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 is Google crawling and indexing this directory listing?
-
We have three Directory Listing pages that are being indexed by Google:
http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/jsp/
http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/jsp/html/
http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/jsp/pdf/
How and why is Googlebot crawling and indexing these pages? Nothing else links to them (although the /jsp.html/ and /jsp/pdf/ both link back to /jsp/). They aren't disallowed in our robots.txt file and I understand that this could be why.
If we add them to our robots.txt file and disallow, will this prevent Googlebot from crawling and indexing those Directory Listing pages without prohibiting them from crawling and indexing the content that resides there which is used to populate pages on our site?
Having these pages indexed in Google is causing a myriad of issues, not the least of which is duplicate content.
For example, this file <tt>CCI-SALES-STAFF.HTML</tt> (which appears on this Directory Listing referenced above - http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/jsp/html/) clicks through to this Web page:
http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/jsp/html/CCI-SALES-STAFF.HTML
This page is indexed in Google and we don't want it to be. But so is the actual page where we intended the content contained in that file to display: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/meet-our-sales-staff
As you can see, this results in duplicate content problems.
Is there a way to disallow Googlebot from crawling that Directory Listing page, and, provided that we have this URL in our sitemap: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/meet-our-sales-staff, solve the duplicate content issue as a result?
For example:
Disallow: /StoreFront/jsp/
Disallow: /StoreFront/jsp/html/
Disallow: /StoreFront/jsp/pdf/
Can we do this without risking blocking Googlebot from content we do want crawled and indexed?
Many thanks in advance for any and all help on this one!
-
Thanks so much to you all. This has gotten us closer to an answer. We are consulting with the folks who developed the Web store to make sure that these solutions won't break other things if implemented, particularly something mentioned to me by our IT Director called "Sim links" - I'll keep you posted!
-
I am referring to Web users. If a user or search engine tried to view those directory listing pages, they will get a Forbidden message, which is what you want to happen. The content in those directories will still be accessible by the pages on the site since the files still exist in those directories, but the pages listing the files in those directories won't be accessible in the browser to users/search engines. In other words, turning off the Directory indexes will not affect any of the content on the site.
-
He's got the right idea, you shouldn't be serving these pages (unless you have a specific reason to). The problem is these index pages are returning with a status code of 200 OK, so Google assumes it's fine to index them. These pages should either come back with a 404 or a 403 (forbidden), and users then wouldn't be able to browse your site with these directory pages.
Disallowing in robots.txt may not immediately remove these from search results, you may get that lovely description underneath the results that says, "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt".
-
Thanks much to you both for jumping in. (thumbs up!)
Streamline, I understand your suggestion regarding .htaccess, however, as I mentioned, the content in these directories is being used to populate content on our pages. In your response you mentioned that users/search engines wouldn't be able to access them. When you say "users," are you referring to Web visitors, and not site admins?
-
There's numerous ways Google could have found those pages and added them to the index, but there's really no way to determine exactly what caused it in the first place. All it takes is for one visit by Google for a page to be crawled and indexed.
If you don't want these pages indexed, then blocking those directories/pages in robots.txt would not be the solution because you would prevent Google from accessing those pages at all going forward. But the problem is that these pages are already in Google's index and by simply using the robots.txt file, you are just telling Google not to visit those pages from now on and thus your pages will remain in the index. A better solution would be to add the no-index, no-cache tags to those pages so the next time Google accesses those pages, they will know to remove those pages from the index.
And now that I've read through your post again, I am now realizing you are talking about file directories rather than normal webpages. What I've wrote above mainly still applies, but I think the quick and easy fix would be to turn off Directory Indexes all together (unless you need them for some reason?). All you have to do is add the following code to your .htaccess file -
Options -Indexes
This will turn off these directory listings so users/search engines can't access them and they should eventually fall out of the Google index.
-
You can use robots to disallow google from even crawling those pages, while the meta noindex still allows the crawling but prevents the indexing of those pages.
If you have any sensitive data that you don't want Google to read, then go ahead and use the robots directives you wrote above. However, if you just want them deindexed I'll suggest to go with the meta noindex, as it will allow other pages (linked) to be indexed but leave that particular page out.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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
-
Old brand name being suffixed on Google SERP listings
At the end of some of our listings in Google search results pages, our old brand name is being suffixed even though it is not in our title tags. For context, we re-branded several months ago, and at that time also migrated to a new domain name. Our title tags have our current brand name suffixed, like "Shop Example Category | Example©". In the Google search results, but not in Bing nor Yahoo, about half of our pages have titles whcih instead look like this: "Shop Example Category | Example© - oldBrandName". The "dash" and the old brand name are not in our title tags, but they are being appended, even when our title tags are fairly long. For example, even with titles at 54 characters (421 pixels), the suffix is being appended. BUT, not with our longer title tags. We are actually OK with the brand name being appended if our title tags are on the shorter side, but would prefer that our current brand name be appended instead of the older one. I realize we could increase the length of all our title tags, and perhaps we may go that route. But, does anyone know where Google would be getting the old brand name to append onto the URLs? We've checked and it is not in our page source (the old brand name is used in our page source in some areas of text and some url paths, but not in any kind of meta tag). Per Google's guidance (https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-do-not-put-organization-schema-markup-on-every-page/289981/) we only have schema for the "Organization" on our home page, and not on every page. So, assuming this advice is correct to not add schema to every page, how can we inform Google of our current brand name so that it stops appending our old brand name on pages?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoelevated0 -
How do internal search results get indexed by Google?
Hi all, Most of the URLs that are created by using the internal search function of a website/web shop shouldn't be indexed since they create duplicate content or waste crawl budget. The standard way to go is to 'noindex, follow' these pages or sometimes to use robots.txt to disallow crawling of these pages. The first question I have is how these pages actually would get indexed in the first place if you wouldn't use one of the options above. Crawlers follow links to index a website's pages. If a random visitor comes to your site and uses the search function, this creates a URL. There are no links leading to this URL, it is not in a sitemap, it can't be found through navigating on the website,... so how can search engines index these URLs that were generated by using an internal search function? Second question: let's say somebody embeds a link on his website pointing to a URL from your website that was created by an internal search. Now let's assume you used robots.txt to make sure these URLs weren't indexed. This means Google won't even crawl those pages. Is it possible then that the link that was used on another website will show an empty page after a while, since Google doesn't even crawl this page? Thanks for your thoughts guys.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mat_C0 -
SEO on Jobs sites: how to deal with expired listings with "Google for Jobs" around
Dear community, When dealing with expired job offers on jobs sites from a SEO perspective, most practitioners recommend to implement 301 redirects to category pages in order to keep the positive ranking signals of incoming links. Is it necessary to rethink this recommendation with "Google for Jobs" is around? Google's recommendations on how to handle expired job postings does not include 301 redirects. "To remove a job posting that is no longer available: Remove the job posting from your sitemap. Do one of the following: Note: Do NOT just add a message to the page indicating that the job has expired without also doing one of the following actions to remove the job posting from your sitemap. Remove the JobPosting markup from the page. Remove the page entirely (so that requesting it returns a 404 status code). Add a noindex meta tag to the page." Will implementing 301 redirects the chances to appear in "Google for Jobs"? What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | grnjbs07175 -
How long after https migration that google shows in search console new sitemap being indexed?
We migrated 4 days ago to https and followed best practices..
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lcourse
In search console now still 80% of our sitemaps appear as "pending" and among those sitemaps that were processed only less than 1% of submitted pages appear as indexed? Is this normal ?
How long does it take for google to index pages from sitemap?
Before https migration nearly all our pages were indexed and I see in the crawler stats that google has crawled a number of pages each day after migration that corresponds to number of submitted pages in sitemap. Sitemap and crawler stats show no errors.0 -
Google indexing pages from chrome history ?
We have pages that are not linked from site yet they are indexed in Google. It could be possible if Google got these pages from browser. Does Google takes data from chrome?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vivekrathore0 -
301s being indexed
A client website was moved about six months ago to a new domain. At the time of the move, 301 redirects were setup from the pages on the old domain to point to the same page on the new domain. New pages were setup on the old domain for a different purpose. Now almost six months later when I do a query in google on the old domain like site:example.com 80% of the pages returned are 301 redirects to the new domain. I would have expected this to go away by now. I tried removing these URLs in webmaster tools but the removal requests expire and the URLs come back. Is this something we should be concerned with?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
De-indexed Link Directory
Howdy Guys, I'm currently working through our 4th reconsideration request and just have a couple of questions. Using Link Detox (www.linkresearchtools.com) new tool they have flagged up a 64 links that are Toxic and should be removed. After analysing them further alot / most of them are link directories that have now been de-indexed by Google. Do you think we should still ask for them to be removed or is this a pointless exercise as the links has already been removed because its been de-indexed. Would like your views on this guys.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ScottBaxterWW0
