If i disallow unfriendly URL via robots.txt, will its friendly counterpart still be indexed?
-
Our not-so-lovely CMS loves to render pages regardless of the URL structure, just as long as the page name itself is correct. For example, it will render the following as the same page:
example.com/really/dumb/duplicative/URL/123.html
To help combat this, we are creating mod rewrites with friendly urls, so all of the above would simply render as example.com/123
I understand robots.txt respects the wildcard (*), so I was considering adding this to our robots.txt:
Disallow: */123.html
If I move forward, will this block all of the potential permutations of the directories preceding 123.html yet not block our friendly example.com/123?
Oh, and yes, we do use the canonical tag religiously - we're just mucking with the robots.txt as an added safety net.
-
Yeah, if you could solve this via .htaccess that would be great, especially if you have link equity flowing into any of those URLs.
I'd go one step further than Irving and highly recommend canonical tags on those URLs. Since, as you said, it's all one page with infinite URL possibilities, the canonical should be easy to implement.
Best of luck!
-
Thanks, however, the meta tag won't work in this case because it's technically one page with an infinite amount of names via the URL (remember, the CMS only depends on the 123.html and ignores the directories preceding it). If I applied the NOINDEX within the meta, then the version I do want to get indexed would not be indexed.
The question was really around "will the internal rewrite of /123.html to just /123 be impacted if we disallow */123.html" - and since the rewrite happens before the bot sees it, I presume the answer is "no, it will not be impacted: 123.html will be blocked yet /123 will still be indexed.
Now, after I posted the question I realized this is the case where I should use a "greedy" 301 redirect via htaccess rather than try to block permutations of the URL via robots.txt. So I decided to not go the robots.txt route and instead do a 301 redirect via regex:
*/123.html to /123 (that's obviously not perfect regex, but you see my point)
-
that disallow command will block all files with the name 123.html in any folder deeper that the root.
This with the canonical (absolute not relative) will probably cover you, but it is really recommended to get a robots noindex meta tag on these duplicate pages as well. Bots coming in from an external link pointing to that page could result in the page getting indexed, also the canonical is a suggestion not a rule.
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
-
How to get a large number of urls out of Google's Index when there are no pages to noindex tag?
Hi, I'm working with a site that has created a large group of urls (150,000) that have crept into Google's index. If these urls actually existed as pages, which they don't, I'd just noindex tag them and over time the number would drift down. The thing is, they created them through a complicated internal linking arrangement that adds affiliate code to the links and forwards them to the affiliate. GoogleBot would crawl a link that looks like it's to the client's same domain and wind up on Amazon or somewhere else with some affiiiate code. GoogleBot would then grab the original link on the clients domain and index it... even though the page served is on Amazon or somewhere else. Ergo, I don't have a page to noindex tag. I have to get this 150K block of cruft out of Google's index, but without actual pages to noindex tag, it's a bit of a puzzler. Any ideas? Thanks! Best... Michael P.S., All 150K urls seem to share the same url pattern... exmpledomain.com/item/... so /item/ is common to all of them, if that helps.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
SEO Best Practices regarding Robots.txt disallow
I cannot find hard and fast direction about the following issue: It looks like the Robots.txt file on my server has been set up to disallow "account" and "search" pages within my site, so I am receiving warnings from the Google Search console that URLs are being blocked by Robots.txt. (Disallow: /Account/ and Disallow: /?search=). Do you recommend unblocking these URLs? I'm getting a warning that over 18,000 Urls are blocked by robots.txt. ("Sitemap contains urls which are blocked by robots.txt"). Seems that I wouldn't want that many urls blocked. ? Thank you!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jamiegriz0 -
URLs are not indexed
My website has 0.5 million pages with urls like this- **http://www.mycity4kids.com/Delhi-NCR/collage-painting-classes-%3cnear%3e-shalimar-bagh ****, **none of these urls are indexed. Question 1- What can be the possible reason for this issue? Users see this url as : http://www.mycity4kids.com/Delhi-NCR/collage-painting-classes-<near>-shalimar-bagh</near>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | prsntsnh
The symbol "<" and ">" get converted into "%3c" and "%3e" respectively, is this the reason for these urls not getting indexed?0 -
URL Parameter Being Improperly Crawled & Indexed by Google
Hi All, We just discovered that Google is indexing a subset of our URL’s embedded with our analytics tracking parameter. For the search “dresses” we are appearing in position 11 (page 2, rank 1) with the following URL: www.anthropologie.com/anthro/category/dresses/clothes-dresses.jsp?cm_mmc=Email--Anthro_12--070612_Dress_Anthro-_-shop You’ll note that “cm_mmc=Email” is appended. This is causing our analytics (CoreMetrics) to mis-attribute this traffic and revenue to Email vs. SEO. A few questions: 1) Why is this happening? This is an email from June 2012 and we don’t have an email specific landing page embedded with this parameter. Somehow Google found and indexed this page with these tracking parameters. Has anyone else seen something similar happening?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kevin_reyes
2) What is the recommended method of “politely” telling Google to index the version without the tracking parameters? Some thoughts on this:
a. Implement a self-referencing canonical on the page.
- This is done, but we have some technical issues with the canonical due to our ecommerce platform (ATG). Even though page source code looks correct, Googlebot is seeing the canonical with a JSession ID.
b. Resubmit both URL’s in WMT Fetch feature hoping that Google recognizes the canonical.
- We did this, but given the canonical issue it won’t be effective until we can fix it.
c. URL handling change in WMT
- We made this change, but it didn’t seem to fix the problem
d. 301 or No Index the version with the email tracking parameters
- This seems drastic and I’m concerned that we’d lose ranking on this very strategic keyword Thoughts? Thanks in advance, Kevin0 -
Hash URLs
Hi Mozzers, Happy Friday! I have a client that has created some really nice pages from their old content and we want to redirect the old ones to the new pages. The way the web developers have built these new pages is to use hashbang url's for example www.website.co.uk/product#newpage My question is can I redirect urls to these kind of pages? Would it be using the .htaccess file to do it? Thanks in advance, Karl
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KarlBantleman0 -
Incorrect cached page indexing in Google while correct page indexes intermittently
Hi, we are a South African insurance company. We have a page http://www.miway.co.za/midrivestyle which has a 301 redirect to http://www.miway.co.za/car-insurance. Problem is that the former page is ranking in the index rather than the latter. The latter page does index occasionally in the same position, but rarely. This is primarily for search phrases like "car insurance" and "car insurance quotes". The ranking was knocked down the index with Penquin 2.0. It was not ranking at all but we have managed to recover to 12/13. This abnormally has only been occurring since the recovery. The correct page does index for other search terms like "insurance for car". Your help would be appreciated, thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | miway0 -
Meta No INDEX and Robots - Optimizing Crawl Budget
Hi, Sometime ago, a few thousand pages got into Google's index - they were "product pop up" pages, exact duplicates of the actual product page but a "quick view". So I deleted them via GWT and also put in a Meta No Index on these pop up overlays to stop them being indexed and causing dupe content issues. They are no longer within the index as far as I can see, i do a site:www.mydomain.com/ajax and nothing appears - So can I block these off now with robots.txt to optimize my crawl budget? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs20100 -
URL blocked
Hi there, I have recently noticed that we have a link from an authoritative website, however when I looked at the code, it looked like this: <a <span="">href</a><a <span="">="http://www.mydomain.com/" title="blocked::http://www.mydomain.com/">keyword</a> You will notice that in the code there is 'blocked::' What is this? has it the same effect as a nofollow tag? Thanks for any help
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780