Do robot.txts permanently affect websites even after they have been removed?
-
A client has a Wordpress blog to sit alongside their company website. They kept it hidden whilst they were developing what it looked like, keeping it un-searchable by Search Engines. It was still live, but Wordpress put a robots.txt in place. When they were ready they removed the robots.txt by clicking the "allow Search Engines to crawl this site" button.
It took a month and a half for their blog to show in Search Engines once the robot.txt was removed.
Google is now recognising the site (as a "site:" test has shown) however, it doesn't rank well for anything. This is despite the fact they are targeting keywords with very little organic competition.
My question is - could the fact that they developed the site behind a robot.txt (rather than offline) mean the site is permanently affected by the robot.txt in the eyes of the Search Engines, even after that robot.txt has been removed?
Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on the situation.
-
No problem! Good Luck!
-
That is a very fair point. It is a completely new site and I hadn't even thought about things like the domain age. It does show up under a "site:http://www.____.com" search, I was just wondering if this is one of those things Google keeps a memory of, if that makes sense.
Thanks for your response Mike.
-
That is a very good suggestion. I'll try it (a useful URL also so thanks for sharing).
Thanks for the response Matthew.
-
I think the much more likely culprit is that it is a new site. What do you get when you enter "site:http://www._____.com" in google? If the pages are indexed, one can't blame for the robots file for lack of rank.
Good luck!
Mike
-
Have you submitted the updated robots.txt to google? This is separate from updating the sitemap. Here is a google page to help you do this.
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6078399?hl=en
Best!
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
-
Robots User-agent Query
Am I correct in saying that the allow/disallow is only applied to msnbot_mobile? mobile robots file User-agent: Googlebot-Mobile User-agent: YahooSeeker/M1A1-R2D2 User-agent: MSNBOT_Mobile Allow: / Disallow: /1 Disallow: /2/ Disallow: /3 Disallow: /4/
Technical SEO | | ThomasHarvey1 -
Empty Meta Robots Directive - Harmful?
Hi, We had a coding update and a side-effect of that was that our directive was emptied, in other words it now reads as: on all of the site. I've since noticed that Google's cache date on all of the pages - at least, the ones I tested - have a Cached date of no later than 17 December '12 - that's the Monday after the directive was removed on mass. So, A, does anyone have solid evidence of an empty directive causing problems? Past experience, Matt Cutts, Fishkin quote, etc. And then B - It seems fairly well correlated but, does my entire site's homogenous Cached date point to this tag removal? Or is it fairly normal to have a particular cache date across a large site (we're a large ecommerce site). Our site: http://www.zando.co.za/ I'm having the directive reinstated as soon as Dev permitting. And then, for extra credit, is there a way with Google's API, or perhaps some other tool, to run an arbitrary list and retrieve Cached dates? I'd want to do this for diagnosis purposes and preferably in a way that OK with Google. I'd avoid CURLing for the cached URL and scraping out that dates with BASH, or any such kind of thing. Cheers,
Technical SEO | | RocketZando0 -
Remove Links or 301
Howdy Guys, Our main site has been hit pretty hard by penguin and we are just wondering what steps we should now take. For the past 2 months we have been working through our back link profile removing spammy / un-natural links, we have documented everything in a spreadsheet... We recently submitted a reconsideration request to Google and they have now responded saying we still have bad links. I'm just wondering would be it easier just to 301 redirect our site to another TLD we have for our main site? Or Do we keep working through our links 1 by 1 and removing them? Has anyone had any success in 301ing? Thanks, Scott
Technical SEO | | ScottBaxterWW0 -
Advice on Linking to an Adult Related Website
I have a question regarding whether or not Google would penalize my main website for linking to a website that has adult content. The site I am linking to is not a porn site, rather it is a site that sells web site templates for adult related stores selling sexy toys, videos, etc. For example my site that is linking to the adult related website is here: http://www.websitetemplatedesign.com/ and the link to the site is in the footer at the bottom left which is an icon. And it links to http://www.adultsextemplates.com/ Im just looking for advice as to whether or not this could be a penalty or not. I did suffer major SERP loss in the last month and Im trying to find what I am doing that may have caused this. Any advice would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | jmccommas0 -
Why is my website banned?
IMy website is Costume Machine at www.costumemachine.com . My site has been banned for 1 year now. I have requested that google reconsider my site 3 times without luck. The site is dynamic and basically pulls in feeds from affiliate sites. We have added over 1,500 pages of original content. The site has been running great since 2008 without any penalties. I don't think I got hit with any linking penalty. I cleaned up all questionable links last November when the penalty hit. Am I being hit with a "thin" site penalty? If that is the issue what is the best way to fix the problem?
Technical SEO | | tadden0 -
Website Grader Report - Permanent Redirect Not Found
Have you ever checked HubSpot's website grader at www.websitegrader.com? I usually notice that the tool gives an error namely "Permanent Redirect Not Found" with below explanation: "Search engines may think www.example.com and example.com are two different sites.You should set up a permanent redirect (technically called a "301 redirect") between these sites. Once you do that, you will get full search engine credit for your work on these sites. :(Website Grader) Can we trust this tool?
Technical SEO | | merkal20050 -
Robots.txt Syntax
Does the order of the robots.txt syntax matter in SEO? For example (are there potential problems with this format): User-agent: * Sitemap: Disallow: /form.htm Allow: / Disallow: /cgnet_directory
Technical SEO | | RodrigoStockebrand0 -
Robots.txt and robots meta
I have an odd situation. I have a CMS that has a global robots.txt which has the generic User-Agent: *
Technical SEO | | Highland
Allow: / I also have one CMS site that needs to not be indexed ever. I've read in various pages (like http://www.jesterwebster.com/robots-txt-vs-meta-tag-which-has-precedence/22 ) that robots.txt always wins over meta, but I have also read that robots.txt indicates spiderability whereas meta can control indexation. I just want the site to not be indexed. Can I leave the robots.txt as is and still put NOINDEX in the robots meta?0