Disallow statement - is this tiny anomaly enough to render Disallow invalid?
-
Google site search (site:'hbn.hoovers.com') indicates 171,000 results for this subdomain. That is not a desired result - this site has 100% duplicate content. We don't want SEs spending any time here.
Robots.txt is set up mostly right to disallow all search engines from indexing this site. That asterisk at the end of the disallow statement looks pretty harmless - but could that be why the site has been indexed?
User-agent: * Disallow: /* -
Interesting. I'd never heard that before.
We've never had GA or GWT on these mirror sites before, so it's hard to say what Google is doing these days.
But the goal is definitely to make them and their contents invisible to SEs. We'll get GWT on there and start removing URLs.
Thanks!
-
The additional asterisk shouldn't do you any harm, although standard practice seems to be just putting the "/".
Does it seem like Google is still crawling this subdomain when you look at webmasters crawl stats? While the disallow function in robots.txt will usually stop bots from crawling, it doesn't prevent them from indexing or keeping pages indexed that were before the disallow was put in place. If you want these pages removed from the index, you can request it through webmasters and also use meta robots noindex as opposed to the robots.txt file. Moz has a good article about it here: http://moz.com/blog/robot-access-indexation-restriction-techniques-avoiding-conflicts
If you're just worried about bots crawling the subdomain, it's possible they've already stopped crawling it, but continue to index it due to history or additional indicators suggesting they should index it.
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
-
Huge number of crawl anomalies and 404s - non- existent urls
Hi there, Our site was redesigned at the end of January 2020. Since the new site was launched we have seen a big drop in impressions (50-60%) and also a big drop in total and organic traffic (again 50-60%) when compared to the old site. I know in the current climate some businesses will see a drop in traffic, however we are a tech business and some of our core search terms have increased in search volume as a result of remote-working. According to search console there are 82k urls excluded from coverage - the majority of these are classed as 'crawl anomaly' and there are 250+ 404's - almost all of the urls are non-existent, they have our root domain with a string of random characters on the end. Here are a couple of examples: root.domain.com/96jumblestorebb42a1c2320800306682 root.domain.com/01sportsplazac9a3c52miz-63jth601 root.domain.com/39autoparts-agency26be7ff420582220 root.domain.com/05open-kitchenaf69a7a29510363 Is this a cause for concern? I'm thinking that all of these random fake urls could be preventing genuine pages from being indexed / or they could be having an impact on our search visibility. Can somebody advise please? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | nicola-10 -
Disallowing URL Parameters vs. Canonicalizing
Hi all, I have a client that has a unique search setup. So they have Region pages (/state/city). We want these indexed and are using self-referential canonicals. They also have a search function that emulates the look of the Region pages. When you search for, say, Los Angeles, the URL changes to _/search/los+angeles _and looks exactly like /ca/los-angeles. These search URLs can also have parameters (/search/los+angeles?age=over-2&time[]=part-time), which we obviously don't want indexed. Right now my concern is how best to ensure the /search pages don't get indexed and we don't get hit with duplicate content penalties. The options are this: Self-referential canonicals for the Region pages, and disallow everything after the second slash in /search/ (so the main search page is indexed) Self-referential canonicals for the Region pages, and write a rule that automatically canonicalizes all other search pages to /search. Potential Concern: /search/ URLs are created even with misspellings. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Alces1 -
Disallow wildcard match in Robots.txt
This is in my robots.txt file, does anyone know what this is supposed to accomplish, it doesn't appear to be blocking URLs with question marks Disallow: /?crawler=1
Technical SEO | | AmandaBridge
Disallow: /?mobile=1 Thank you0 -
Robots.txt Disallow: / in Search Console
Two days ago I found out through search console that my website's Robots.txt has changed to User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | RAN_SEO
Disallow: / When I check the robots.txt in the website it looks fine - I see its blocked just in search console( in the robots.txt tester). when I try to do fetch as google to the homepage I see its blocked. Any ideas why would robots.txt block my website? it was fine until the weekend. before that, in the last 3 months I saw I had blocked resources in the website and I brought back pages with fetch as google. Any ideas?0 -
Robots.txt to disallow /index.php/ path
Hi SEOmoz, I have a problem with my Joomla site (yeah - me too!). I get a large amount of /index.php/ urls despite using a program to handle these issues. The URLs cause indexation errors with google (404). Now, I fixed this issue once before, but the problem persist. So I thought, instead of wasting more time, couldnt I just disallow all paths containing /index.php/ ?. I don't use that extension, but would it cause me any problems from an SEO perspective? How do I disallow all index.php's? Is it a simple: Disallow: /index.php/
Technical SEO | | Mikkehl0 -
Spider Indexed Disallowed URLs
Hi there, In order to reduce the huge amount of duplicate content and titles for a cliënt, we have disallowed all spiders for some areas of the site in August via the robots.txt-file. This was followed by a huge decrease in errors in our SEOmoz crawl report, which, of course, made us satisfied. In the meanwhile, we haven't changed anything in the back-end, robots.txt-file, FTP, website or anything. But our crawl report came in this November and all of a sudden all the errors where back. We've checked the errors and noticed URLs that are definitly disallowed. The disallowment of these URLs is also verified by our Google Webmaster Tools, other robots.txt-checkers and when we search for a disallowed URL in Google, it says that it's blocked for spiders. Where did these errors came from? Was it the SEOmoz spider that broke our disallowment or something? You can see the drop and the increase in errors in the attached image. Thanks in advance. [
Technical SEO | | ooseoo
](<a href=)" target="_blank">a> [](<a href=)" target="_blank">a> LAAFj.jpg
0 -
Allow or Disallow First in Robots.txt
If I want to override a Disallow directive in robots.txt with an Allow command, do I have the Allow command before or after the Disallow command? example: Allow: /models/ford///page* Disallow: /models////page
Technical SEO | | irvingw0 -
Link Juice passing through a redirect of a disallowed URL
Hey guys! Suppose I disallow search bots from indexing anything on my secure server in my robots.txt, and 301 redirect all of my secure server traffic to my non-secure site. Will the search bots see the redirect before they realize that they're disallowed from accessing that page? Or will they see that page is disallowed and not follow the redirect? Should I change my robots.txt to allow search bots to crawl my secure site so they can find the redirects?
Technical SEO | | john4math0