New CMS system - 100,000 old urls - use robots.txt to block?
-
Hello.
My website has recently switched to a new CMS system.
Over the last 10 years or so, we've used 3 different CMS systems on our current domain. As expected, this has resulted in lots of urls.
Up until this most recent iteration, we were unable to 301 redirect or use any page-level indexation techniques like rel 'canonical'
Using SEOmoz's tools and GWMT, I've been able to locate and redirect all pertinent, page-rank bearing, "older" urls to their new counterparts..however, according to Google Webmaster tools 'Not Found' report, there are literally over 100,000 additional urls out there it's trying to find.
My question is, is there an advantage to using robots.txt to stop search engines from looking for some of these older directories? Currently, we allow everything - only using page level robots tags to disallow where necessary.
Thanks!
-
Great stuff..thanks again for your advice..much appreciated!
-
It can be really tough to gauge the impact - it depends on how suddenly the 404s popped up, how many you're seeing (webmaster tools, for Google and Bing, is probably the best place to check) and how that number compares to your overall index. In most cases, it's a temporary problem and the engines will sort it out and de-index the 404'ed pages.
I'd just make sure that all of these 404s are intentional and none are valuable pages or occurring because of issues with the new CMS itself. It's easy to overlook something when you're talking about 100K pages, and it could be more than just a big chunk of 404s.
-
Thanks for the advice! The previous website did have a robots.txt file with a few wild cards declared. A lot of the urls I'm seeing are NOT indexed anymore and haven't been for many years.
So, I think the 'stop the bleeding' method will work, and I'll just have to proceed with investigating and applying 301s as necessary.
Any idea what kind of an impact this is having on our rankings? I submitted a valid sitemap, crawl paths are good, and major 301s are in place. We've been hit particularly hard in Bing.
Thanks!
-
I've honestly had mixed luck with using Robots.txt to block pages that have already been indexed. It tends to be unreliable at a large scale (good for prevention, poor for cures). I endorsed @Optimize, though, because if Robots.txt is your only option, it can help "stop the bleeding". Sometimes, you use the best you have.
It's a bit trickier with 404s ("Not Found"). Technically, there's nothing wrong with having 404s (and it's a very valid signal for SEO), but if you create 100,000 all at once, that can sometimes give raise red flags with Google. Some kind of mass-removal may prevent problems from Google crawling thousands of not founds all at once.
If these pages are isolated in a folder, then you can use Google Webmaster Tools to remove the entire folder (after you block it). This is MUCH faster than Robots.txt alone, but you need to make sure everything in the folder can be dumped out of the index.
-
Absolutely. Not founds and no content are a concern. This will help your ranking....
-
Thanks a lot! I should have been a little more specific..but, my exact question would be, if I move the crawlers' attention away from these 'Not Found' pages, will that benefit the indexation of the now valid pages? Are the 'Not Found's' really a concern? Will this help my indexation and/or ranking?
Thanks!
-
Loaded question without knowing exactly what you are doing.....but let me offer this advice. Stop the bleeding with robots.txt. This is the easiest way to quickly resolve that many "not found".
Then you can slowly pick away at the issue and figure out if some of the "not founds" really have content and it is sending them to the wrong area....
On a recent project we had over 200,000 additional url's "not found". We stopped the bleeding and then slowly over the course of a month, spending a couple hours a week, found another 5,000 pages of content that we redirected correctly and removed the robots....
Good luck.
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
-
Should I change my website urls?
We're translating our website in a few languages (FR / DE / JP) using subdirectories. So our website will have the following urls www.brand.com/en
On-Page Optimization | | dcalexandra
www.brand.com/fr
www.brand.com/de
www.brand.com/jp I would like to change the url structure of a few pages from www.brand.com/section/feature-name to www.brand.com/feature-name Is it a good idea to do this now since we're adding the subfolders and these are anyway new urls in google's eyes?0 -
URL Path. What is better for SEO
Hello Moz people, Is it better for SEO to have a URL path like this: flowersite.com/anniversary_flowers/dozen_roses OR flowersite.com/dozen_roses Is it better to have the full trail of pages in the URL?
On-Page Optimization | | CKerr0 -
Paginated URLs are getting Indexed
Hi, For ex: - My site is www.abc.com and Its paginated URLs for www.abc.com/jobs-in-delhi are in the format of : www.abc.com/jobs-in-delhi-1, www.abc.com/jobs-in-delhi-2 and vice versa also i have used pagination tags rel=next and rel=prev. My concern is all the paginated URLs are getting indexed so is their any disadvantage if these URLs are getting indexed as somewhere i have read that link juice may get distributed in case of pagination. isn't it good to use Noindex, Follow so that we can make the Google to understand that paginated page are not so much important and that should not be ranked.
On-Page Optimization | | vivekrathore0 -
Dates in URL's
I have an issue of duplicate content errors and duplicate page titles which is penalising my site. This has arisen because a number of URLs are suffixed by date(s) and have been spidered . In principle I do not want any url with a suffixed date to be spidered. Eg:- www.carbisbayholidays.co.uk/carbis-bay/houses-in-carbis-bay/seaspray.htm/06_07_13/13_07_13 http://www.carbisbayholidays.co.uk/carbis-bay/houses-in-carbis-bay/seaspray.htm/20_07_13/27_07_13 Only this URL should be spidered:- http://www.carbisbayholidays.co.uk/carbis-bay/houses-in-carbis-bay/seaspray.htm I have over 10,000 of these duplicates and firstly wish to remove them on block from Google ( not one by one ) and secondly wish to amend my robots.txt file so the URL's are not spidered. I do not know the format for either. Can anyone help please.
On-Page Optimization | | carbisbayhols0 -
Should I delete my old blog now that it has been transfered?
I just transfered my free wordpress.com blog to my main business site and I did not know if I should delete my old blog or is it a big issue to have the same content on both sites. I will be adding to my biz site from now on.
On-Page Optimization | | greenjoe0 -
Robots.txt: excluding URL
Hi, spiders crawl some dynamic urls in my website (example: http://www.keihome.it/elettrodomestici/cappe/cappa-vision-con-tv-falmec/714/ + http://www.keihome.it/elettrodomestici/cappe/cappa-vision-con-tv-falmec/714/open=true) as different pages, resulting duplicate content of course. What is syntax for disallow these kind of urls in robots.txt? Thanks so much
On-Page Optimization | | anakyn0 -
How do you block development servers with robots.txt?
When we create client websites the urls are client.oursite.com. Google is indexing theses sites and attaching to our domain. How can we stop it with robots.txt? I've heard you need to have the robots file on both the main site and the dev sites... A code sample would be groovy. Thanks, TR
On-Page Optimization | | DisMedia0