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.
No indexing url including query string with Robots txt
-
Dear all,
how can I block url/pages with query strings like page.html?dir=asc&order=name with robots txt?
Thanks!
-
Dear all, what is the best option? And are the option below good? A: Disallow
- sort-order (Only URLs with value = asc)
"A single URL may contain many parameters for each of which you can specify settings. More restrictive settings override less restrictive settings. For example, here are three parameters and their settings"
source:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1235687
B: User-agent:
Googlebot Disallow: /*.=name$
for example www.sub.domain.com/collection.html?dir=desc&order=name source: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156449
Thanks!
-
You could always just use rel="canonical" which would be much better than completely blocking all URL parameters.
-
Hey,
Should that second URL be www.sub.domain.com/collection/adresboeken.html?whatever=something If so, then by using /collection/?* you are saying that anything within /collection/ with a query string should not be indexed. If adresboeken.html always has a query string, it may not get indexed.
The other options I'd consider before using robots.txt are telling Google to ignore dir=desc&order=color in Google Webmaster Tools parameter handling. This is the best way to handle query string issues. (Assuming you are trying to influence Google. Clearly Google Webmaster Tools won't affect Bing!)
Another idea is to set a canonical URL on /collection/adresboeken.html referencing /collection/adresboeken.html without the query string. This tells the search engines that the query strings do not make a unique URL. (adresboeken.html?dir=desc&order=color is the same as adresboeken.html?dir=desc&order=price is the same as adresboeken.html?dir=asc&order=color is the same as adresboeken.html, and so on).
I hope that helps. Thanks,
Matthew -
Hi,
Robots.txt works mainly on 2 rules. Those are User-agent: and Disallow:
User-agent: the name of the robot you need to block
Disallow: the url or folder or other url with conditions you need to block.
As you have asked in your question you need to block a url with a condition. But you have to remember that Robot.txt is giving so critical results if you did not use it correctly.
Anyway in your question, you wanted to block url/pages with query strings like page.html?dir=asc&order=name
so you have to use following:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /*?
So the above will block all the urls with a question mark (?) for all the search robots. This will not block only page.html?dir=asc&order=name it will alos block comments.html?dir=asc&order=name
So use it so carefully.
Hope this is the what you have looked for. If need more help you may ask.
Regards
Prasad
-
Dear all,
thanks for responding. If I have a pages like
1. www.sub.domain.com/collection.html exists, I want to index it, and
2. www.sub.domain.com/collection.html?dir=desc&order=color which I don't want to index
Is this the way to do this in de robots.txt?:
Disallow: /collection/?*
Thanks!
-
Hi,
Here is an article explaining how to do this in robots.txt:
http://sanzon.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/advanced-usage-of-robotstxt-w-querystrings/Depending on what you are trying to do, it might also be worth investigating parameter handling in Google Webmaster Tools:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1235687Thanks,
Matthew
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
-
URLs dropping from index (Crawled, currently not indexed)
I've noticed that some of our URLs have recently dropped completely out of Google's index. When carrying out a URL inspection in GSC, it comes up with 'Crawled, currently not indexed'. Strangely, I've also noticed that under referring page it says 'None detected', which is definitely not the case. I wonder if it could be something to do with the following? https://www.seroundtable.com/google-ranking-index-drop-30192.html - It seems to be a bug affecting quite a few people. Here are a few examples of the URLs that have gone missing: https://www.ihasco.co.uk/courses/detail/sexual-harassment-awareness-training https://www.ihasco.co.uk/courses/detail/conflict-resolution-training https://www.ihasco.co.uk/courses/detail/prevent-duty-training Any help here would be massively appreciated!
Technical SEO | | iHasco0 -
Role of Robots.txt and Search Console parameters settings
Hi, wondering if anyone can point me to resources or explain the difference between these two. If a site has url parameters disallowed in Robots.txt is it redundant to edit settings in Search Console parameters to anything other than "Let Googlebot Decide"?
Technical SEO | | LivDetrick0 -
Query string parameters always bad for SEO?
I've recently put some query string parameters into links leading to a 'request a quote' form which auto-fill the 'product' field with the name of the product that is on the referring product page. E.g. Red Bicycle product page >>> Link to RFQ form contains '?productname=Red-Bicycle' >>>> form's product field's default value becomes 'Red-Bicycle' I know url parameters can lead to keyword cannibalisation and duplicate content, we use sub-domains for our language changer. BUT for something like this, am I potentially damaging our SEO? Appreciate I've not explained this very well. We're using Kentico by the way, so K# macros are a possibility (I use a simple one to fill the form's Default Field).
Technical SEO | | landport0 -
Robots.txt & meta noindex--site still shows up on Google Search
I have set up my robots.txt like this: User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | RoxBrock
Disallow: / and I have this meta tag in my on a Wordpress site, set up with SEO Yoast name="robots" content="noindex,follow"/> I did "Fetch as Google" on my Google Search Console My website is still showing up in the search results and it says this: "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt" This site has not shown up for years and now it is ranking above my site that I want to rank for this keyword. How do I get Google to ignore this site? This seems really weird and I'm confused how a site with little content, that has not been updated for years can rank higher than a site that is constantly updated and improved.1 -
Multiple robots.txt files on server
Hi! I have previously hired a developer to put up my site and noticed afterwards that he did not know much about SEO. This lead me to starting to learn myself and applying some changes step by step. One of the things I am currently doing is inserting sitemap reference in robots.txt file (which was not there before). But just now when I wanted to upload the file via FTP to my server I found multiple ones - in different sizes - and I dont know what to do with them? Can I remove them? I have downloaded and opened them and they seem to be 2 textfiles and 2 dupplicates. Names: robots.txt (original dupplicate)
Technical SEO | | mjukhud
robots.txt-Original (original)
robots.txt-NEW (other content)
robots.txt-Working (other content dupplicate) Would really appreciate help and expertise suggestions. Thanks!0 -
Robots.txt on subdomains
Hi guys! I keep reading conflicting information on this and it's left me a little unsure. Am I right in thinking that a website with a subdomain of shop.sitetitle.com will share the same robots.txt file as the root domain?
Technical SEO | | Whittie0 -
Robots.txt on http vs. https
We recently changed our domain from http to https. When a user enters any URL on http, there is an global 301 redirect to the same page on https. I cannot find instructions about what to do with robots.txt. Now that https is the canonical version, should I block the http-Version with robots.txt? Strangely, I cannot find a single ressource about this...
Technical SEO | | zeepartner0 -
Blocking Affiliate Links via robots.txt
Hi, I work with a client who has a large affiliate network pointing to their domain which is a large part of their inbound marketing strategy. All of these links point to a subdomain of affiliates.example.com, which then redirects the links through a 301 redirect to the relevant target page for the link. These links have been showing up in Webmaster Tools as top linking domains and also in the latest downloaded links reports. To follow guidelines and ensure that these links aren't counted by Google for either positive or negative impact on the site, we have added a block on the robots.txt of the affiliates.example.com subdomain, blocking search engines from crawling the full subddomain. The robots.txt file is the following code: User-agent: * Disallow: / We have authenticated the subdomain with Google Webmaster Tools and made certain that Google can reach and read the robots.txt file. We know they are being blocked from reading the affiliates subdomain. However, we added this affiliates subdomain block a few weeks ago to the robots.txt, but links are still showing up in the latest downloads report as first being discovered after we added the block. It's been a few weeks already, and we want to make sure that the block was implemented properly and that these links aren't being used to negatively impact the site. Any suggestions or clarification would be helpful - if the subdomain is being blocked for the search engines, why are the search engines following the links and reporting them in the www.example.com subdomain GWMT account as latest links. And if the block is implemented properly, will the total number of links pointing to our site as reported in the links to your site section be reduced, or does this not have an impact on that figure?From a development standpoint, it's a much easier fix for us to adjust the robots.txt file than to change the affiliate linking connection from a 301 to a 302, which is why we decided to go with this option.Any help you can offer will be greatly appreciated.Thanks,Mark
Technical SEO | | Mark_Ginsberg0