Should we use Google's crawl delay setting?
-
We’ve been noticing a huge uptick in Google’s spidering lately, and along with it a notable worsening of render times.
Yesterday, for example, Google spidered our site at a rate of 30:1 (google spider vs. organic traffic.) So in other words, for every organic page request, Google hits the site 30 times.
Our render times have lengthened to an avg. of 2 seconds (and up to 2.5 seconds). Before this renewed interest Google has taken in us we were seeing closer to one second average render times, and often half of that.
A year ago, the ratio of Spider to Organic was between 6:1 and 10:1.
Is requesting a crawl-delay from Googlebot a viable option?
Our goal would be only to reduce Googlebot traffic, and hopefully improve render times and organic traffic.
Thanks,
Trisha
-
Unfortunately you can't change crawl settings for Google in a robots.txt file, they just ignore it. The best way to rate limit them is using custom Crawl settings in Google Webmaster Tools. (look under Site configuration > Settings)
You also might want to consider using your loadbalancer to direct Google (and other search engines) to a "condomised" group of servers (app, db, cache, search) thereby ensuring your users arent inadvertantly hit by perfomance issues caused by over zealous bot crawling.
-
We're a publisher, which means that as an industry our normal render times are always at the top of the chart. Ads are notoriously slow to load, and that's how we earn our keep. These results are bad, though, even for publishing.
We're serving millions of uniques a month, on a bank of dedicated servers hosted off site, load balanced, etc.
-
more info on that here: http://www.robotstxt.org/
-
Wow! those are really high render times. Have you considered perhaps moving to another webserver? NginX is pretty damm fast, and could probably get those render times down. Also, are you on a shared host? or is this a dedicated server?
What you're looking for is the robots.txt file though, and you want to add some lines like this:
User-agent: * Disallow: Crawl-Delay: 10 User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: / User-agent: Ask Jeeves Crawl-Delay: 120 User-agent: Teoma Disallow: /html/ Crawl-Delay: 120
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
-
Some bots excluded from crawling client's domain
Hi all! My client is in healthcare in the US and for HIPAA reasons, blocks traffic from most international sources. a. I don't think this is good for SEO b. The site won't allow Moz bot or Screaming Frog bot to crawl it. It's so frustrating. We can't figure out what mechanism they are utilizing to execute this. Any help as we start down the rabbit hole to remedy is much appreciated. thank you!
Technical SEO | | SimpleSearch0 -
How google bot see's two the same rel canonicals?
Hi, I have a website where all the original URL's have a rel canonical back to themselves. This is kinda like a fail safe mode. It is because if a parameter occurs, then the URL with the parameter will have a canonical back to the original URL. For example this url: https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ has this canonical: https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ which is the same since it's an original URL This url https://www.example.com/something/page/1/?parameter has this canonical https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ like i said before, parameters have a rel canonical back to their original url's. SO: https://www.example.com/something/page/1/?parameter and this https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ both have the same canonical which is this https://www.example.com/something/page/1/ Im telling you all that because when roger bot tried to crawl my website, it gave back duplicates. This happened because it was reading the canonical (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/) of the original url (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/) and the canonical (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/) of the url with the parameter (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/?parameter) and saw that both were point to the same canonical (https://www.example.com/something/page/1/)... So, i would like to know if google bot treats canonicals the same way. Because if it does then im full of duplicates 😄 thanks.
Technical SEO | | dos06590 -
Any SEO-wizards out there who can tell me why Google isn't following the canonicals on some pages?
Hi, I am banging my head against the wall regarding the website of a costumer: In "duplicate title tags" in GSC I can see that Google is indexing a whole bunch parametres of many of the url's on the page. When I check the rel=canonical tag, everything seems correct. My costumer is the biggest sports retailer in Norway. Their webshop has approximately 20 000 products. Yet they have more than 400 000 pages indexed by Google. So why is Google indexing pages like this? What is missing in this canonical?https://www.gsport.no/herre/klaer/bukse-shorts?type-bukser-334=regnbukser&order=price&dir=descWhy isn't Google just cutting off the ?type-bukser-334=regnbukser&order=price&dir=desc part of the url?Can it be the canonical-tag itself, or could the problem be somewhere in the CMS? Looking forward to your answers Sigurd
Technical SEO | | Inevo0 -
Content Based on User's IP Address
Hello, A client wants us to create a page on two different sites (www.brandA.com/content and www.brandB.com/content) with similar content and serve up specific content to users based on their IP addresses. The idea is that once a user gets to the page, the content would slightly change (mainly contact information and headers) based on their location. The problem I am seeing with this is that both brandA and brandB would be different Urls so there is a chance if their both optimized for the similar terms then they would both rank and crowd up the search results (duplicate content). Have you seen something similar? What are your thoughts and/or potential solutions? Also, do you know of any sites that are currently doing something similar?
Technical SEO | | Rauxa0 -
Schema.org implementation for physician's office vs physician herself?
Hi, Regarding schema.org microdata, which page(s) should have the microdata? 1) http://schema.org/Physician -- appears to be about the office. Since we have all of the contact/address info in the footer on each page, should we do the same with microdata? I can't seem to find a suggested implementation on schema.org Assuming an office has multiple MDs, how should the docs be listed since the physician schema appears to be for the office, not for the individual doctors? Thanks for any insight!
Technical SEO | | Titan5520 -
Google Crawler Error / restricting crawling
Hi On a Magento Instance we manage there is an advanced search. As part of the ongoing enhancement of the instance we altered the advance search options so there are less and more relevant. The issue is Google has crawled and catalogued the advanced search with the now removed options in the query string. Google keeps crawling these out of date advanced searches. These stale searches now create a 500 error. Currently Google is attempting to crawl these pages twice a day. I have implemented the following to stop this:- 1. Submitted requested the url be removed via Webmaster tools, selecting the directory option using uri: http://www.domian.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/ 2. Added Disallow to robots.txt Disallow: /catalogsearch/advanced/result/* Disallow: /catalogsearch/advanced/result/ 3. Add rel="nofollow" to the links in the site linking to the advanced search. Below is a list of the links it is crawling or attempting to crawl, 12 links crawled twice a day each resulting in a 500 status. Can anything else be done? http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=94&category=55&color_layered=128&csize[0]=0&fabric=92&inventry_status=97&length=0&price=5%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=115&category=55&color_layered=130&csize[0]=0&fabric=0&inventry_status=97&length=116&price=3%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=94&category=55&color_layered=126&csize[0]=0&fabric=92&inventry_status=97&length=0&price=5%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=0&category=55&color_layered=137&csize[0]=0&fabric=93&inventry_status=96&length=0&price=8%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=0&category=55&color_layered=142&csize[0]=0&fabric=93&inventry_status=96&length=0&price=4%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=0&category=55&color_layered=137&csize[0]=0&fabric=93&inventry_status=96&length=0&price=5%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=0&category=55&color_layered=142&csize[0]=0&fabric=93&inventry_status=96&length=0&price=5%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=0&category=55&color_layered=135&csize[0]=0&fabric=93&inventry_status=96&length=0&price=5%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=0&category=55&color_layered=128&csize[0]=0&fabric=93&inventry_status=96&length=0&price=5%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=0&category=55&color_layered=127&csize[0]=0&fabric=93&inventry_status=96&length=0&price=4%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=0&category=55&color_layered=127&csize[0]=0&fabric=93&inventry_status=96&length=0&price=3%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=0&category=55&color_layered=128&csize[0]=0&fabric=93&inventry_status=96&length=0&price=10%2C10http://www.domain.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?bust_line=0&category=55&color_layered=122&csize[0]=0&fabric=93&inventry_status=96&length=0&price=8%2C10
Technical SEO | | Flipmedia1120 -
Can JavaScrip affect Google's index/ranking?
We have changed our website template about a month ago and since then we experienced a huge drop in rankings, especially with our home page. We kept the same url structure on entire website, pretty much the same content and the same on-page seo. We kind of knew we will have a rank drop but not that huge. We used to rank with the homepage on the top of the second page, and now we lost about 20-25 positions. What we changed is that we made a new homepage structure, more user-friendly and with much more organized information, we also have a slider presenting our main services. 80% of our content on the homepage is included inside the slideshow and 3 tabs, but all these elements are JavaScript. The content is unique and is seo optimized but when I am disabling the JavaScript, it becomes completely unavailable. Could this be the reason for the huge rank drop? I used the Webmaster Tolls' Fetch as Googlebot tool and it looks like Google reads perfectly what's inside the JavaScrip slideshow so I did not worried until now when I found this on SEOMoz: "Try to avoid ... using javascript ... since the search engines will ... not indexed them ... " One more weird thing is that although we have no duplicate content and the entire website has been cached, for a few pages (including the homepage), the picture snipet is from the old website. All main urls are the same, we removed some old ones that we don't need anymore, so we kept all the inbound links. The 301 redirects are properly set. But still, we have a huge rank drop. Also, (not sure if this important or not), the robots.txt file is disallowing some folders like: images, modules, templates... (Joomla components). We still have some html errors and warnings but way less than we had with the old website. Any advice would be much appreciated, thank you!
Technical SEO | | echo10 -
Just relaunched a website - why did it fall in Google's SERPs?
I work for a marketing agency that just redesigned, rewrote and relaunched a client's website. They used to rank #4 on Google for the company's name (which is a fairly common one, for what it's worth). Now they're at #10 and want to know why. I'd like to explain to them what happened but don't know myself. Can someone explain it to me? And can I tell them if/when their ranking might go back up? In case this matters, I can tell you that it looks like Google hasn't yet crawled the new site. Anyway, thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
Technical SEO | | matt-145670