Disallow: /search/ in robots but soft 404s are still showing in GWT and Google search?
-
Hi guys, I've already added the following syntax in robots.txt to prevent search engines in crawling dynamic pages produce by my website's search feature: Disallow: /search/. But soft 404s are still showing in Google Webmaster Tools. Do I need to wait(it's been almost a week since I've added the following syntax in my robots.txt)? Thanks, JC
-
You could also look at using the meta robots = noindex tag on /search/ pages, rather than just blocking it in robots.txt, as this will remove existing URLs from the index.
-
Glad to help
-
Thanks a lot Dan!
-
That is a good recommendation but ultimately search engines will make a final decision on crawl frequency. Take a look at your 'Crawl Stats' on GWTs and this will give you an idea of how often your site is crawled.
-
Is the time issue related in crawl frequency of the URLs in my sitemap?
Thanks Dan, appreciate it.
-
You will probably need to wait a little longer - it depends how often your site usually gets crawled and indexed.
However, robots.txt does not always stop search engines from indexing your pages. It will stop them crawling a page on your site but it tells them that they can still index that page. If they find links from external sites then the URL may still appear in the SERP.
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
-
Google Search Console - URL Parameters Tab ISSUE
Hi, Recently i removed some disallowed parameters from my robots.txt and added the setting No Url in my search console URL parameters tab (as can be seen in the image http://prntscr.com/e997o5) Today i saw the orderby parameter indexed even if the setting is to not crawl those urls. Anyone any idea why is this happening? Thank god that all those urls with parameters are canonicalised to their original url's.
Technical SEO | | dos06590 -
How google crawls images and which url shows as source?
Hi, I noticed that some websites host their images to a different url than the one their actually website is hosted but in the end google link to the one that the site is hosted. Here is an example: This is a page of a hotel in booking.com: http://www.booking.com/hotel/us/harrah-s-caesars-palace.en-gb.html When I try a search for this hotel in google images it shows up one of the images of the slideshow. When I click on the image on Google search, if I choose the Visit Page button it links to the url above but the actual image is located in a totally different url: http://r-ec.bstatic.com/images/hotel/840x460/135/13526198.jpg My question is can you host your images to one site but show it to another site and in the end google will lead to the second one?
Technical SEO | | Tz_Seo0 -
Googlebot does not obey robots.txt disallow
Hi Mozzers! We are trying to get Googlebot to steer away from our internal search results pages by adding a parameter "nocrawl=1" to facet/filter links and then robots.txt disallow all URLs containing that parameter. We implemented this late august and since that, the GWMT message "Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site", stopped coming. But today we received yet another. The weird thing is that Google gives many of our nowadays robots.txt disallowed URLs as examples of URLs that may cause us problems. What could be the reason? Best regards, Martin
Technical SEO | | TalkInThePark0 -
Search/Search Results Page & Duplicate Content
If you have a page whose only purpose is to allow searches and the search results can be generated by any keyword entered, should all those search result urls be no index or rel canonical? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | cakelady0 -
Avoiding Duplicate Content in E-Commerce Product Search/Sorting Results
How do you handle sorting on ecommerce sites? Does it look something like this? For Example: example.com/inventory.php example.com/inventory.php?category=used example.com/inventory.php?category=used&price=high example.com/inventory.php?category=used&location=seattle If not, how would you handle this? If so, would you just include a no-index tag on all sorted pages to avoid duplicate content issues? Also, how does pagination play into this? Would it be something like this? For Example: example.com/inventory.php?category=used&price=high__ example.com/inventory.php?category=used&price=high&page=2 example.com/inventory.php?category=used&price=high&page=3 If not, how would you handle this? If so, would you still include a no-index tag? Would you include a rel=next/prev tag on these pages in addition to or instead of the no-index tag? I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you need me to clarify any of this. Thanks in advance for your help!
Technical SEO | | AlexanderAvery1 -
Site 'filtered' by Google in early July.... and still filtered!
Hi, Our site got demoted by Google all of a sudden back in early July. You can view the site here: http://alturl.com/4pfrj and you may read the discussions I posted in Google's forums here: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=6e8f9aab7e384d88&hl=en http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=276dc6687317641b&hl=en Those discussions chronicle what happened, and what we've done since. I don't want to make this a long post by retyping it all here, hence the links. However, we've made various changes (as detailed), such as getting rid of duplicate content (use of noindex on various pages etc), and ensuring there is no hidden text (we made an unintentional blunder there through use of a 3rd party control which used CSS hidden text to store certain data). We have also filed reconsideration requests with Google and been told that no manual penalty has been applied. So the problem is down to algorithmic filters which are being applied. So... my reason for posting here is simply to see if anyone here can help us discover if there is anything we have missed? I'd hope that we've addressed the main issues and that eventually our Google ranking will recover (ie. filter removed.... it isn't that we 'rank' poorly, but that a filter is bumping us down, to, for example, page 50).... but after three months it sure is taking a while! It appears that a 30 day penalty was originally applied, as our ranking recovered in early August. But a few days later it dived down again (so presumably Google analysed the site again, found a problem and applied another penalty/filter). I'd hope that might have been 30 or 60 days, but 60 days have now passed.... so perhaps we have a 90 day penalty now. OR.... perhaps there is no time frame this time, simply the need to 'fix' whatever is constantly triggering the filter (that said, I 'feel' like a time frame is there, especially given what happened after 30 days). Of course the other aspect that can always be worked on (and oft-mentioned) is the need for more and more original content. However, we've done a lot to increase this and think our Guide pages are pretty useful now. I've looked at many competitive sites which list in Google and they really don't offer anything more than we do..... so if that is the issue it sure is puzzling if we're filtered and they aren't. Anyway, I'm getting wordy now, so I'll pause. I'm just asking if anyone would like to have a quick look at the site and see what they can deduce? We have of course run it through SEOMoz's tools and made use of the suggestions. Our target pages generally rate as an A for SEO in the reports. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Go2Holidays0