Adding non-important folders to disallow in robots.txt file
-
Hi all,
If we have many non-important folders like /category/ in blog.....these will multiply the links. These are strictly for users who access very rarely but not for bots. Can we add such to disallow list in robots to stop link juice passing from them, so internal linking will me minimised to an extent. Can we add any such paths or pages in disallow list? Is this going to work pure technical or any penalty?
Thanks,
Satish
-
But as per the current SEO buzz, internal nofollow leads of waste of link juice and we cannot preserve it. Moreover some suggests not to use nofollow internally.
-
This is a great resource for all things robots.txt related: [http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html](http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html)
-
Hi,
Yes you can block in robots.txt. You can also use rel="nofollow" if you don't want to pass link juice.
[No Link Juice](https://www.example.com) Hope this helps. Thanks
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
-
Folders or no folders in url?
What's best for SEO: a folder or no folder? For example: https://domain.com/arizona-dentist/somecontent or just https://domain.com/somecontent. The website has 100+ pages with "dentist" within the content of the somecontent pages, as well as specific pages for /arizona-dentist/. Also, the breadcrumb for the somecontent page would appear something like follows: Arizona Dentist > Some Content ... you can find the somecontent page from the Arizona Dentist page. I didn't include folders in the path because I did not want the url to be too long. In terms of where it is showing up on google search results...it is within the top 3-4 on the first page when searching Arizona dentist come content. The website is pretty organized even without subfolders because it was made using Umbraco. I am wondering if using folders will increase the SEO ranking, or if it really doesn't and could hurt it if paths become too long; especially since it's not doing too bad in the search ranking right now. -Thanks in advance for any help.
Algorithm Updates | | bellezze0 -
Best place to employ "branded" related keywords to gain SEO benefits and rank for "non branded" keywords?
Hi all, I want to put this question straight with an example rather than confusing with a scenario. If there is company called "vertigo", a tiles manufacturer. There are many search queries with thousands of searches like "vertigo tiles life", "vertigo tiles for garden", "vertigo tiles dealers", "vertigo tiles for kitchen", etc....These kind of pages will eventually have tendency to rank for non-branded keywords like "tiles for garden", "tiles for kitchen", etc. So where to employ these kind of help/info pages? Main website or sub-domain? Is it Okay to have these pages on sub-domain and traffic getting diverted to sub domain? What if the same pages are on main website? Will main website have ranking improvement for non branded keywords because of employing the landing pages with related topics? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Do back-links to non indexed sub-domains / sub-directories considered by Google as website backlinks and pass Pagerank to website?
Hi, If some noindexed links on our website or sub-domain got some backlinks, will that backlinks pass Pagerank / linkjuice to website? Will they be considered as backlinks to website by Google? Here is a statement from Matt cutts for the question. My question is same as below with answer? Eric Enge: Can a NoIndex page accumulate PageRank? Matt Cutts: A NoIndex page can accumulate PageRank, because the links are still followed outwards from a NoIndex page. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Are SEO Friendly URLS Less Important Now That Google Is Indexing Breadcrumb Markup?
Hi Moz Community and staffers, Would appreciate your thoughts on the following question: **Are SEO friendly URLS less important now that Google is indexing breadcrumb markup in both desktop and mobile search? ** Background that inspired the question: Our ecommerce platform's out of the box functionality has very limited "friendly url" settings and would need some development work to setup an alias for more friendly URLS. Meanwhile, the breadcrumb markup is implemented correctly and indexed so it seems there's no longer an argument for improved CTR with SEO friendly URLS . With that said I'm having a hard time justifying the URL investment, as well as the 301 redirect mapping we would need to setup, and am wondering if more friendly URLs would lead to a significant increase in rankings for level of effort? Sidenote: We already rank well for non-brand and branded searches since we are brand manufacturer with an ecommerce presence. Our breadcrumbs are much cleaner & concise than our URL structure. Here are a couple examples. Category URL: http://www.mysite.com/browse/category1/subcat2/subcat3/_/N-7th
Algorithm Updates | | jessekanman
Breadcrumb: www.mysite.com > category1 > subcat2 > subcat3 Product URL: http://www.mysite.com/product/product-name/_/R-133456E112
Breadcrumb: www.mysite.com > category1 > subcat2 > subcat3 > product name The "categories" contain actual keywords just hiding them here in the example. According to my devs they can't get rid of the "_" but could possible replace it with a letter. Also they said it's an easier fix to make the URLs always lower case. Lastly some of our product URLS contain non-standard characters in the product name like "." and "," which is also a simpler fix according to my developers. Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic! Jesse0 -
How important is Social Media for building domain authority / Google rankings? Are there any cases?
I really would like to know if someone tested the importance of Social Media for Google rankings.
Algorithm Updates | | Seeders
Are there some sites who build authority only by doing good social media?
Ofcourse, I know it is all about the mix (content, linkbuilding, social media, etc.) but how important is it?
I know many sites who rank good without any form of social media, but I do not know any sites who do only social media and rank high. I hope there are some good cases which give good insight. ps. I know it becomes more and more important...0 -
URL Names not so important in future?
I read somewhere (hard to say where with all the information about SEO and google!) that in the future, Google will put less importance on the URL name for ranking purposes. Any thoughts?
Algorithm Updates | | Llanero0 -
Increased importance given to spammy/educational domains in SERPs!?
Hey guys, Can anyone shed some light on these bizarre and confusing SERPs which Google seems to be producing following their latest update?? For example, we have a client who targets "payday loans" with another targeting "IT services". However, since the update, the former keyword brings back a host of spammy domain results while the latter seems to have given all focus to educational institutions like universities. This just seems utterly ludicrous considering that if I'm searching for "IT services" I don't want the help desk of a local university - that's completely irrelevant, right? Can anyone provide some information on what seems to be going on? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | Webrevolve0 -
No longer ranking for non local local terms
Anyone seen this lately; I have a client who is in the food catering business and for the seo we target a lot of local keywords (event catering Hampshire, for example). In the past couple of weeks search engine traffic to the website seems to have dropped by about 60%. However, rankings do not seem to have dropped. What I have noticed is that up until a couple of months back, the client would be ranking first page in the Google local and also have a listing in the 'normal' serps. It appears that the non local pages have vanished. Checking a couple of their competitors and it seems the same there. This has led me to start to believe that Google are now only giving a local position or a normal position on the first page and not both, as previously. The non local pages are sitll listed but seem to have dropped way back to the 4th or 5th page when previously they would have been first page. It would of course help if the client were to give me access to the webmaster tools!!! Hate it when client's only give you half the information you need and then expect you to tell them what's up!! Anyone seem this? Thanks, Carl
Algorithm Updates | | ccgale0