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.
No indexing url including query string with Robots txt
-
Dear all,
how can I block url/pages with query strings like page.html?dir=asc&order=name with robots txt?
Thanks!
-
Dear all, what is the best option? And are the option below good? A: Disallow
- sort-order (Only URLs with value = asc)
"A single URL may contain many parameters for each of which you can specify settings. More restrictive settings override less restrictive settings. For example, here are three parameters and their settings"
source:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1235687
B: User-agent:
Googlebot Disallow: /*.=name$
for example www.sub.domain.com/collection.html?dir=desc&order=name source: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156449
Thanks!
-
You could always just use rel="canonical" which would be much better than completely blocking all URL parameters.
-
Hey,
Should that second URL be www.sub.domain.com/collection/adresboeken.html?whatever=something If so, then by using /collection/?* you are saying that anything within /collection/ with a query string should not be indexed. If adresboeken.html always has a query string, it may not get indexed.
The other options I'd consider before using robots.txt are telling Google to ignore dir=desc&order=color in Google Webmaster Tools parameter handling. This is the best way to handle query string issues. (Assuming you are trying to influence Google. Clearly Google Webmaster Tools won't affect Bing!)
Another idea is to set a canonical URL on /collection/adresboeken.html referencing /collection/adresboeken.html without the query string. This tells the search engines that the query strings do not make a unique URL. (adresboeken.html?dir=desc&order=color is the same as adresboeken.html?dir=desc&order=price is the same as adresboeken.html?dir=asc&order=color is the same as adresboeken.html, and so on).
I hope that helps. Thanks,
Matthew -
Hi,
Robots.txt works mainly on 2 rules. Those are User-agent: and Disallow:
User-agent: the name of the robot you need to block
Disallow: the url or folder or other url with conditions you need to block.
As you have asked in your question you need to block a url with a condition. But you have to remember that Robot.txt is giving so critical results if you did not use it correctly.
Anyway in your question, you wanted to block url/pages with query strings like page.html?dir=asc&order=name
so you have to use following:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /*?
So the above will block all the urls with a question mark (?) for all the search robots. This will not block only page.html?dir=asc&order=name it will alos block comments.html?dir=asc&order=name
So use it so carefully.
Hope this is the what you have looked for. If need more help you may ask.
Regards
Prasad
-
Dear all,
thanks for responding. If I have a pages like
1. www.sub.domain.com/collection.html exists, I want to index it, and
2. www.sub.domain.com/collection.html?dir=desc&order=color which I don't want to index
Is this the way to do this in de robots.txt?:
Disallow: /collection/?*
Thanks!
-
Hi,
Here is an article explaining how to do this in robots.txt:
http://sanzon.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/advanced-usage-of-robotstxt-w-querystrings/Depending on what you are trying to do, it might also be worth investigating parameter handling in Google Webmaster Tools:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1235687Thanks,
Matthew
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 I canonicalize URLs with no query params even though query params are always automatically appended?
There's a section of my client's website that presents quarterly government financial data. Users can filter results to see different years and quarters of financial info. If a user navigates to those pages, the URLs automatically append the latest query parameters. It's not a redirect...when I asked a developer what the mechanism was for this happening, he said "magic." He honestly didn't know how to describe it. So my question is, is it ok to canonicalize the URL without any query parameters, knowing that the user will always be served a page that does have query parameters? I need to figure out how to manage all of the various versions of these URLs.
Technical SEO | Mar 12, 2021, 5:51 PM | LeahH0 -
Role of Robots.txt and Search Console parameters settings
Hi, wondering if anyone can point me to resources or explain the difference between these two. If a site has url parameters disallowed in Robots.txt is it redundant to edit settings in Search Console parameters to anything other than "Let Googlebot Decide"?
Technical SEO | Sep 27, 2019, 11:21 AM | LivDetrick0 -
Query string parameters always bad for SEO?
I've recently put some query string parameters into links leading to a 'request a quote' form which auto-fill the 'product' field with the name of the product that is on the referring product page. E.g. Red Bicycle product page >>> Link to RFQ form contains '?productname=Red-Bicycle' >>>> form's product field's default value becomes 'Red-Bicycle' I know url parameters can lead to keyword cannibalisation and duplicate content, we use sub-domains for our language changer. BUT for something like this, am I potentially damaging our SEO? Appreciate I've not explained this very well. We're using Kentico by the way, so K# macros are a possibility (I use a simple one to fill the form's Default Field).
Technical SEO | Mar 6, 2018, 9:33 PM | landport0 -
Do URLs with canonical tags get indexed by Google?
Hi, we re-branded and launched a new website in February 2016. In June we saw a steep drop in the number of URLs indexed, and there have continued to be smaller dips since. We started an account with Moz and found several thousand high priority crawl errors for duplicate pages and have since fixed those with canonical tags. However, we are still seeing the number of URLs indexed drop. Do URLs with canonical tags get indexed by Google? I can't seem to find a definitive answer on this. A good portion of our URLs have canonical tags because they are just events with different dates, but otherwise the content of the page is the same.
Technical SEO | Oct 18, 2016, 4:15 PM | zasite0 -
Include or exclude noindex urls in sitemap?
We just added tags to our pages with thin content. Should we include or exclude those urls from our sitemap.xml file? I've read conflicting recommendations.
Technical SEO | Oct 20, 2016, 4:30 AM | vcj0 -
Duplicate content issue: staging urls has been indexed and need to know how to remove it from the serps
duplicate content issue: staging url has been indexed by google ( many pages) and need to know how to remove them from the serps. Bing sees the staging url as moved permanently Google sees the staging urls (240 results) and redirects to the correct url Should I be concerned about duplicate content and request Google to remove the staging url removed Thanks Guys
Technical SEO | Dec 22, 2015, 5:39 PM | Taiger0 -
Is there a limit to how many URLs you can put in a robots.txt file?
We have a site that has way too many urls caused by our crawlable faceted navigation. We are trying to purge 90% of our urls from the indexes. We put no index tags on the url combinations that we do no want indexed anymore, but it is taking google way too long to find the no index tags. Meanwhile we are getting hit with excessive url warnings and have been it by Panda. Would it help speed the process of purging urls if we added the urls to the robots.txt file? Could this cause any issues for us? Could it have the opposite effect and block the crawler from finding the urls, but not purge them from the index? The list could be in excess of 100MM urls.
Technical SEO | Oct 23, 2015, 4:40 AM | kcb81780 -
Invisible robots.txt?
So here's a weird one... Client comes to me for some simple changes, turns out there are some major issues with the site, one of which is that none of the correct content pages are showing up in Google, just ancillary (outdated) ones. Looks like an issue because even the main homepage isn't showing up with a "site:domain.com" So, I add to Webmaster Tools and, after an hour or so, I get the red bar of doom, "robots.txt is blocking important pages." I check it out in Webmasters and, sure enough, it's a "User agent: * Disallow /" ACK! But wait... there's no robots.txt to be found on the server. I can go to domain.com/robots.txt and see it but nothing via FTP. I upload a new one and, thankfully, that is now showing but I've never seen that before. Question is: can a robots.txt file be stored in a way that can't be seen? Thanks!
Technical SEO | Jan 1, 2017, 8:34 PM | joshcanhelp0