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
-
Just caught this a bit late and probably to late to add something but my two pence is test it in Webmaster Tools, via Crawl -> Robot.txt tester - if you've not used this before simply add the url you want to test and Google highlights the directive that allows or disallows it.
-
Thank you Cyrus, yes, I have tried your suggested robots.txt checker and despite it validates the file, it shows me a couple of warnings about the "unusual" use of wildcard. It is my understanding that I would probably need to discuss all this with Google folks directly.
Thank you for you answer... and, yes Keri, I know this is a old thread, but still useful today!
Thanks
-
Can't say with 100% confidence, but sounds like it might work. You could always upload it to a server and use a robots.txt checker to validate, although sometimes the validator tools may incorporate slight differences in edge cases like this that make them moot.
-
Just a quick note, this question is actually from spring of 2012.
-
What about something like:
allow: /directory/$
disallow: /directory/*
Where I want this to be indexed:
http://www.mysite.com/directory/
But not this:
http://www.mysite.com/directory/sub-directory/
Ideas?
-
I really appreciate all that effort you put in to ensure your method was correct. many thanks.
-
Interesting question - I've had this discussion a couple of times with different SEOs. Here's my best understanding: There are actually 2 different answers - one if you are talking about Google, and one for every other search engine.
For most search engines, the "Allow" should come first. This is because the first matching pattern always wins, for the reasons Geoff stated.
But Google is different. They state:
"At a group-member level, in particular for
allow
anddisallow
directives, the most specific rule based on the length of the [path] entry will trump the less specific (shorter) rule. The order of precedence for rules with wildcards is undefined."Robots.txt Specifications - Webmasters — Google Developers
So for Google, order is not important, only the specificity of the rule based on the length of the entry. But the order of precedence for rules with wildcards is undefined.
This last part is important, because your directives contain wildcards. If I'm reading this right, your particular directives:
Allow: /models/ford///page*
Disallow: /models////pageSo if it's "undefined" which directive will Google follow, if order isn't important? Fortunately, there's a simple way to find out.Google Webmaster allows you to test any robots.txt file. I created a dummy file based on your rules, In this case, your directives worked perfectly no matter what order I put them in.
| http://cyrusshepard.com/models/ford/test/test/pages | Allowed by line 2: Allow: /models/ford///page* | Allowed by line 2: Allow: /models/ford///page* |
| http://cyrusshepard.com/models/chevy/test/test/pages | Blocked by line 3: Disallow: /models////page | Blocked by line 3: Disallow: /models////page |So, to summarize:1. Always put Allow directives first, as most search engines follow the "first rule counts" rule.2. Google doesn't care about order, but rather the specificity based on the length of the entry.3. The order of precedence for rules with wildcards is undefined.4. When in doubt, check your robots.txt file in Google Webmaster tools.Hope this helps.(sorry for the very long answer which basically says you were right all along
-
I understand your concern. I am basing my answer based on the fact that if you don't have a robots.txt at all, Google will still crawl you, which means its an allow by default. So all that matters in my opinion is the disallow, but because you need an allow from the wildcard disallow, you could allow that and disallow next.
Honestly, I don't think it matters. If you think the way a bot would work, it's not like robots.txt 1 line is read, then the bot goes crawling and then comes back reads the next line and so on. Does that make sense ? It reads all the lines in the robots.txt and then follows the directives. But to be sure, you can do either of the scenarios and see for yourself. I am sure the results would be same either way.
-
The allow directives need to come before the disallow directives for the same directory/file paths. (I have never personally tested this although it makes logical sense to instruct a robot to access one particular path within a directory structure before it sees that it is blocked from crawling that directory).
For example:-
Allow: /profiles
Disallow: /s2/profiles/me
Allow: /s2/profiles
Allow: /s2/photos
Allow: /s2/static
Disallow: /s2
As per how Google have formatted their robots.txt.
-
Thanks. I want to make sure I get this right in a syntax universally understood by all engines. I have seen webmasters all over the place on this one with some saying that crawlers use a first matching rule and others that say that crawlers use a last matching rule. I am almost thinking to have the allow command twice - before and after, to cover all bases.
-
I don't think it matters, but I think I would disallow first, because by default everything is an Allow.
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
-
Crawl solutions for landing pages that don't contain a robots.txt file?
My site (www.nomader.com) is currently built on Instapage, which does not offer the ability to add a robots.txt file. I plan to migrate to a Shopify site in the coming months, but for now the Instapage site is my primary website. In the interim, would you suggest that I manually request a Google crawl through the search console tool? If so, how often? Any other suggestions for countering this Meta Noindex issue?
Technical SEO | | Nomader1 -
Duplicate content: using the robots meta tag in conjunction with the canonical tag?
We have a WordPress instance on an Apache subdomain (let's say it's blog.website.com) alongside our main website, which is built in Angular. The tech team is using Akamai to do URL rewrites so that the blog posts appear under the main domain (website.com/more-keywords/here). However, due to the way they configured the WordPress install, they can't do a wildcard redirect under htaccess to force all the subdomain URLs to appear as subdirectories, so as you might have guessed, we're dealing with duplicate content issues. They could in theory do manual 301s for each blog post, but that's laborious and a real hassle given our IT structure (we're a financial services firm, so lots of bureaucracy and regulation). In addition, due to internal limitations (they seem mostly political in nature), a robots.txt file is out of the question. I'm thinking the next best alternative is the combined use of the robots meta tag (no index, follow) alongside the canonical tag to try to point the bot to the subdirectory URLs. I don't think this would be unethical use of either feature, but I'm trying to figure out if the two would conflict in some way? Or maybe there's a better approach with which we're unfamiliar or that we haven't considered?
Technical SEO | | prasadpathapati0 -
Robots.txt Download vs Cache
We made an update to the Robots.txt file this morning after the initial download of the robots.txt file. I then submitted the page through Fetch as Google bot to get the changes in asap. The cache time stamp on the page now shows Sep 27, 2013 15:35:28 GMT. I believe that would put the cache time stamp at about 6 hours ago. However the Blocked URLs tab in Google WMT shows the robots.txt last downloaded at 14 hours ago - and therefore it's showing the old file. This leads me to believe for the Robots.txt the cache date and the download time are independent. Is there anyway to get Google to recognize the new file other than waiting this out??
Technical SEO | | Rich_A0 -
Staging & Development areas should be not indexable (i.e. no followed/no index in meta robots etc)
Hi I take it if theres a staging or development area on a subdomain for a site, who's content is hence usually duplicate then this should not be indexable i.e. (no-indexed & nofollowed in metarobots) ? In order to prevent dupe content probs as well as non project related people seeing work in progress or finding accidentally in search engine listings ? Also if theres no such info in meta robots is there any other way it may have been made non-indexable, or at least dupe content prob removed by canonicalising the page to the equivalent page on the live site ? In the case in question i am finding it listed in serps when i search for the staging/dev area url, so i presume this needs urgent attention ? Cheers Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
"Extremely high number of URLs" warning for robots.txt blocked pages
I have a section of my site that is exclusively for tracking redirects for paid ads. All URLs under this path do a 302 redirect through our ad tracking system: http://www.mysite.com/trackingredirect/blue-widgets?ad_id=1234567 --302--> http://www.mysite.com/blue-widgets This path of the site is blocked by our robots.txt, and none of the pages show up for a site: search. User-agent: * Disallow: /trackingredirect However, I keep receiving messages in Google Webmaster Tools about an "extremely high number of URLs", and the URLs listed are in my redirect directory, which is ostensibly not indexed. If not by robots.txt, how can I keep Googlebot from wasting crawl time on these millions of /trackingredirect/ links?
Technical SEO | | EhrenReilly0 -
Can I rely on just robots.txt
We have a test version of a clients web site on a separate server before it goes onto the live server. Some code from the test site has some how managed to get Google to index the test site which isn't great! Would simply adding a robots text file to the root of test simply blocking all be good enough or will i have to put the meta tags for no index and no follow etc on all pages on the test site also?
Technical SEO | | spiralsites0 -
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 -
We're working on a site that is a beer company. Because it is required to have an age verification page, how should we best redirect the bots (useragents) to the actual homepage (thus skipping ahead of the age verification without allowing all browsers)?
This question is about useragents and alcohol sites that have an age verification screen upon landing on the site.
Technical SEO | | OveritMedia0