Are robots.txt wildcards still valid? If so, what is the proper syntax for setting this up?
-
I've got several URL's that I need to disallow in my robots.txt file. For example, I've got several documents that I don't want indexed and filters that are getting flagged as duplicate content. Rather than typing in thousands of URL's I was hoping that wildcards were still valid.
-
Great job. I just wanted to add this from Google Webmasters
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improving-on-robots-exclusion-protocol.html
and this from Google Developers
https://developers.google.com/webmasters/control-crawl-index/docs/robots_txt
-
Yup wildcard syntax is indeed still valid. However I can only confirm that the big 3 (Google, Yahoo and Bing) actively observe it. Other secondary search engines may not.
In your case you are probably looking for a syntax along the lines of:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /*.pdf$ This would set that any user agent should be blocked from any file name that ends in .pdf (a $ ties it to the end so pdf.txt would not be blocked in this case)Keep an eye on how you block them. Missing a trailing slash could block a directory rather than a file, or not appending a strict symbol ($) could mean that phrases throughout a directory could be blocked rather than just a filename.
Also keep in mind if you are using URL re-writing this may play into how you need to block things; and you may also want to remember that disallowing access in a robot.txt does NOT prevent search engines from indexing the data, it is up to them if they honor the request. So if it is very important to block the file access from search engines then robots.txt may not be the way to do it.
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
-
Setting Up A Website For Redirects
I've got an old defunct domain with a lot of backlinks to individual pages. I'd like to use these backlinks for link juice by redirecting them to individual pages on the new domain (both sites belong to the same company). What is the best way to set this up? I presume I need some kind of hosting & site, even if it's just a default Wordpress install, which I can then use to set up the redirects? Would it be best done using .htaccess file for 301 redirects or some other way?
Technical SEO | | abisti20 -
Is "Above the Fold Content" still a thing?
Many of our pages have the textual content stuffed at the bottom of the page because the manager doesn't think anybody reads it and it is an eyesore to have at the top: http://www.stevinsontoyotawest.com/schedule-service For some light reading here is Google’s official blog talking about content quality:
Technical SEO | | MEllsworth
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvement.html This references Ads vs Content showing above the fold. However, in our case it has to do with images vs ads and stuffing text at the bottom of pages. Here is a bit of heavier reading. You can do a quick search for "Fold" to see their interpretation.
http://macedynamics.com/research/content-quality-score/ I understand that images are still content, however hardly any of the images have Alt text and they are not even named with keywords so Google really can't distinguish what the page is about through images alone. I'm not about to go through the entire site and add Alt text and rename images because I have much more to do on my plate. So, the questions is: Is stuffing content at the bottom of the page, below all images/inventory/widgets ok to do or should we stick with the eyesore content at the top of the page? Thoughts?0 -
Why Google ranks a page with Meta Robots: NO INDEX, NO FOLLOW?
Hi guys, I was playing with the new OSE when I found out a weird thing: if you Google "performing arts school london" you will see w w w . mountview . org. uk at the 3rd position. The point is that page has "Meta Robots: NO INDEX, NO FOLLOW", why Google indexed it? Here you can see the robots.txt allows Google to index the URL but not the content, in article they also say the meta robots tag will properly avoid Google from indexing the URL either. Apparently, in my case that page is the only one has the tag "NO INDEX, NO FOLLOW", but it's the home page. so I said to myself: OK, perhaps they have just changed that tag therefore Google needs time to re-crawl that page and de-index following the no index tag. How long do you think it will take to don't see that page indexed? Do you think it will effect the whole website, as I suppose if you have that tag on your home page (the root domain) you will lose a lot of links' juice - it's totally unnatural a backlinks profile without links to a root domain? Cheers, Pierpaolo
Technical SEO | | madcow780 -
Exclude root url in robots.txt ?
Hi, I have the following setup: www.example.com/nl
Technical SEO | | mikehenze
www.example.com/de
www.example.com/uk
etc
www.example.com is 301'ed to www.example.com/nl But now www.example.com is ranking instead of www.example.com/nl
Should is block www.example.com in robots.txt so only the subfolders are being ranked?
Or will i lose my ranking by doing this.0 -
Robots.txt file
How do i get Google to stop indexing my old pages and start indexing my new pages even months down the line? Do i need to install a Robots.txt file on each page?
Technical SEO | | gimes0 -
How do crawl errors from SEOmoz tool set effect rankings?
Hello - The other day I presented the crawl diagnostic report to a client. We identified duplicate page title errors, missing meta description errors, and duplicate content errors. After reviewing the report we presented it to the clients web company who operates a closed source CMS. Their response was that these errors are not worthy of fixing and in fact they are not hurting the site. We are having issues getting the errors fixed and I would like your opinion on this matter. My question is, how bad are these errors? Should we not fix them? Should they be fixed? Will fixing the errors have an impact on our site's rankings? Personally, I think the question is silly. I mean, the errors were found using the SEOmoz tool kit, these errors have to be effecting SEO.....right? The attached image is the result of the Crawl Diagnostics that crawled 1,400 pages. NOTE: Most of the errors are coming from Pages like blog/archive/2011-07/page-2 /blog/category/xxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxx/page-2 testimonials/147/xxxxx--xxxxx (xxxx represents information unique to the client) Thanks for your insight! c9Q33.png
Technical SEO | | Gabe0 -
How do you properly handle syndicated content?
The same piece of content is pulled in and presented (syndicated) within a frame on different web sites (owned by the same company). However, I would like only one web site to rank on Google's search results for that content. How do I set this up? Thanks, claudia
Technical SEO | | claudmar0 -
Restricted by robots.txt and soft bounce issues (related).
In our web master tools we have 35K (ish) URLs that are restricted by robots.txt and as have 1200(ish) soft 404s. WE can't seem to figure out how to properly resolve these URLs so that they no longer show up this way. Our traffic from SEO has taken a major hit over the last 2 weeks because of this. Any help? Thanks, Libby
Technical SEO | | GristMarketing0