Hot answers tagged

14

In the root of the directory of the subdomain website, add a file called robots.txt containing: User-agent: * Disallow: / This will tell web crawlers not to index the site at all. They do not have to obey, but the main ones will.


9

Yes. 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. Eric Enge: So, it can accumulate and pass PageRank. Matt Cutts: Right, and it will still accumulate PageRank, but it won't be showing in our Index. So, I wouldn't ...


9

Google used to unofficially support a Noindex directive in robots.txt, however in 2019, they announced that the directive will no longer work. Here is what Google's John Mueller says about Noindex: in robots.txt: We used to support the no-index directive in robots.txt as an experimental feature. But it's something that I wouldn't rely on. And I don'...


9

Yes, Google still crawl webpages that have noindex tag. But if you have same content on two different webpages and one URL contain noindex tag, while second does not, then you should not worry about it, because out of all duplicate content only one webpage is indexed by Google. Rest of webpages are crawlable but not indexed in Google search result, so that ...


8

(I work with Google's crawling & indexing teams) Let's start with the easy one: assuming you don't want these files used for indexing at all, you can just use the robots.txt file to disallow crawling of the scripts and responses. This prevents Googlebot from accessing the URLs, and would of course also prevent it from using them for anything else. The ...


8

No, it does not influence in ranking, because that pages is not indexed at all, also it does not harmful for your site in some ways, but if you are placing too many noindex tags, then those pages will kept some PageRank or JuicyRank. Most of webmaster including me using noindex tag on specific directory, that have no quality content for example, list of ...


7

You should prevent Google from crawling site search pages. Google doesn't want to crawl your site search at all. Here is Google's Matt Cutts blog post about the issue: Search results in search results by Matt Cutts on March 10, 2007. Google now actively penalizes sites that allow their site search results to be crawled and appear in Google's SERPs. By ...


7

As Goyllo has already stated, search engine bots will crawl pages that have a noindex meta tag. If you think about it, they need to crawl the page in order to see the noindex meta tag in the first place. (You could use an X-Robots-Tag HTTP response header instead and, in theory, a bot would only need to do a HEAD request in order to see the noindex attribute ...


7

"noindex" directives should not be used in your robots.txt file, instead a noindex meta tag should be added to any pages that you don't want indexed in Google. A NOINDEX tag looks like the below and it should be placed in the section of any page you do not want indexed: <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> More information can be found here. In ...


7

The solution is the same as for X-Robots noindex a folder of PDFs and Prevent XML sitemaps from showing up in Google search results. You use the X-Robots-Tag HTTP header rather than a meta tag. The HTTP header served with the txt file should look like: X-Robots-Tag: noindex After implementing the HTTP header, remove the disallow from your robots.txt. ...


6

Using a robots.txt file in your subdomain will help (and Google will obey this), but another step you can take is to specify with a Google Webmasters account that you don't want this subdomain to be indexed. You can also use a meta tag on all pages in the subdomain: <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> If this happens to be a site that you are ...


6

Note that Noindex is not part of the original robots.txt specification. Google supported it as experimental feature (see: How does “Noindex:” in robots.txt work?), but it’s not clear if that is still the case (as they didn’t document it to begin with). But let’s assume it is. Your robots.txt has two problems. Empty lines A record must not contain empty ...


6

There's no problem having a meta noindex tag on the 404 page, to prevent 200 OK responses being indexed. If this was a PHP page then you could obviously just send a 404 Not Found header as part of the standard response - to make sure that it always returns a 404. You could also use .htaccess (mod_rewrite) to force any direct requests to 404.html to also ...


5

Yoast discusses why this setting exists on his site. If your archive pages have any kind of static content or introduction, you run the risk of that content getting indexed on the second and subsequent pages of your archive and a dupe penalty applied. If you don't have that intro text, users get dumped into your older posts and may not have any real idea ...


5

First things first. Google does not index certain file types such as CSS, JavaScript, images, and so on. But, you say, Google does index images. Well yes and no. It indexes images by using the text surrounding the image and the link values associated with the image. Yes, during growing pains while updating their capabilities, Google has indexed some of these ...


5

Nick's answer to add robots.txt might not stop Google from index, it just says stop crawling but Google might index - official link here. Adding meta noindex is too risky if you are working with a team that is not aware of implications of noindex tag, if it is pushed to production env. <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> I would recommend you ...


4

Yoast answers this very well in this blog post: A better solution would be to add a <meta name="robots" content="noindex, follow"> tag to those search results pages, as it would prevent the search results from rankings but would allow the link “juice” to flow through to the returned posts and pages. Someone will inevitably link to a page you wish ...


4

It's important to note that nofollow, noindex and even blocking via robots doesn't necessary mean that the content won't be crawled, in fact these pages can still be indexed but rather hidden from public search results (Yes Google is naughty, but it true). You see when using noindex on the page Google needs to crawl the page to find that tag out, Googlebot ...


4

From https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/156184?hl=en Sitemaps are a way to tell Google about pages on your site we might not otherwise discover. This means you don't need a sitemap if you don't want Google to discover anything. Having a sitemap won't do anything so I wouldn't make one at all.


4

You should not use both noindex and rel=canonical, because noindex won't let pages pass any PageRank to its canonical version. rel="canonical" is a hint, not a directive, so Google will decide which page to take and show in search results. Here are posts at seroundtable, there they cite John Mueller's comments, from Google: No, you should not ...


4

Good catch! If you're blocking a page with robots.txt then crawlers will not able able to read the noindex meta tag. In these cases you should send the x-robots-tag HTTP header either via server-side code or .htaccess. .htaccess example: X-Robots-Tag: noindex Sample PHP code: header('X-Robots-Tag: noindex');


4

A canonical link element is an HTML element that helps webmasters prevent duplicate content issues by specifying the "canonical" or "preferred" version of a web page. By default there can be numbers of different versions available for single page of your website. For example. http://www.example.com/ http://www.example.com/index.html http:/example.com/ http:...


4

I am not sure if your theory is good because it is based on a very big assumption that your new website will take the credit for your old site after deindexing. Except rel="canonical", you don't have anything else to pass on the credit and if that isn't working now, how can you be sure it will work after deindexing your old pages? Understand that rel="...


4

You only really need to set the rel="canonical" header. This should be sufficient in ensuring only the canonical URL (ie. the one with no URL params) appears in the SERPs. Setting a noindex robots meta tag for such URLs would seem to be overkill (and a tad risky) IMO. Presumably you are unable to set a rel="canonical" meta tag in the HTML itself? ...what ...


4

You can take either path here. What matters is how you go about it. Let's say you decide to delete those articles. That should be fine. Just make sure you 301 redirect those URL's to something better that's hopefully contextually similar. Take those articles out of the XML sitemap, too, and resubmit the sitemap. Before doing this, it may be worth it to check ...


4

You are sending Google two conflicting commands: you are telling them to NOINDEX some pages but then you are also preventing them from reading the NOINDEX header by blocking them from crawling these pages (in the robots.txt) so they can't see the NOINDEX command. You should only use the NOINDEX tag and let their bots crawl your website in order to see it; ...


3

Perhaps a very non-user friendly site-map?


3

To prevent Google to index your documents but let bots crawl your documents (for SEO purposes), you can put these following lines in your .htaccess (if you use Apache as a web server). It will give weight to tell to Google to index your webpages and not your documents. <Files ~ "\.pdf$"> Header set X-Robots-Tag "noindex" </Files> With these ...


3

The surest way to get those pages out of index is to use this in the HTML head section: <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> Sometimes Google indexes some URLs (but not the content) despite the Disallow in robots.txt. See my answer to this question for details.


3

Depending on the volume of URLS that need removing it could take weeks to months, Google simply doesn't like to quickly drop pages as it gives some time in case the webmaster has made a mistake. So you either need to be patient or simply remove them using the tool.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible