How do I use the Robots.txt "disallow" command properly for folders I don't want indexed?
-
Today's sitemap webinar made me think about the disallow feature, seems opposite of sitemaps, but it also seems both are kind of ignored in varying ways by the engines.
I don't need help semantically, I got that part. I just can't seem to find a contemporary answer about what should be blocked using the robots.txt file.
For example, I have folders containing site comps for clients that I really don't want showing up in the SERPS. Is it better to not have these folders on the domain at all?
There are also security issues I've heard of that make sense, simply look at a site's robots file to see what they are hiding. It makes it easier to hunt for files when they know the directory the files are contained in. Do I concern myself with this?
Another example is a folder I have for my xml sitemap generator. I imagine google isn't going to try to index this or count it as content, so do I need to add folders like this to the disallow list?
-
Hi,
Usin;
User-agent: *
Disallow: /folder/subfolderis fine, however if you have information stored in your website that you certainly want crawled make sure it is in your site map and use ...
User-agent: *
allow: /folder/subfolderadding a no follow attribute to all of your pages wont be practical, if a spam crawler ignores the robots.txt it will ignore your no follow attribute. If anything new occurs with robots.txt check large website's robots.txt as they always update to new trends i.e
Hope this helps:)
-
Hi Jay,
There's actually a recent similar discussion at http://www.seomoz.org/q/what-reasons-exist-to-use-noindex-robots-txt regarding deciding what to block via robots.
For site comps for clients, you could also password-protect those to help hide them, or do a different domain that you have entirely excluded in robots. I've also seen services like Basecamp used for posting comps. It all depends on how much you want to hide the comps.
You do want your sitemap itself to be crawled, but I'm presuming this is in the root directory so that shouldn't be a problem. Folders like your sitemap generator and other purely-framework folders can certainly be disallowed. Blocking the files that list the version of your website (if you're using a CMS) can help prevent people from searching for opportunities to hack that version and finding your site.
Also, just do a site:domain.com search on your domain, see what's indexed, see what content from there you don't want indexed, and use that as a starting point.
Are you running on a content management system, or a custom site? For a CMS, here are example robots.txt files for several popular CMSs. http://www.stayonsearch.com/robots-txt-guide
-
You may also want to think about slapping a robots noindex on the individual pages as well.
-
You can type the following syntax:
after User-agent: *
Disallow: /foldername/subfoldername
also, you can name your sitemaps in the robots.txt file.
They can be defined as
Sitemap: http://www.yourdomain.com/sitemap.xml
If you have multiple sitemaps, you can have multiple sitemaps listed.
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
-
Using one robots.txt for two websites
I have two websites that are hosted in the same CMS. Rather than having two separate robots.txt files (one for each domain), my web agency has created one which lists the sitemaps for both websites, like this: User-agent: * Disallow: Sitemap: https://www.siteA.org/sitemap Sitemap: https://www.siteB.com/sitemap Is this ok? I thought you needed one robots.txt per website which provides the URL for the sitemap. Will having both sitemap URLs listed in one robots.txt confuse the search engines?
Technical SEO | | ciehmoz0 -
"Yet-to-be-translated" Duplicate Content: is rel='canonical' the answer?
Hi All, We have a partially internationalized site, some pages are translated while others have yet to be translated. Right now, when a page has not yet been translated we add an English-language page at the url https://our-website/:language/page-name and add a bar for users to the top of the page that simply says "Sorry, this page has not yet been translated". This is best for our users, but unfortunately it creates duplicate content, as we re-publish our English-language content a second time under a different url. When we have untranslated (i.e. duplicate) content I believe the best thing we can do is add which points to the English page. However here's my concern: someday we _will_translate/localize these pages, and therefore someday these links will _not _have duplicate content. I'm concerned that a long time of having rel='canonical' on these urls, if we suddenly change this, that these "recently translated, no longer pointing to cannonical='english' pages" will not be indexed properly. Is this a valid concern?
Technical SEO | | VectrLabs0 -
Category URL Pagination where URLs don't change between pages
Hello, I am working on an e-commerce site where there are categories with multiple pages. In order to avoid pagination issues I was thinking of using rel=next and rel=prev and cannonical tags. I noticed a site where the URL doesn't change between pages, so whether you're on page 1,2, or 3 of the same category, the URL doesn't change. Would this be a cleaner way of dealing with pagination?
Technical SEO | | whiteonlySEO0 -
Will a Robots.txt 'disallow' of a directory, keep Google from seeing 301 redirects for pages/files within the directory?
Hi- I have a client that had thousands of dynamic php pages indexed by Google that shouldn't have been. He has since blocked these php pages via robots.txt disallow. Unfortunately, many of those php pages were linked to by high quality sites mulitiple times (instead of the static urls) before he put up the php 'disallow'. If we create 301 redirects for some of these php URLs that area still showing high value backlinks and send them to the correct static URLs, will Google even see these 301 redirects and pass link value to the proper static URLs? Or will the robots.txt keep Google away and we lose all these high quality backlinks? I guess the same question applies if we use the canonical tag instead of the 301. Will the robots.txt keep Google from seeing the canonical tags on the php pages? Thanks very much, V
Technical SEO | | Voodak0 -
Can't understand poor rankings
Hi Guys Our site gets an A for on page optimisation and has much more backlinks and content than our competitors yet we rank no where for majority of keywords Please Help! Mike
Technical SEO | | MikeAquaspresso0 -
Robots.txt best practices & tips
Hey, I was wondering if someone could give me some advice on whether I should block the robots.txt file from the average user (not from googlebot, yandex, etc)? If so, how would I go about doing this? With .htaccess I'm guessing - but not an expert. What can people do with the information in the file? Maybe someone can give me some "best practices"? (I have a wordpress based website) Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | JonathanRolande0 -
Robots.txt question
What is this robots.txt telling the search engines? User-agent: * Disallow: /stats/
Technical SEO | | DenverKelly0 -
Research for "love quotes"
I'm doing some research for the term "love quotes" I'm trying to understand why following URL is ranking so high quote-monster.com/category/love-quotes/ it only has one link? Any advise would be appreciated. Rgds Mark
Technical SEO | | relientmark0