Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
How to exclude URL filter searches in robots.txt
-
When I look through my MOZ reports I can see it's included 'pages' which it shouldn't have included i.e. adding filtering rules such as this one http://www.mydomain.com/brands?color=364&manufacturer=505
How can I exclude all of these filters in the robots.txt? I think it'll be:
Disallow: /*?color=$
Is that the correct syntax with the $ sign in it? Thanks!
-
Unless you're specifically calling out Bing or Baidu... in your Robots.txt file they should follow the same directives as Google so testing with Google's Robots.txt file tester should suffice for all of them.
-
Yes, but what about bing and rest of Search Engine?
-
Adrian,
I agree that there certainly is a right answer to the question posted, as the question asks specifically about one way to manage the issue, being a block of filters in the robots.txt file. What I was getting at is that this may or may not necessarily be the "best" way, and that I'd need to look at your site and your unique situation to figure our which would be the best solution for your needs.
It is very likely that with these parameters a robots.txt file block is the best approach, assuming the parameters aren't added by default into category page or category pagination page navigational links, as then it would affect the bot's ability to crawl the site. Also, if people are linking to those URLs (highly unlikely though) you may consider a robots meta noindex,follow tag instead so the pagerank could flow to other pages.
And I'm not entirely sure the code you provided above will work if the blocked parameter is the first one in the string (e.g. domain.com/category/?color=red) as there is the additional wildcard between the ? and the parameter. I would advise testing this in Google Webmaster Tools first.
- On the Webmaster Tools Home page, click the site you want.
- Under Crawl, click Blocked URLs.
- If it's not already selected, click the Test robots.txt tab.
- Copy the content of your robots.txt file, and paste it into the first box.
- In the URLs box, list the site to test against.
- In the User-agents list, select the user-agents you want (e.g. Googlebot)
-
There certainly is a right answer to my question - I already posted it here earlier today:
Disallow: /*?color=
Disallow: /?*manufacturer=Without the $ at the end which would otherwise denote the end of the URL.
-
Hello Adrian,
The Moz reports are meant to help you uncover issues like this. If you're seeing non-canonical URLs in the Moz report then there is a potential issue for Google, Bing and other search engines as well.
Google does respect wildcards (*) in the robots.txt file, though it can easily be done wrong. There is not right or wrong answer to the issue of using filters or faceted navigation, as each circumstance is going to be different. However, I hope some of these articles will help you identify the best approach for your needs:
(Note: Faceted Navigation is not exactly the same as category filters, but the issues and possible solutions are very similar
)Building Faceted Navigation That Doesn't Suck Faceted Navigation Whiteboard Friday
Duplicate Content: Block, Redirect or Canonical
Guide to eCommerce Facets, Filters and Categories
Rel Canonical How To and Why Not
Moz.com Guide to Duplicate ContentI don't know how your store handles these (e.g. does it add the filter automatically, or only when a user selects a filter?) so I can't give you the answer, but I promise if you read those articles above you will have a very good understanding of all of the options so you can choose which is best for you. That might end up being as simple as blocking the filters in your robots.txt file, or you may opt for rel canonical, noindex meta tag, ajax, Google parameter handling, etc...
Good luck!
-
It's not Google's index that I'm interested in in this case, it's for the MOZ reports. Moz was including over 10,000 'pages' because it was indexing these URLs. Now I know how to edit the robots.txt Moz will be prevented from indexing them again (we only have around 2,000 real pages, not 10,000)
-
I sought out the answer from a developer and got the following reply, so posting here in case it helps someone else:
To exclude pages with color or manufacture in them you can use
Disallow: /*?color=
Disallow: /?*manufacturer=A question mark in your try should be omitted as it denotes the end of the url
-
Hi
I would recommend excluding these in Google Webmaster Tools. Once logged in to your account under the "Crawl" menu you will find "URL Parameters". Find the relevant parameter in the list on this page and you can tell Google not to index these pages.
Hope this helps.
Steve
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
-
City Name in URL structure
I have a client whose site was built when they only served one market, and they now have that city in the majority of their URLs. I'm suggesting we redo the URL structure to remove this location from the main URLs (think homepage, about, etc.) since they have now expanded to three markets. They are seeing a lot of great organic traffic in that original market but are struggling in the new ones they've added so I'm helping to optimize their site. How critical do you think that removing that location from the URL is? I know we would need to implement 301 redirects, but wanted to get thoughts on this.
On-Page Optimization | | maghanlinchpinsales0 -
Do Search Engines Try To Follow Phone Number Links
Any SEO thoughts on using rel="nofollow" when inserting a link to a phone number? To make a phone number click to call we use (555) 555-1234 Wondering if search engines are trying to follow that link or if this is standard and not to worry. Any thoughts on if I should add rel="nofollow" to these or does it not matter? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | Lions-Pro0 -
Are the prepositions and separate letters in URL bad for website optimization?
Is it ok for website optimization to use prepositions and separate letters in URL ? Examples: -i-series ; -salad-with-avocado etc.
On-Page Optimization | | adrecom0 -
How important are clean URLs?
Just wanting to understand the importance of clean URLs in regards to SEO effectiveness. Currently, we have URLs for a site that reads as follows: http://www.interhampers.com.au/c/90/Corporate Gift Hampers Should we look into modifying this so that the URL does not have % or figures?
On-Page Optimization | | Gavo1 -
Incoming Search Terms
Hi guys, I saw a blog post recently where the author added a list of "incoming search queries" to the bottom of his post, obviously to improve the post's ranking for those terms. On one hand, I suppose it it does help users find that post. On the other, it seems lazy and somewhat dodgy, but I haven't found any opinions on it elsewhere and have not seen this practice in my experience. What're your thoughts? Outright search engine manipulation? Cheers, Carlo SCWYt
On-Page Optimization | | mtgconsulting0 -
URL length... is >115 now >255?
I've been having detailed discussions with a CMS provider on behalf of a client. Long URLs are the least of their problems however, the developer is arguing that Google has amended their algorithm and will now read URLs that are up to 255 characters long. I have stated that as far as I am aware, Google will still not read URLs over 115 characters... Before I stamp my feet, can someone confirm what is actually happening? SEOmoz still classes URLs >115 characters long as an amber issue. Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Switch_Digital0 -
Does a page's url have any weight in Google rankings?
I'm sure this question must have been asked before but I can't find it. I'm assuming that the title tag is far more important than the page's url. Is that correct? Does the url have any relevance to Google?
On-Page Optimization | | rdreich490 -
How long is too long for domain URL length?
I noticed one of the negatively correlated ranking factors was length of URL. I'm building a page from scratch, we are trying to rank for 'Minneapolis Fitness' and 'Minneapolis Massage'. Is www.minnnepolismassageandfitness.com just ridiculously long? Or does the exact match outweigh the penalty for URL length?
On-Page Optimization | | JesseCWalker2