Why are these results being showed as blocked by robots.txt?
-
If you perform this search, you'll see all m. results are blocked by robots.txt: http://goo.gl/PRrlI, but when I reviewed the robots.txt file: http://goo.gl/Hly28, I didn't see anything specifying to block crawlers from these pages.
Any ideas why these are showing as blocked?
-
Hi,
Your robots.txt file is very .. steroid healthy. It has his own universe
Are you 100% sure all of the entries are legit and clean ?
First thing I would do is to check Web M;aster Tools for the mobile subdomain. If you don't have it yet, that will be a good place to start - to verify the m subdomain.
Once in WeB Master Tools - you can debug this in no time.
Cheers.
-
but, even when i search from my mobile device, I get the same results (that m. is blocked)
-
I can't submit because I haven't claimed m. in GWT
-
If you haven't already done so, I recommend testing your robots.txt file against one of your mobile pages (such as m.healthline.com/treatments) in Google Webmaster Tools. You can do this by logging into GWT, then click Health, then Blocked URLs.
If you have already tested it in GWT, can you let us know what the results said?
-
Another good article from the community
-
So after a little it or research as I never ever came past this before as all the site we do are responsive, I found this
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=72462
It seems Google wont index a website that they think is a mobile website within the main serp, and vice verse ...
Hope that helps, cause it had me puzzled
Regards
John
-
Which directory are you storing your mobile website files within ...
-
Oh, sorry, on further investigation I see its just your mobile site that are being blocked ...
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
-
Search Results Pages Blocked in Robots.txt?
Hi I am reviewing our robots.txt file. I wondered if search results pages should be blocked from crawling? We currently have this in the file /searchterm* Is it a good thing for SEO?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Why would my ip address show up in my webmaster tools links?
I am showing thousands of links from my servers ip address. What would cause that?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Search Results not Updating (Title, Description, and URL)
Issue: I recently discovered that my site was accessible by both HTTP and HTTPS. The site has used a rel canonical tag to point to the HTTP version. Google+ was pointing to HTTPS though. The title, description, and URL shown in the results for the homepage is HTTPS, other pages are HTTP, etc... Steps taken to Resolve: This week I did the following... 301'd all non-checkout pages to the HTTP version Switched Google+ URL to HTTP version and added new post with an HTTP link to the homepage. Used webmaster tools to recrawl and reindex the site Resubmitted XML Sitemap No luck... the site is still not updating... any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks all! Site is Here
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AhlerManagement0 -
Robots.txt Syntax
I have been having a hard time finding any decent information regarding the robots.txt syntax that has been written in the last few years and I just want to verify some things as a review for myself. I have many occasions where I need to block particular directories in the URL, parameters and parameter values. I just wanted to make sure that I am doing this in the most efficient ways possible and thought you guys could help. So let's say I want to block a particular directory called "this" and this would be an example URL: www.domain.com/folder1/folder2/this/file.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt
or
www.domain.com/folder1/this/folder2/file.html In order for me to block any URL that contains this folder anywhere in the URL I would use: User-agent: *
Disallow: /this/ Now lets say I have a parameter "that" I want to block and sometimes it is the first parameter and sometimes it isn't when it shows up in the URL. Would it look like this? User-agent: *
Disallow: ?that=
Disallow: &that= What about if there is only one value I want to block for "that" and the value is "NotThisGuy": User-agent: *
Disallow: ?that=NotThisGuy
Disallow: &that=NotThisGuy My big questions here are what are the most efficient ways to block a particular parameter and block a particular parameter value. Is there a more efficient way to deal with ? and & for when the parameter and value are either first or later? Secondly is there a list somewhere that will tell me all of the syntax and meaning that can be used for a robots.txt file? Thanks!0 -
Avoiding Duplicate Content with Used Car Listings Database: Robots.txt vs Noindex vs Hash URLs (Help!)
Hi Guys, We have developed a plugin that allows us to display used vehicle listings from a centralized, third-party database. The functionality works similar to autotrader.com or cargurus.com, and there are two primary components: 1. Vehicle Listings Pages: this is the page where the user can use various filters to narrow the vehicle listings to find the vehicle they want.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | browndoginteractive
2. Vehicle Details Pages: this is the page where the user actually views the details about said vehicle. It is served up via Ajax, in a dialog box on the Vehicle Listings Pages. Example functionality: http://screencast.com/t/kArKm4tBo The Vehicle Listings pages (#1), we do want indexed and to rank. These pages have additional content besides the vehicle listings themselves, and those results are randomized or sliced/diced in different and unique ways. They're also updated twice per day. We do not want to index #2, the Vehicle Details pages, as these pages appear and disappear all of the time, based on dealer inventory, and don't have much value in the SERPs. Additionally, other sites such as autotrader.com, Yahoo Autos, and others draw from this same database, so we're worried about duplicate content. For instance, entering a snippet of dealer-provided content for one specific listing that Google indexed yielded 8,200+ results: Example Google query. We did not originally think that Google would even be able to index these pages, as they are served up via Ajax. However, it seems we were wrong, as Google has already begun indexing them. Not only is duplicate content an issue, but these pages are not meant for visitors to navigate to directly! If a user were to navigate to the url directly, from the SERPs, they would see a page that isn't styled right. Now we have to determine the right solution to keep these pages out of the index: robots.txt, noindex meta tags, or hash (#) internal links. Robots.txt Advantages: Super easy to implement Conserves crawl budget for large sites Ensures crawler doesn't get stuck. After all, if our website only has 500 pages that we really want indexed and ranked, and vehicle details pages constitute another 1,000,000,000 pages, it doesn't seem to make sense to make Googlebot crawl all of those pages. Robots.txt Disadvantages: Doesn't prevent pages from being indexed, as we've seen, probably because there are internal links to these pages. We could nofollow these internal links, thereby minimizing indexation, but this would lead to each 10-25 noindex internal links on each Vehicle Listings page (will Google think we're pagerank sculpting?) Noindex Advantages: Does prevent vehicle details pages from being indexed Allows ALL pages to be crawled (advantage?) Noindex Disadvantages: Difficult to implement (vehicle details pages are served using ajax, so they have no tag. Solution would have to involve X-Robots-Tag HTTP header and Apache, sending a noindex tag based on querystring variables, similar to this stackoverflow solution. This means the plugin functionality is no longer self-contained, and some hosts may not allow these types of Apache rewrites (as I understand it) Forces (or rather allows) Googlebot to crawl hundreds of thousands of noindex pages. I say "force" because of the crawl budget required. Crawler could get stuck/lost in so many pages, and my not like crawling a site with 1,000,000,000 pages, 99.9% of which are noindexed. Cannot be used in conjunction with robots.txt. After all, crawler never reads noindex meta tag if blocked by robots.txt Hash (#) URL Advantages: By using for links on Vehicle Listing pages to Vehicle Details pages (such as "Contact Seller" buttons), coupled with Javascript, crawler won't be able to follow/crawl these links. Best of both worlds: crawl budget isn't overtaxed by thousands of noindex pages, and internal links used to index robots.txt-disallowed pages are gone. Accomplishes same thing as "nofollowing" these links, but without looking like pagerank sculpting (?) Does not require complex Apache stuff Hash (#) URL Disdvantages: Is Google suspicious of sites with (some) internal links structured like this, since they can't crawl/follow them? Initially, we implemented robots.txt--the "sledgehammer solution." We figured that we'd have a happier crawler this way, as it wouldn't have to crawl zillions of partially duplicate vehicle details pages, and we wanted it to be like these pages didn't even exist. However, Google seems to be indexing many of these pages anyway, probably based on internal links pointing to them. We could nofollow the links pointing to these pages, but we don't want it to look like we're pagerank sculpting or something like that. If we implement noindex on these pages (and doing so is a difficult task itself), then we will be certain these pages aren't indexed. However, to do so we will have to remove the robots.txt disallowal, in order to let the crawler read the noindex tag on these pages. Intuitively, it doesn't make sense to me to make googlebot crawl zillions of vehicle details pages, all of which are noindexed, and it could easily get stuck/lost/etc. It seems like a waste of resources, and in some shadowy way bad for SEO. My developers are pushing for the third solution: using the hash URLs. This works on all hosts and keeps all functionality in the plugin self-contained (unlike noindex), and conserves crawl budget while keeping vehicle details page out of the index (unlike robots.txt). But I don't want Google to slap us 6-12 months from now because it doesn't like links like these (). Any thoughts or advice you guys have would be hugely appreciated, as I've been going in circles, circles, circles on this for a couple of days now. Also, I can provide a test site URL if you'd like to see the functionality in action.0 -
What is best practice to eliminate my IP addr content from showing in SERPs?
Our eCommerce platform provider has our site load balanced in a few data centers. Our site has two of our own exclusive IP addresses associated with it (one in each data center). Problem is Google is showing our IP addresses in the SERPs with what I would assume is bad duplicate content (our own at that). I brought this to the attention of our provider and they say they must keep the IP addresses open to allow their site monitoring software to work. Their solution was to add robots.txt files for both IP addresses with site wide/root disallows. As a side note, we just added canonical tags so the pages indexed within the IP addresses ultimately show the correct URL (non IP address) via the canonical. So here are my questions. Is there a better way? If not, is there anything else we need to do get Google to drop the several hundred thousand indexed pages at the IP address level? Or do we sit back and wait now?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ovenbird0 -
Cross-Domain Canonical Showing as inbound links?
I run several ecommerce websites, and there is some overlap in the products offered between sites. To solve this duplicate content issue, I use a cross-domain rel canonical so that there is only 1 authoritative page per product, even if it is sold on multiple sites. However, I am noticing that my inbound link profile is massively expanding because Google sees these as inbound links. The top linking domains for my site are all owned by me, even though there are not any actual links between the sites. Has anyone else experienced this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevenmusumeche0
