Block in robots.txt instead of using canonical?
-
When I use a canonical tag for pages that are variations of the same page, it basically means that I don't want Google to index this page. But at the same time, spiders will go ahead and crawl the page. Isn't this a waste of my crawl budget? Wouldn't it be better to just disallow the page in robots.txt and let Google focus on crawling the pages that I do want indexed?
In other words, why should I ever use rel=canonical as opposed to simply disallowing in robots.txt?
-
With this info, I would go with Robots.txt because, as you say, it outweighs any potential loss given the use of the pages and the absence of links.
Thanks
-
Thanks Robert.
The pages that I'm talking about disallowing do not have rank or links. They are sub-pages of a profile page. If anything, the main page will be linked to, not the sub-pages.
Maybe I should have explained that I'm talking about a large site - around 400K pages. More than 1,000 new pages are created per week. That's why I am concerned about managing crawl budget. The pages that I'm referring to are not linked to anywhere on the site. Sure, Google can potentially get to them if someone decides to link to them on their own site, but this is unlikely and certainly won't happen on a large scale. So I'm not really concerned about about losing pagerank on the main profile page if I disallow them. To be clear: we have many thousands of pages with content that we want to rank. The pages I'm talking about are not important in those terms.
So it's really a question of balance... if these pages (there are MANY of them) are included in the crawl (and in our sitemap), potentially it's a real waste of crawl budget. Doesn't this outweigh the minuscule, far-fetched potential loss?
I understand that Google designed rel=canonical for this scenario, but that does not mean that it's necessarily the best way to go considering the other options.
-
Thanks Takeshi.
Maybe I should have explained that I'm talking about a large site - around 400K pages. More than 1,000 new pages are created per week. That's why I am concerned about managing crawl budget. The pages that I'm referring to are not linked to anywhere on the site. Sure, Google can potentially get to them if someone decides to link to them on their own site, but this is unlikely (since it's a sub-page of the main profile page, which is where people would naturally link to) and certainly won't happen on a large scale. So I'm not really concerned about about link-juice evaporation. According to AJ Kohn here, it's not enough to see in Webmaster Tools that Google has indexed all pages on our site. There is also the issue of how often pages are being crawled, which is what we are trying to optimize for.
So it's really a question of balance... if these pages (there are MANY of them) are included in the crawl (and in our sitemap), potentially it's a real waste of crawl budget. Doesn't this outweigh the minuscule, far-fetched potential loss?
Would love to hear your thoughts...
-
I would go with the canonicals. If there are any links going to these duplicate pages, that will prevent any "link juice evaporation" from links which Google can see but can't crawl due to robots.txt. Best to let Google just crawl the page and see the canonical so that it understands that it is a duplicate page.
Having canonicals on all your pages is good practice anyway, as it can prevent inadvertent duplicate content from things like query parameters.
Crawl budget can be of some concern if you're talking about a massive number of pages, but start by first taking a look at Google Webmaster Tools and seeing how many of your pages are being crawled vs the total number of pages on your site. As long as this ration isn't small, you should be good. You can also get more crawl budget by building up your domain authority by building links.
-
I don't disagree at all and I think AJ Kohn is a rock star. In SEO, I have learned over time that there are rarely absolutes like always do this or never do that. I based my answer on how you posited the question.
If you read AJ's post you will note that the rel=canonical issue comes up with others commenting and not in the body of his post. Yes, if the page is superfluous like a cart page or a contact page, use the robots.txt to block the crawl. But, if you have a page with rank, links, etc. that help your canonical page, how are you helping yourself by forgoing rel=canon?
I think his bigger point was that you want to be aware and to understand that the # of times you are crawled is at least partially governed by PR which is governed by all those other things we discussed. If you understand that and keep the crawl focused on better pages you help yourself.
Does that clarify a bit?
Best -
Hi, even if you use robots.txt file to block these pages, Google can still pick the references of these pages from third-party websites and can crawl from there. Such pages will not have the description snippet in the search results and instead will show text that reads:
A description of this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt.
So, to fully stop Google from crawling these pages, you can go in for the page-level meta robots tag along with the robots.txt method. The page-level robots meta tag complements robots.txt method.By the way, robots.txt file can definitely save you some crawl budget. I don't think you should be thinking much about crawl budget though, as long as your website is super-easy to crawl with simple text-based internal links and stuff like, super-fast servers etc.,
Those my my two cents my friend.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
-
Thanks for the response, Robert.
I have read lots of SEO advice on maximizing your "crawl budget" - making sure your internal link system is built well to send the bots to the right pages. According to my research, since bots only spend a certain amount of time on your site when they are crawling, it is important to do whatever you can to ensure that they don't "waste time" on pages that are not important for SEO. Just as one example, see this post from AJ Kohn.
Do you disagree with this whole approach?
-
Yair
I think that the canonical is the better option. I am unsure as to your use of the term "crawl budget," in that there is no fixed number of times a page or a site will be crawled versus a second similar site for example. I have a huge reference site that is crawled every couple of days and I have small sites of ten pages that are crawled weekly or less. It is dependent on the traffic and behaviors of that traffic (which would include number of inbound links, etc.) and on things like you re-submitting sitemap, etc.
The canonical tag was created to provide the clarification to the search engine as to what you considered to be the relevant page. Go ahead and use it.Best
Robert
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
-
Canonicals for Splitting up large pagination pages
Hi there, Our dev team are looking at speeding up load times and making pages easier to browse by splitting up our pagination pages to 10 items per page rather than 1000s (exact number to be determined) - sounds like a great idea, but we're little concerned about the canonicals on this one. at the moment we rel canonical (self) and prev and next. so b is rel b, prev a and next c - for each letter continued. Now the url structure will be a1, a(n+), b1, b(n+), c1, c(n+). Should we keep the canonicals to loop through the whole new structure or should we loop each letter within itself? Either b1 rel b1, prev a(n+), next b2 - even though they're not strictly continuing the sequence. Or a1 rel a1, next a2. a2 rel a2, prev a1, next a3 | b1 rel b1, next b2, b2 rel b2, prev b1, next b3 etc. Would love to hear your points of view, hope that all made sense 🙂 I'm leaning towards the first one even though it's not continuing the letter sequence, but because it's looping the alphabetically which is currently working for us already. This is an example of the page we're hoping to split up: https://www.world-airport-codes.com/alphabetical/airport-name/b.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fubra0 -
Canonical tags for duplicate listings
Hi there, We are restructuring a website. The website originally lists jobs that will have duplicate content. We have tried to ask the client not to use duplicates but apparently their industry is not something they can control. The recommendations I had is to have categories (which will have the idea description for a group of jobs), and the job listing pages. The job listing pages will then have canonical tags pointing to the category page as the primary URL to be indexed. Another opinion came from a third party that this can be seen as if we are tricking Google and would get penalised, **Is that even true? **Why would Google penalise for this if thats their recommendations in the first place? This third party suggested using nofollow on the links to these listings, or even not not index them all together. What are your thoughts? Thanks Issa
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iQi0 -
We used to speak of too many links from same C block as bad, have CDN's like CloudFlare made that concept irrelevant?
Over lunch with our head of development, we were discussing the way CloudFlare and other CDN's help prevent DDOS attacks, etc. and I began to wonder about the IP address vs. the reverse proxy IP address. Before we would look to see commonalities in the IP as a way that search engines would modify the value to given links and most link software showed this. For ahrefs, I know they still show common IPs using the C block as the reference point. I began to get curious about what was the real IP when our head of dev said, that is the IP from CloudFlare... So, I ran a site in ahrefs and we got an older site we had developed years ago that showed up as follows: Actos-lawsuit.org 104.28.13.57 and again as 104.28.12.57 (duplicate C block is first three sets of numbers are the same and obviously, this has a .12 and a .13 so not duplicate.) Then we looked at our host to see what was the IP shown there: 104.239.226.120. So, this really begs a question of is C Block data or even IP address data still relevant with regard to links? What do the search engines see when they look for IP address now? Yes, I have an opinion, but would love to hear yours first!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RobertFisher0 -
How use Rel="canonical" for our Website
How is the best way to use Rel="canonical" for our website www.ofertasdeemail.com.br, for we can say goodbye for duplicated pages? I appreciate for every help. I also hope to contribute to the SEOmoz community. Sincerely,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ZZNINTERNETMEDIAGROUP
Amador Goncalves0 -
Which index page should I canonical to?
Hello! I'm doing a routine clean up of my code and had a question about the canonical tag. On the index page, I have the following: I have never put any thought into which index path is the best to use. http://www.example.com http://www.example.com/ http://www.example.com/index.php Could someone shed some light on this for me? Does it make a difference? Thanks! Ryan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ryan_Phillips1 -
Using a 302 instead of a 301
I am trying to figure out the best way to garner the most amount of link value. We have an app that lives on a sub-domain ... For the purposes of this question, let's call it app.mydomain.com. We provide a service with this app that requires clients (with very high ranking websites) to link into app located on the sub-domain. Would I garner more authority if had the high ranking client website link into a url that wasn't a sub-domain and redirect it using a 302? For example: What if I created a 302 that was www.mydomain.com/app and have it redirected to the sub-domain version of app.mydomain.com? Additionally am I correct to assume that a 301 would merely pass that value to the sub domain and NOT provide much value to the root?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NextGenEDU0 -
Should I use the canonical tag on all my mobile pages?
I've seen flavors of this question asked but did not see the exact response I was looking for. If I have a site at: www.site.com And I am creating a mobile version at: m.site.com (let's say a responsive design is not feasible at this time) And all the content on m.site.com is duplicative of the content on www.site.com What's the best way to handle that from an SEO perspective? Should I put a canonical tag on every mobile page pointing back to the www page? I assume that is better than a 'no index' tag on all pages of the mobile site?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | hbrown1080 -
Original Source and Canonical tags
We've been using canonical links to protect site SEO for contributor content and requiring canonical of our partners (as well as tagging internal duplicate content with canonical). Most other media sites have been doing the same but this is a moving target. I'm now hearing that the original source tag is now a better option. Special focus for us is placement on google news. Any guidance?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jbertfield0