Disallow: /jobs/? is this stopping the SERPs from indexing job posts
-
Hi,
I was wondering what this would be used for as it's in the Robots.exe of a recruitment agency website that posts jobs. Should it be removed?Disallow: /jobs/?
Disallow: /jobs/page/*/Thanks in advance.
James -
Hi James,
So far as I can see you have the following architecture:
- job posting: https://www.pkeducation.co.uk/job/post-name/
- jobs listing page: https://www.pkeducation.co.uk/jobs/
Since from the robots.txt the listing page pagination is blocked, the crawler can access only the first 15 job postings are available to crawl via a normal crawl.
I would say, you should remove the blocking from the robots.txt and focus on implementing a correct pagination. *which method you choose is your decision, but allow the crawler to access all of your job posts. Check https://yoast.com/pagination-seo-best-practices/
Another thing I would change is to make the job post title an anchor text for the job posting. (every single job is linked with "Find out more").
Also if possible, create a separate sitemap.xml for your job posts and submit it in Search Console, this way you can keep track of any anomaly with indexation.
Last, and not least, focus on the quality of your content (just as Matt proposed in the first answer).
Good luck!
-
Hi Istvan,
Sorry I've been away for a while. Thanks for all of your advice guys.
Here is the url if that helps?
https://www.pkeducation.co.uk/jobs/
Cheers,
James
-
The idea is (which we both highlighted), that blocking your listing page from robots.txt is wrong, for pagination you have several methods to deal with (how you deal with it, it really depends on the technical possibilities that you have on the project).
Regarding James' original question, my feeling is, that he is somehow blocking their posting pages. Cutting the access to these pages makes it really hard for Google, or any other search engine to index it. But without a URL in front of us, we cannot really answer his question, we can only create theories that he can test
-
Ah yes when it's pointed out like that, it's a conflicting signal isn't It. Makes sense in theory, but if you're setting it to noindex and then passing that on via a canonical it's probably not the best is it.
They're was link out in that thread to a discussion of people who still do that with success, but after reading that I would just use noindex only as you said. (Still prefer the no index on the robots block though)
-
Sorry Richard, but using noindex with canonical link is not quite a good practice.
It's an old entry, but still true: https://www.seroundtable.com/noindex-canonical-google-18274.html
-
I don't think it should be blocked by robots.txt at all. It's stopping Google from crawling the site fully. And they may even treat it negatively as they've been really clamping down on blocking folders with robots.txt lately. I've seen sites with warning in search console for: Disallow: /wp-admin
You may want to consider just using a noindex tag on those pages instead. And then also use a canonical tag that points back to the main job category page. That way Google can crawl the pages and perhaps pass all the juice back to the main job category page via the canonical. Then just make sure those junk job pages aren't in the sitemap either.
-
Hi James,
Regarding the robots.txt syntax:
Disallow: /jobs/? which basically blocks every single URL that contains /jobs/**? **
For example: domain.com**/jobs/?**sort-by=... will be blocked
If you want to disallow query parameters from URL, the correct implementation would be Disallow: /jobs/*? or even specify which query parameter you want to block. For example Disallow: /jobs/*?page=
My question to you, if these jobs are linked from any other page and/or sitemap? Or only from the listing page, which has it's pagination, sorting, etc. is blocked by robots.txt? If they are not linked, it could be a simple case of orphan pages, where basically the crawler cannot access the job posting pages, because there is no actual link to it. I know it is an old rule, but it is still true: Crawl > Index > Rank.
BTW. I don't know why you would block your pagination. There are other optimal implementations.
And there is always the scenario, that was already described by Matt. But I believe in that case you would have at least some of the pages indexed even if they are not going to get ranked well.
Also, make sure other technical implementations are not stopping your job posting pages from being indexed.
-
I'd guess that the jobs get pulled from a job board. If this is the case, then the content ( job description, title etc.) will just be a duplication of the content that can be found in many other locations. If a plugin is used, they sometimes automatically add a disallow into the robots.txt file as to not hurt the parent version of the job page by creating thousands of duplicate content issues.
I'd recommend creating some really high-quality hub pages based on job type, or location and pulling the relevant jobs into that page, instead of trying to index and rank the actual job pages.
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
-
Should m-dot sites be indexed at all
I have a client with a site with a m-dot mobile version. They will move it to a responsive site sometime next year but in meanwhile I have a massive doubt. This m-dot site has some 30k indexed pages in Google. Each of this page is bidirectionally linked to the www. version (rel="alternate on the www, rel canonical on the m-dot) There is no noindex on the m-dot site, so I understand that Google might decide to index the m-dot pages regardless of the canonical to the www site. But my doubts stays: is it a bad thing that both the version are indexed? Is this having a negative impact on the crawling budget? Or risking some other bad consequence? and how is the mobile-first going to impact on this? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | newbiebird0 -
How to 301 Redirect /page.php to /page, after a RewriteRule has already made /page.php accessible by /page (Getting errors)
A site has its URLs with php extensions, like this: example.com/page.php I used the following rewrite to remove the extension so that the page can now be accessed from example.com/page RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME}.php -f
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rcseo
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ $1.php [L] It works great. I can access it via the example.com/page URL. However, the problem is the page can still be accessed from example.com/page.php. Because I have external links going to the page, I want to 301 redirect example.com/page.php to example.com/page. I've tried this a couple of ways but I get redirect loops or 500 internal server errors. Is there a way to have both? Remove the extension and 301 the .php to no extension? By the way, if it matters, page.php is an actual file in the root directory (not created through another rewrite or URI routing). I'm hoping I can do this, and not just throw a example.com/page canonical tag on the page. Thanks!0 -
Google Indexing of Images
Our site is experiencing an issue with indexation of images. The site is real estate oriented. It has 238 listings with about 1190 images. The site submits two version (different sizes) of each image to Google, so there are about 2,400 images. Only several hundred are indexed. Can adding Microdata improve the indexation of the images? Our site map is submitting images that are on no-index listing pages to Google. As a result more than 2000 images have been submitted but only a few hundred have been indexed. How should the site map deal with images that reside on no-index pages? Do images that are part of pages that are set up as "no-index" need a special "no-index" label or special treatment? My concern is that so many images that not indexed could be a red flag showing poor quality content to Google. Is it worth investing in correcting this issue, or will correcting it result in little to no improvement in SEO? Thanks, Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Back links Building and article/blog posting
Hi all, I have been researching the best way for back links building, and I would like to ask few questions before I start. Which one of these tools would you recommend for back link building diagnostics. www.linkrisk.com - www.linkdetox.com What would be the best procedure to begin creating healthy back links? Would looking at my competitors back links help me? What would be the recommended amount of back links created per week? Also how many blogs entries should we aim to create per week? The website i'm working on is manvanlondon.co.uk If you guys have any further suggestions please let me know. Many thanks for your time.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | monicapopa0 -
Old/wrong meta-titles in index
Hi, We have problems with old Meta titles in the index of google.nl. If you look for example at this wine: https://www.wijnvoordeel.nl/Italie/Just-Hugo::5460.html The Meta tile is: **Just Hugo | Heerlijke Hugo | Het zomerdrankje van 2014 | Wijnvoordeel ** If you look at the results in Google: https://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=active&q=just hugo The Meta tile is: Just Hugo - Wijnvoordeel(this is an old/automatic generated Meta tile). I already added the code "", but I don't see any progress. Does anybody knows what could be the problem? Thanks for the help! Douwe Veldstra
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eluscious.com0 -
Index, Nofollow Issue
We are having on our site a couple of pages that we want the page to be indexed, however, we don't want the links on the page to be followed. For example url: http://www.printez.com/animal-personal-checks.html. We have added in our code: . Bing Webmaster Tools, is telling us the following: The pages uses a meta robots tag. Review the value of the tag to see if you are not unintentionally blocking the page from being indexed (NOINDEX). Question is, is the page using the right code as of now or do we need to do any changes in the code, if so, what should we use for them to index the page, but not to follow the links on the page? Please advise, Morris
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PrintEZ0 -
Member request pages, indexed or no indexed?
We run a service website and basically users of the site post their request to get certain items fixed/serviced. Through Google Analytics we have found that we got lots of traffic to these request pages from people searching for those particular items. E.g. A member's request page: "Cost to fix large Victorian oven" has got many visits from searchers searching for "large Victorian oven". The traffic to these pages is about 40% of our Google organic traffic but didn't covert to more users/requests well and has roughly 67% bounce rate. So my question is: should we keep these pages indexed and if yes what can we do to improve the conversion rate/reduce bounce rate? Many thanks guys. David
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sssrpm0 -
Problem of indexing
Hello, sorry, I'm French and my English is not necessarily correct. I have a problem indexing in Google. Only the home page is referenced: http://bit.ly/yKP4nD. I am looking for several days but I do not understand why. I looked at: The robots.txt file is ok The sitemap, although it is in ASP, is valid with Google No spam, no hidden text I made a request for reconsideration via Google Webmaster Tools and it has no penalties We do not have noindex So I'm stuck and I'd like your opinion. thank you very much A.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | android_lyon0