls. When I crawl the site with screaming flog, that Disallow is causing both urls to be blocked. How can I set up my robots.txt to specifically block /cats? I thought it was by doing it the way I was, but that doesn't seem to solve it. Any help is much appreciated, thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Whebb0 -
Robots.txt file - How to block thosands of pages when you don't have a folder path
Hello.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Unity
Just wondering if anyone has come across this and can tell me if it worked or not. Goal:
To block review pages Challenge:
The URLs aren't constructed using folders, they look like this:
www.website.com/default.aspx?z=review&PG1234
www.website.com/default.aspx?z=review&PG1235
www.website.com/default.aspx?z=review&PG1236 So the first part of the URL is the same (i.e. /default.aspx?z=review) and the unique part comes immediately after - so not as a folder. Looking at Google recommendations they show examples for ways to block 'folder directories' and 'individual pages' only. Question:
If I add the following to the Robots.txt file will it block all review pages? User-agent: *
Disallow: /default.aspx?z=review Much thanks,
Davinia0