What does Disallow: /french-wines/?* actually do - robots.txt
-
Hello Mozzers - Just wondering what this robots.txt instruction means: Disallow: /french-wines/?*
Does it stop Googlebot crawling and indexing URLs in that "French Wines" folder - specifically the URLs that include a question mark?
Would it stop the crawling of deeper folders - e.g. /french-wines/rhone-region/ that include a question mark in their URL?
I think this has been done to block URLs containing query strings.
Thanks, Luke
-
Glad to help, Luke!
-
Thanks Logan for your help with this - much appreciated. Really helpful!
-
Disallow: /?* is the same thing as Disallow:/?, since the asterisk is a wildcard, both of those disallows prevent any URL that begins with /? from being crawled.
And yes, it is incredibly easy to disallow the wrong thing! The robots.txt tester in Search Console (under the Crawl menu) is very helpful for figuring out what a disallow will catch and what it will let by. I highly recommend testing any new disallows there before releasing them into the wild.
-
Thanks again Logan.
What would Disallow: /?* do because that is what the site I am looking at has implemented. Perhaps it works both ways around?
I imagine it's easy to disallow the wrong thing or possibly not disallow the right thing. Ugh.
-
Disallow: /*?
This disallow literally says to crawlers 'if a URL starts with a slash (all URLs) and has a parameter, don't crawl it'. The * is a wildcard that says anything between / and ? is applicable to the disallow.
It's very easy to disallow the wrong this especially in regards to parameters, for this reason I always do these 2 things rather than using robots.txt:
- Set the purpose of each parameter in Search Console - Go to Crawl > URL Parameters to configure for your site
- Self-referring canonicals - most people disallow URLs with parameters in robots.txt to prevent indexing, but this only prevents crawling. A self-referring canonical pointing to the root level of that URL will prevent indexing or URLs with parameters.
Hope that's helpful!
-
Thanks Logan - I was just reading: Disallow: /*? # block any URL that includes a ? (and thus a query string) - do you know why the ? comes before the * in this case?
-
Hi Luke,
You are correct that this was done to block URLs with parameters. However, since there's no wildcard (the asterisk) before the folder name, the URL would have to start with /french-wines/. This disallow is really only preventing crawling on the single URL www.yoursite.com/french-wines/ with any parameters appended.
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
-
Not sure how we're blocking homepage in robots.txt; meta description not shown
Hi folks! We had a question come in from a client who needs assistance with their robots.txt file. Metadata for their homepage and select other pages isn't appearing in SERPs. Instead they get the usual message "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more". At first glance, we're not seeing the homepage or these other pages as being blocked by their robots.txt file: http://www.t2tea.com/robots.txt. Does anyone see what we can't? Any thoughts are massively appreciated! P.S. They used wildcards to ensure the rules were applied for all locale subdirectories, e.g. /en/au/, /en/us/, etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SearchDeploy0 -
Using folder blocked by robots.txt before uploaded to indexed folder - is that OK?
I have a folder "testing" within my domain which is a folder added to the robots.txt. My web developers use that folder "testing" when we are creating new content before uploading to an indexed folder. So the content is uploaded to the "testing" folder at first (which is blocked by robots.txt) and later uploaded to an indexed folder, yet permanently keeping the content in the "testing" folder. Actually, my entire website's content is located within the "testing" - so same URL structure for all pages as indexed pages, except it starts with the "testing/" folder. Question: even though the "testing" folder will not be indexed by search engines, is there a chance search engines notice that the content is at first uploaded to the "testing" folder and therefore the indexed folder is not guaranteed to get the content credit, since search engines see the content in the "testing" folder, despite the "testing" folder being blocked by robots.txt? Would it be better that I password protecting this "testing" folder? Thx
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Scraping / Duplicate Content Question
Hi All, I understanding the way to protect content such as a feature rich article is to create authorship by linking to your Google+ account. My Question
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mark_Ch
You have created a webpage that is informative but not worthy to be an article, hence no need create authorship in Google+
If a competitor comes along and steals this content word for word, something similar, creates their own Google+ page, can you be penalised? Is there any way to protect yourself without authorship and Google+? Regards Mark0 -
Benefit of Targeting Low/No Volume Keyword Phrases
Hi Folks, I was having a discussion with a friend and colleague of mine yesterday about the pros and cons of targeting keyword phrases that have very little if any search volume. I was of the opinion that if the keyword phrases (whether they were local or not) did not have any search volume as indicated by Google's Keyword Planner tool, then they had little if any value. Would this be a correct assumption? Or is there merit to targeting these phrases in order to begin to build a picture of a sites overall subject matter and to help rank in local search? For example, say there is a phrase like 'second hand clothing slough' (just a random phrase) which has no search volume but 'second hand clothing' has 2400 visits a month, would it be worth targeting the search phrase with no volume to build a better local profile, so that if someone in Slough searches for 'second hand clothing' the site shows up for that keyword? Thanks in advance guys! Gareth
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PurpleGriffon0 -
Indexing falling/search queries the same - concerned
Hello, I posted abou this a few days ago but didn't really get anywhere and now have new information after looking into it more. This is my site - http://www.whosjack.org My page indexing has been falling steadily daily currently from thousands of pages indexed to just a couple of hundred. My search queries don't seem to be currently affected, I have done crawl tests to see if the site can be crawled and put the site:whosjack.org into Google and had 12,000 results come back when goole has said it has indexed 133 and falling. However all pages indexed on the site:whosjack.org search seem to be stories with just two words in the title? I am sure I am missing out on traffic here but can't work out what the issue is and how to fix it. I have no alerts on my dashboard and when I submit sitemaps to webmaster tools I get 15,115 URLs submitted 12,088 URLs indexedwhich cant be bad?Any help/suggestions really appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | luwhosjack0 -
Keyphrase / Keyword arrangement
Hi all, What are your thoughts on the arrangement of keyphrases / words? For example, does it make a difference if the words are arranged in the following way: "Keyword 1 Keyword 2" or "Keyword 2 Keyword 1" Both ways make a phrases which is favourable in the search engines. Can I stick with 1 way or should I be going with both arrangements. Hope that is clear 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wtfi0 -
Microdata / Schema.org and HTTPS
I have a quick question regarding Microdata / Schema.org files that are not hosted on secure connections. I receive a receive a security error from my e-commerce site because the code references the schema over HTTP instead of HTTPS.<div< span="">itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product"></div<>This is not the first time I have run into this issue. We also use MRSS schema for an RSS feed from yahoo and the same thing happens.<div< span="">xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss"></div<>The problem mainly lies in the fact that these schemas are not hosted over HTTPS. If you add HTTPS to the beginning of both you will get a security error.Just wondering if anyone else has dealt with this or similar issue and what the "best practices" are around this?Is it ok to obtain the schema directly and then host it on our server, over our secure connection?Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AnthonyMangia0 -
Robots.txt 404 problem
I've just set up a wordpress site with a hosting company who only allow you to install your wordpress site in http://www.myurl.com/folder as opposed to the root folder. I now have the problem that the robots.txt file only works in http://www.myurl./com/folder/robots.txt Of course google is looking for it at http://www.myurl.com/robots.txt and returning a 404 error. How can I get around this? Is there a way to tell google in webmaster tools to use a different path to locate it? I'm stumped?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SamCUK0