Is robots met tag a more reliable than robots.txt at preventing indexing by Google?
-
What's your experience of using robots meta tag v robots.txt when it comes to a stand alone solution to prevent Google indexing?
I am pretty sure robots meta tag is more reliable - going on own experiences, I have never experience any probs with robots meta tags but plenty with robots.txt as a stand alone solution.
Thanks in advance, Luke
-
Hi there,
Regarding the X-Robots tag. We have had a couple of sites that were disallowed in the robots.txt have their PDF, Doc etc files get indexed. I understand the reasoning for this. I would like to remove the disallow in the robots.txt and use the X-robots tag to noindex all pages as well as PDF, Doc files etc. This is for a ngnix configuation. Does anyone know what the written x-robots tag would look like in this case?
-
Test for what works for your site.
Use tools below
- https://www.deepcrawl.com/ (will give you one free full crawl)
- https://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/ (free up to 500 URLs)
- http://urlprofiler.com/ (14 days free try)
- https://www.deepcrawl.com/blog/best-practice/noindex-disallow-nofollow/
- https://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/user-guide/general/#robots-txt
- https://www.deepcrawl.com/blog/best-practice/noindex-and-google/
So much info
https://www.deepcrawl.com/blog/tag/robots-txt/
Thomas
-
Hi Luke,
In order to exclude individual pages from search engine indices, the noindex meta tag
is actually superior to robots.txt.
But X-Robots-Tag header tag is the best but much hader to use.
Block all web crawlers from all content
User-agent: * Disallow: /
Using the
robots.txt
file, you can tell a spider where it cannot go on your site. You can not tell a search engine which URLs it cannot show in the search results. This means that not allowing a search engine to crawl an URL – called “blocking” it – does not mean that URL will not show up in the search results. If the search engine finds enough links to that URL, it will include it; it will just not know what’s on that page.If you want to reliably block a page from showing up in the search results, you need to use a meta robots
noindex
tag. That means the search engine has to be able to index that page and find thenoindex
tag, so the page should not be blocked byrobots.txt
a
robots.txt
file does. In a nutshell, what it does is tell search engines to not crawl a particular page, file or directory of your website.Using this, helps both you and search engines such as Google. By not providing access to certain, unimportant areas of your website, you can save on your crawl budget and reduce load on your server.
Please note that using the
robots.txt
file to hide your entire website for search engines is definitely not recommended.see big photo: http://i.imgur.com/MM7hM4g.png
_(…)_ _(…)_
The robots meta tag in the above example instructs all search engines not to show the page in search results. The value of the
name
attribute (robots
) specifies that the directive applies to all crawlers. To address a specific crawler, replace therobots
value of thename
attribute with the name of the crawler that you are addressing. Specific crawlers are also known as user-agents (a crawler uses its user-agent to request a page.) Google's standard web crawler has the user-agent name.Googlebot
To prevent only Googlebot from crawling your page, update the tag as follows:This tag now instructs Google (but no other search engines) not to show this page in its web search results. Both the and
name
the attributescontent
are non-case sensitive.Search engines may have different crawlers for different properties or purposes. See the complete list of Google's crawlers. For example, to show a page in Google's web search results, but not in Google News, use the following meta tag:
If you need to specify multiple crawlers individually, it's okay to use multiple robots meta tags:
If competing directives are encountered by our crawlers we will use the most restrictive directive we find.
irective. This basically means that if you want to really hide something from the search engines, and thus from people using search,
robots.txt
won’t suffice.Indexer directives
Indexer directives are directives that are set on a per page and/or per element basis. Up until July 2007, there were two directives: the microformat rel=”nofollow”, which means that that link should not pass authority / PageRank, and the Meta Robots tag.
With the Meta Robots tag, you can really prevent search engines from showing pages you want to keep out of the search results. The same result can be achieved with the X-Robots-Tag HTTP header. As described earlier, the X-Robots-Tag gives you more flexibility by also allowing you to control how specific file(types) are indexed.
Example uses of the X-Robots-Tag
Using the
X-Robots-Tag
HTTP headerThe
X-Robots-Tag
can be used as an element of the HTTP header response for a given URL. Any directive that can be used in an robots meta tag can also be specified as anX-Robots-Tag
. Here's an example of an HTTP response with anX-Robots-Tag
instructing crawlers not to index a page:HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 21:42:43 GMT _(…)_ **X-Robots-Tag: noindex** _(…)_
Multiple
X-Robots-Tag
headers can be combined within the HTTP response, or you can specify a comma-separated list of directives. Here's an example of an HTTP header response which has anoarchive
X-Robots-Tag
combined with anunavailable_after
X-Robots-Tag
.HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 21:42:43 GMT _(…)_ **X-Robots-Tag: noarchive X-Robots-Tag: unavailable_after: 25 Jun 2010 15:00:00 PST** _(…)_
The
X-Robots-Tag
may optionally specify a user-agent before the directives. For instance, the following set ofX-Robots-Tag
HTTP headers can be used to conditionally allow showing of a page in search results for different search engines:HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 21:42:43 GMT _(…)_ **X-Robots-Tag: googlebot: nofollow X-Robots-Tag: otherbot: noindex, nofollow** _(…)_
Directives specified without a user-agent are valid for all crawlers. The section below demonstrates how to handle combined directives. Both the name and the specified values are not case sensitive.
- https://mza.seotoolninja.com/learn/seo/robotstxt
- https://yoast.com/ultimate-guide-robots-txt/
- https://mza.seotoolninja.com/blog/the-wonderful-world-of-seo-metatags
- https://yoast.com/x-robots-tag-play/
- https://www.searchenginejournal.com/x-robots-tag-simple-alternate-robots-txt-meta-tag/67138/
- https://developers.google.com/webmasters/control-crawl-index/docs/robots_meta_tag
I hope this helps,
Tom
-
If you've recently added the "noindex" meta, get the page fetched in GWT. Google can't act if it doesn't see the tag.
-
Hi Luke,
It's a pretty common misconception that the robots.txt will prevent indexing. It's only purpose is actually to prevent crawling, anything disallowed in there is still up for indexing if it's linked to elsewhere. If you want something deindexed, your best bet is the robots meta tag, but make sure you allow crawling of the URLs to give search engine bots an opportunity to see the tag.
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 do internal search results get indexed by Google?
Hi all, Most of the URLs that are created by using the internal search function of a website/web shop shouldn't be indexed since they create duplicate content or waste crawl budget. The standard way to go is to 'noindex, follow' these pages or sometimes to use robots.txt to disallow crawling of these pages. The first question I have is how these pages actually would get indexed in the first place if you wouldn't use one of the options above. Crawlers follow links to index a website's pages. If a random visitor comes to your site and uses the search function, this creates a URL. There are no links leading to this URL, it is not in a sitemap, it can't be found through navigating on the website,... so how can search engines index these URLs that were generated by using an internal search function? Second question: let's say somebody embeds a link on his website pointing to a URL from your website that was created by an internal search. Now let's assume you used robots.txt to make sure these URLs weren't indexed. This means Google won't even crawl those pages. Is it possible then that the link that was used on another website will show an empty page after a while, since Google doesn't even crawl this page? Thanks for your thoughts guys.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mat_C0 -
Site moved. Unable to index page : Noindex detected in robots meta tag?!
Hope someone can shed some light on this: We moved our smaller site (into the main site ( different domains) . The smaller site that was moved ( https://www.bluegreenrentals.com)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bgvsiteadmin
Directory where the site was moved (https://www.bluegreenvacations.com/rentals) Each page from the old site was 301 redirected to the appropriate page under .com/rentals. But we are seeing a significant drop in rankings and traffic., as I am unable to request a change of address in Google search console (a separate issue that I can elaborate on). Lots of (301 redirect) new destination pages are not indexed. When Inspected, I got a message : Indexing allowed? No: 'index' detected in 'robots' meta tagAll pages are set as Index/follow and there are no restrictions in robots.txtHere is an example URL :https://www.bluegreenvacations.com/rentals/resorts/colorado/innsbruck-aspen/Can someone take a look and share an opinion on this issue?Thank you!0 -
Canonical Tags increased after putting the appropriate tag?
Hey, I noticed that the number of duplicate title tags increased from 14k to 30k in Google Search Console. These dup title tags derived from having the incorrect canonical tags. For instance, http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/?d=Mens
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ggpaul562
http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/?d=Womens These two are the same exact pages with two parameters (These are not unisex by the way). Anyway, when I viewed the page source, it had the parameter in the canonical tag so.... it would look like this So whether it be http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/
http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/?d=Mens
http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/?d=Womens The canonical tag had the "?d=Womens" I figured that wasn't best practices, so for the canonical tag I removed the parameter so now the canonical tag is http://www.site.com/product-name/product-code/ for that specific page with parameter (if that makes sense). My question is, why did my number of errors doubled after what I thought fixed the solution?0 -
Robots.txt Blocked Most Site URLs Because of Canonical
Had a bit of a "Gotcha" in Magento. We had Yoast Canonical Links extension which worked well , but then we installed Mageworx SEO Suite.. which broke Canonical Links. Unfortunately it started putting www.mysite.com/catalog/product/view/id/516/ as the Canonical Link - and all URLs with /catalog/productview/* is blocked in Robots.txt So unfortunately We told Google that the correct page is also a blocked page. they haven't been removed as far as I can see but traffic has certainly dropped. We have also , at the same time had some Site changes grouping some pages & having 301 redirects. Resubmitted site map & did a fetch as google. Any other ideas? And Idea how long it will take to become unblocked?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | s_EOgi_Bear0 -
Blocking poor quality content areas with robots.txt
I found an interesting discussion on seoroundtable where Barry Schwartz and others were discussing using robots.txt to block low quality content areas affected by Panda. http://www.seroundtable.com/google-farmer-advice-13090.html The article is a bit dated. I was wondering what current opinions are on this. We have some dynamically generated content pages which we tried to improve after panda. Resources have been limited and alas, they are still there. Until we can officially remove them I thought it may be a good idea to just block the entire directory. I would also remove them from my sitemaps and resubmit. There are links coming in but I could redirect the important ones (was going to do that anyway). Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_edvisors0 -
Howcome Google is indexing one day 2500 pages and the other day only 150 then 2000 again ect?
This is about an big affiliate website of an customer of us, running with datafeeds... Bad things about datafeeds: Duplicate Content (product descriptions) Verrryyyy Much (thin) product pages (sometimes better to noindex, i know, but this customer doesn't want to do that)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Zanox0 -
Google Site Extended Listing Not Indexed
I am trying to get the new Site map to be picked up by Google for the extended listing as its pulling from the old links and returning 404 errors. How can I get the site listing indexed quickly and have the extended listing get updated to point to the right places. This is the site - http://epaperflip.com/Default.aspx This is the search with the extended listing and some 404's - Broad Match search for "epaperflip"
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Intergen0 -
Help! Why did Google remove my images from their index?
I've been scratching my head over this one for a while now and I can't seem to figure it out. I own a website that is user-generated content. Users submit images to my sites of graphic resources (for designers) that they have created to share with our community. I've been noticing over the past few months that I'm getting completely dominated in Google Images. I used to get a ton of traffic from Google Images, but now I can't find my images anywhere. After diving into Analytics I found this: http://cl.ly/140L2d14040Q1R0W161e and realized sometime about a year ago my image traffic took a dive. We've gone back through all the change logs and can't find where we made any changes to the site structure that could have caused this. We are stumped. Does anyone know of any historical Google updates that could have caused this last year around the end of April 2010? Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shawn810