Meta NoIndex tag and Robots Disallow
-
Hi all,
I hope you can spend some time to answer my first of a few questions
We are running a Magento site - layered/faceted navigation nightmare has created thousands of duplicate URLS!
Anyway, during my process to tackle the issue, I disallowed in Robots.txt anything in the querystring that was not a p (allowed this for pagination).
After checking some pages in Google, I did a site:www.mydomain.com/specificpage.html and a few duplicates came up along with the original with
"There is no information about this page because it is blocked by robots.txt"So I had added in Meta Noindex, follow on all these duplicates also but I guess it wasnt being read because of Robots.txt.
So coming to my question.
-
Did robots.txt block access to these pages? If so, were these already in the index and after disallowing it with robots, Googlebot could not read Meta No index?
-
Does Meta Noindex Follow on pages actually help Googlebot decide to remove these pages from index?
I thought Robots would stop and prevent indexation? But I've read this:
"Noindex is a funny thing, it actually doesn’t mean “You can’t index this”, it means “You can’t show this in search results”. Robots.txt disallow means “You can’t index this” but it doesn’t mean “You can’t show it in the search results”.I'm a bit confused about how to use these in both preventing duplicate content in the first place and then helping to address dupe content once it's already in the index.
Thanks!
B
-
-
There's no real way to estimate how long the re-crawl will take, Ben. You can get a bit of an idea by looking at the crawl rate reported in Google Webmaster Tools.
Yes, asking for a page fetch then submitting with linked pages for each of the main website sections can help speed up the crawl discovery. In addition, make sure you've submitted a current sitemap and it's getting found correctly (also reported in GWT) You should also do the same in Bing Webmaster Tools. Too many sites forget about optimizing for Bing - even if it's only 20% of Google's traffic, there's no point throwing it away.
Lastly, earning some new links to different sections of the site is another great signal. This can often be effectively & quickly done using social media - especially Google+ as it gets crawled very quickly.
As far as your other question - yes, once you get the unwanted URLs out of the index, you can add the robots.txt disallow back in to optimise your crawl budget. I would strongly recommend you leave the meta-robots no-index tag in place though as a "belt & suspenders" approach to keep pages linking into those unwanted pages from triggering a re-indexing. It's OK to have both in place as long as the de-indexing has already been accomplished, as we've discussed.
Hope that answer your questions?
Paul
-
So once Google has started to see the meta-noindex and is slowly deindexing pages, once that is done, I would like to block it from crawling them with a robots.txt to conserve my crawl budget.
But, there are still internal links on the site that point to these URL´s - would they get back into the index in this case?
-
Hi Paul,
Thank you for your detailed answer - so I'm not going crazy
I did try with canonicals but then realized they are more of a suggestion as opposed to a directive and I am still correcting a lot of dupe content and 404's so I am imagining that Google view's the site as "these guys don't know what they are doing' so may have ignored the canonical suggestion.
So what I have done is remove the robots block on the pages I want de-indexed and add in meta noindex, follow on these pages - From what you are saying, they should naturally de-index, after which, I will put the robots.txt block back on to keep my crawl budget spent on better areas of the site.
How long in your opinion can it take for Googlebot to de-index the pages? Can I help it along at all to speed up? Fetch page and linking pages as Googlebot?
Thanks again,
Ben
-
You're right to be confused, B. The terminology is unfortunate and misleading.
To answer your questions
1. Yes
2. Yes.
A disallow in robots.txt does nothing to remove already-indexed pages. That's not its purpose. Its only purpose is to tell the search crawlers not to waste their time crawling those pages. Even if pages have been blocked in robots, they will remain in the index if already there. Even if never crawled, and blocked in robots.txt, they can still end up indexed if some other indexed page links to them and the crawlers find those pages by following links. Again, nothing in a robots.txt disallow tells the engines to remove a page from the index, just not to waste time crawling it.
Put another way, the robots.txt disallow directive only disallows crawling - it says nothing about what to do if the page gets into the index in other ways.
The meta-robots no-index tag however explicitly states to the crawler "if you arrive at this page, do not add it to the index. If it is already in the index, remove it".
And yea - as you suspected - if pages are blocked in robots.txt, the crawler obeys and doesn't visit those pages So it can't discover the no-index command to drop them from the index. Thus the only way a page could get dropped is if a crawler followed a link from an external site and discovered the page that way. A very inefficient way of trying to get all those pages out of the index.
Bottom line - robots.txt is never the correct tool to deal with duplicate content issues. It's sole purpose is to keep the crawlers from wasting time on unimportant pages so they can spend more time finding (and therefore indexing) more important pages.
The three tools for dealing with duplicate content are meta-robots no-index tags in a page header, 301 redirects, and canonical tags. Which one to use depends on the architecture of your site, your intended purpose, and the site's technical limitations.
Hope that makes sense?
Paul
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
-
If I use links intag instead of "ahref" tag can Google read links inside div tag?
Hi All, Need a suggestion on it. For buttons, I am using links in tag instead of "ahref". Do you know that can Google read links inside "div" tag? Does it pass rank juice? It will be great if you can provide any reference if possible.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pujan.bikroy0 -
¿Disallow duplicate URL?
Hi comunity, thanks for answering my question. I have a problem with a website. My website is: http://example.examples.com/brand/brand1 (good URL) but i have 2 filters to show something and this generate 2 URL's more: http://example.examples.com/brand/brand1?show=true (if we put 1 filter) http://example.examples.com/brand/brand1?show=false (if we put other filter) My question is, should i put in robots.txt disallow for these filters like this: **Disallow: /*?show=***
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | thekiller990 -
Google Ignoring Canonical Tag for Hundreds of Sites
Bazaar Voice provides a pretty easy-to-use product review solution for websites (especially sites on Magento): https://www.magentocommerce.com/magento-connect/bazaarvoice-conversations-1.html If your product has over a certain number of reviews/questions, the plugin cuts off the number of reviews/questions that appear on the page. To see the reviews/questions that are cut off, you have to click the plugin's next or back function. The next/back buttons' URLs have a parameter of "bvstate....." I have noticed Google is indexing this "bvstate..." URL for hundreds of sites, even with the proper rel canonical tag in place. Here is an example with Microsoft: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zcxT7MRHHREJ:www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Surface-Book/productID.325716000%3Fbvstate%3Dpg:8/ct:r+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us My website is seeing hundreds of these "bvstate" urls being indexed even though we have a proper rel canonical tag in place. It seems that Google is ignoring the canonical tag. In Webmaster Console, the main source of my duplicate titles/metas in the HTML improvements section is the "bvstate" URLs. I don't necessarily want to block "bvstate" in the robots.txt as it will prohibit Google from seeing the reviews that were cutoff. Same response for prohibiting Google from crawling "bvstate" in Paramters section of Webmaster Console. Should I just keep my fingers crossed that Google honors the rel canonical tag? Home Depot is another site that has this same issue: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k0MBLFcu2PoJ:www.homedepot.com/p/DUROCK-Next-Gen-1-2-in-x-3-ft-x-5-ft-Cement-Board-172965/202263276%23!bvstate%3Dct:r/pg:2/st:p/id:202263276+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | redgatst1 -
Question about structuring @id schema tags
We are using JSON-LD to apply schema. My colleague had question about applying @id tags in the schema parent lists: While implementing schema, we've included @id as a parameter to both the "list" child of "ListItem" of a "BreadcrumbList" - on the same schema, we've added an @id parameter to mainContentOfPage and both @id parameters are set to the pages URL. Having this @id in both places is giving schema checker results that have the child elements of "mainContentOfPage" appearing under the "list" item. Questions: is this good or bad? Where should @id be used? What should @id be set to? Thanks for the insight!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RosemaryB0 -
XML and Disallow
I was just curious about any potential side effects of a client Basically utilizing a catch-all solution through the use of a spider for generating their XML Sitemap and then disallowing some of the directories in the XML sitemap in the robots.txt. i.e.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt
XML contains 500 URLs
50 URLs contain /dirw/
I don't want anything with /dirw/ indexed just because they are fairly useless. No content, one image. They utilize the robots.txt file to " disallow: /dirw/ " Lets say they do this for maybe 3 separate directories making up roughly 30% of the URL's in the XML sitemap. I am just advising they re-do the sitemaps because that shouldn't be too dificult but I am curious about the actual ramifications of this other than "it isn't a clear and concise indication to the SE and therefore should be made such" if there are any. Thanks!0 -
Pagination duplicate title and meta description
Hello, Getting a lot of duplicate title and meta description errors via google webmaster tools. For best SEO practices, do i no-index the page/2's, page/3's...? More importantly, i see how MOZ did it by adding "page 3" to their titles such as http://moz.com/blog?page=3. Is that a better way of doing it? If so, how do i do that on Yoast SEO? Thank you so much!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Shawn1240 -
Meta Refresh tag on cache pages- GRRR!
Hi guys, All of our product pages originate in a URL with a unique number but it redirects to an SEO url for the user. These product pages have blocks on the page and these blocks are automatically populated with our database of content. Here's an example of the redirect in place: www.example.com/45643/xxxx.html redirects to www.example.com/seo-friendly-url.html The development team did this for 2 reasons. 1) our internal search needs the unique numbered urls for search and 2) it allows quick redirects as pages are cached. The problem I face is this, the redirects from the cached are being tagged with 'meta refresh', yup, they are 302. The development team said they could stop caching and respond dynamically with a 301 but this would bring in a delay. Speed wise, the cached pages load within 22ms and dynamically 530ms, so yeah half a second more. Currently cached pages just do a meta refresh tagged redirect and I want to move away from this. What would you guys recommend in such a situation? I feel like unless I place a 301, I'll be losing out on rank juice.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
Should HTML Heading Tags ALWAYS be in Hierarchical Order?
The question is in the title: Should HTML Heading Tags ALWAYS be in Hierarchical Order? For example, using them in order: H1, H2, H3... etc. Or is it OK to have H2 tags before the main H1 tag on a page? - for example sidebar content with H2 headings before the main content H1 tag? Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter2640