Robots.txt file question? NEver seen this command before
-
Hey Everyone!
Perhaps someone can help me. I came across this command in the robots.txt file of our Canadian corporate domain. I looked around online but can't seem to find a definitive answer (slightly relevant).
the command line is as follows:
Disallow: /*?*
I'm guessing this might have something to do with blocking php string searches on the site?. It might also have something to do with blocking sub-domains, but the "?" mark puzzles me
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks, Rob
-
I don't think this is correct.
? is an attempt at using a RegEx in Robots file which I don't think works.
Further, if it was a properly formed regex, it would be ?
- is a special character for the user agent to mean all. For the disallow line, I believe you have to use a specific directory or page.
http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html
I could be wrong, but the info on this site has been my understanding from the past too.
-
It depends on how your site is structured.
For example if you have a page at
http://www.yourdomain.com/products.php
and this shows different things based on the parameter, like:
http://www.yourdomain.com/products.php?type=widgets
You will want to get rid of this line in your robots.txt
However if the parameter(s) doesn't change the content on the page, you can leave it in.
-
Thanks Ryan and Ryan! I'm just unfamiliar with this command set in the robots file, and getting settled into the company (5 weeks).. so I am still learning the site's structure and arch. With it all being new to me with limitations I am seeing from the CMS side, I was wondering if this might have been causing crawl issues for Bing and or Yahoo... I'm trying to gauge where we might be experiencing problems with the sites crawl functions.
-
Its not a bad idea in the robots.txt, but unless you are 100% confidant that you wont block something that you really want, i would consider just handling unwanted parameters and pages through the new Google Webmaster url handling toolset. that way you have more control over which ones do and dont get blocked.
-
So, for this parameter, should I keep it in the robots file?
-
Its preventing spiders from crawling pages with parameters in the URL. For example when you search on google you'll see a URL like so:
http://www.google.com/search?q=seo
This passes the parameter of q with a value of 'seo' to the page at google.com for it to work its magic with. This is almost definitely a good thing, unless the only way to access some content on your site is via URL parameters.
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
-
Do I need a separate robots.txt file for my shop subdomain?
Hello Mozzers! Apologies if this question has been asked before, but I couldn't find an answer so here goes... Currently I have one robots.txt file hosted at https://www.mysitename.org.uk/robots.txt We host our shop on a separate subdomain https://shop.mysitename.org.uk Do I need a separate robots.txt file for my subdomain? (Some Google searches are telling me yes and some no and I've become awfully confused!
Technical SEO | | sjbridle0 -
"Url blocked by robots.txt." on my Video Sitemap
I'm getting a warning about "Url blocked by robots.txt." on my video sitemap - but just for youtube videos? Has anyone else encountered this issue, and how did you fix it if so?! Thanks, J
Technical SEO | | Critical_Mass0 -
Robots.txt on subdomains
Hi guys! I keep reading conflicting information on this and it's left me a little unsure. Am I right in thinking that a website with a subdomain of shop.sitetitle.com will share the same robots.txt file as the root domain?
Technical SEO | | Whittie0 -
Blocked by robots
my client GWT has a number of notices for "blocked by meta-robots" - these are all either blog posts/categories/or tags his former seo told him this: "We've activated following settings: Use noindex for Categories Use noindex for Archives Use noindex for Tag Archives to reduce keyword stuffing & duplicate post tags
Technical SEO | | Ezpro9
Disabling all 3 noindex settings above may remove google blocks but also will send too many similar tags, post archives/category. " is this guy correct? what would be the problem with indexing these? am i correct in thinking they should be indexed? thanks0 -
2 questions about linkbuilding
1. Are these types of sites bad to submit a link to? http://www.mompack.com/mom2mom/ 2. If I submit my product for another blog to review (in turn they write a post for me with links to my website), is this GOOD? Look forward to hearing back from you, thanks
Technical SEO | | ChrisTS0 -
Htaccess file
I need to redirect the web pages which do not exist to 404 error the task need to be done in htaccess file. I am using Linux server. the webpages I want to redirect is my domain name followed by question mark e.g. www.mydomain.com/?dfdds I am using the following snippet in my htaccess file, it redirect to bing.com so far, please tell me how to change the snippet so that it redirect to redirect to 404 error page. ========================== RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} . RewriteRule .* http://www.bing.com? [L,R]
Technical SEO | | semer0 -
Another 301 redirect question - penalty?
Good Morning, We have 2 sites have images and minimal text on them. The images have links that point to a 3<sup>rd</sup> site that facilitates eCommerce. Question: If we 301 redirect these sites permanently to yet a 4<sup>th</sup> site… 1) Does it violate any G’s guidelines 2) Should we delete the links embedded in the images (as they point to the 3<sup>rd</sup> site) Thanks
Technical SEO | | Prime850 -
Internal file extension canonicalization
Ok no doubt this is straightforward, however seem to be finding to hard to find a simple answer; our websites' internal pages have the extension .html. Trying to the navigate to that internal url without the .html extension results in a 404. The question is; should a 401 be used to direct to the extension-less url to future proof? and should internal links direct to the extension-less url for the same reason? Hopefully that makes sense and apologies for what I believe is a straightforward answer;
Technical SEO | | jg1000