Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
How to exclude URL filter searches in robots.txt
-
When I look through my MOZ reports I can see it's included 'pages' which it shouldn't have included i.e. adding filtering rules such as this one http://www.mydomain.com/brands?color=364&manufacturer=505
How can I exclude all of these filters in the robots.txt? I think it'll be:
Disallow: /*?color=$
Is that the correct syntax with the $ sign in it? Thanks!
-
Unless you're specifically calling out Bing or Baidu... in your Robots.txt file they should follow the same directives as Google so testing with Google's Robots.txt file tester should suffice for all of them.
-
Yes, but what about bing and rest of Search Engine?
-
Adrian,
I agree that there certainly is a right answer to the question posted, as the question asks specifically about one way to manage the issue, being a block of filters in the robots.txt file. What I was getting at is that this may or may not necessarily be the "best" way, and that I'd need to look at your site and your unique situation to figure our which would be the best solution for your needs.
It is very likely that with these parameters a robots.txt file block is the best approach, assuming the parameters aren't added by default into category page or category pagination page navigational links, as then it would affect the bot's ability to crawl the site. Also, if people are linking to those URLs (highly unlikely though) you may consider a robots meta noindex,follow tag instead so the pagerank could flow to other pages.
And I'm not entirely sure the code you provided above will work if the blocked parameter is the first one in the string (e.g. domain.com/category/?color=red) as there is the additional wildcard between the ? and the parameter. I would advise testing this in Google Webmaster Tools first.
- On the Webmaster Tools Home page, click the site you want.
- Under Crawl, click Blocked URLs.
- If it's not already selected, click the Test robots.txt tab.
- Copy the content of your robots.txt file, and paste it into the first box.
- In the URLs box, list the site to test against.
- In the User-agents list, select the user-agents you want (e.g. Googlebot)
-
There certainly is a right answer to my question - I already posted it here earlier today:
Disallow: /*?color=
Disallow: /?*manufacturer=Without the $ at the end which would otherwise denote the end of the URL.
-
Hello Adrian,
The Moz reports are meant to help you uncover issues like this. If you're seeing non-canonical URLs in the Moz report then there is a potential issue for Google, Bing and other search engines as well.
Google does respect wildcards (*) in the robots.txt file, though it can easily be done wrong. There is not right or wrong answer to the issue of using filters or faceted navigation, as each circumstance is going to be different. However, I hope some of these articles will help you identify the best approach for your needs:
(Note: Faceted Navigation is not exactly the same as category filters, but the issues and possible solutions are very similar
)Building Faceted Navigation That Doesn't Suck Faceted Navigation Whiteboard Friday
Duplicate Content: Block, Redirect or Canonical
Guide to eCommerce Facets, Filters and Categories
Rel Canonical How To and Why Not
Moz.com Guide to Duplicate ContentI don't know how your store handles these (e.g. does it add the filter automatically, or only when a user selects a filter?) so I can't give you the answer, but I promise if you read those articles above you will have a very good understanding of all of the options so you can choose which is best for you. That might end up being as simple as blocking the filters in your robots.txt file, or you may opt for rel canonical, noindex meta tag, ajax, Google parameter handling, etc...
Good luck!
-
It's not Google's index that I'm interested in in this case, it's for the MOZ reports. Moz was including over 10,000 'pages' because it was indexing these URLs. Now I know how to edit the robots.txt Moz will be prevented from indexing them again (we only have around 2,000 real pages, not 10,000)
-
I sought out the answer from a developer and got the following reply, so posting here in case it helps someone else:
To exclude pages with color or manufacture in them you can use
Disallow: /*?color=
Disallow: /?*manufacturer=A question mark in your try should be omitted as it denotes the end of the url
-
Hi
I would recommend excluding these in Google Webmaster Tools. Once logged in to your account under the "Crawl" menu you will find "URL Parameters". Find the relevant parameter in the list on this page and you can tell Google not to index these pages.
Hope this helps.
Steve
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
-
Do Search Engines Try To Follow Phone Number Links
Any SEO thoughts on using rel="nofollow" when inserting a link to a phone number? To make a phone number click to call we use (555) 555-1234 Wondering if search engines are trying to follow that link or if this is standard and not to worry. Any thoughts on if I should add rel="nofollow" to these or does it not matter? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | Lions-Pro0 -
Is using hyphens in a URL to separate words good practice?
Hi guys, I have a client who wants to use a hyphen to separate two words in the URL to make each work stand out. Is is good or bad practice to use a hyphen in a URL and will it affect rankings? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | StoryScout0 -
Google is indexing urls with parameters despite canonical
Hello Moz, Google is indexing lots of urls despite the canonical in my site. Those urls are linked all over the site with parameters like ?, and looks like Google is indexing them despite de canonical. Is Google deciding to index those urls because they are linked all over the site? The canonical tag is well implemented.
On-Page Optimization | | Red_educativa0 -
Canonical URL, cornerstone page and categories
If I want to have a cornerstone "page", can I substitute an actual page with a category archive of posts "page" (that contains many posts containing the target key phrase)? This way, if I make blog posts about a certain topic/ key phrase (example "beach weddings") and add a canonical URL of the category archive page to the individual posts, am I right then to assume google will see the archive page as the cornerstone page (and thereby won't see the individual posts with the same key phrase as competing)?
On-Page Optimization | | stephanwb0 -
Question about url structure for large real estate website
I've been running a large real estate rental website for the past few years and on May 8, 2013 my Google traffic dropped by about 50%. I'm concerned that my current url structure might be causing thin content pages for certain rental type + location searches. My current directory structure is:
On-Page Optimization | | Amped
domain.com/home-rentals/california/
domain.com/home-rentals/california/beverly-hills/
domain.com/home-rentals/california/beverly-hills/90210/
domain.com/apartment-rentals/california/
domain.com/apartment-rentals/california/beverly-hills/
domain.com/apartment-rentals/california/beverly-hills/90210/
etc.. I was thinking of changing it to the following:
domain.com/rentals/california/
domain.com/rentals/california/beverly-hills/
domain.com/rentals/california/beverly-hills/90210/ ** Note: I'd provide users the ability to filter their results by rental type - by default all types would be displayed. Another question - my listing pages are currently displayed as:
domain.com/123456 And I've been thinking of changing it to:
domain.com/123456-123-Street-City-State-Zip Should I proceed with both changes - one or the one - neither - or something else I'm not thinking of? Thank you in advance!!0 -
URLs and folder structure for an E-commerce
Hi there !-) I´m helping a friend who has a e-commerce about nail polish in Brazil. I´m a little in doubt about the urls and folder structure. Two questions: 1. There are 10 products per category and 50 categories. Should I put them all in the root folder or creat 2 major categories ( 25 sub-categories each one)? 2. Whats the better product page url ( the store has around 500) nailpolish.com/IMPORT/BRAND/NAME-OF-THE-PRODUCT OR nailpolish.com/COMPLETE-NAME-OF-THE-PRODUCT Whats the best recomandation?
On-Page Optimization | | SeoMartin10 -
Does 'XXX' in Domain get filtered by Google
I have a friend that has xxx in there domain and they are a religious based sex/porn addiction company but they don't show up for the queries that they are optimized against. They have a 12+ year old domain, all good health signs in quality links and press from trusted companies. Google sends them adult traffic, mostly 'trolls' and not the users they are looking for. Has anyone experienced domain word filtering and have a work around or solution? I posted in the Google Webmaster help forums and that community seems a little 'high on their horses' and are trying to hard to be cool. I am not too religious and don't necessarily support the views of the website but just trying to help a friend of a friend with a topic that I have never encountered. here is the url: xxxchurch.com Thanks, Brian
On-Page Optimization | | Add3.com0 -
Does a page's url have any weight in Google rankings?
I'm sure this question must have been asked before but I can't find it. I'm assuming that the title tag is far more important than the page's url. Is that correct? Does the url have any relevance to Google?
On-Page Optimization | | rdreich490