myweddingfavors - nofollowed?

[kettlewell]

Anyone know why myweddingfavors.com (Brad Fallons site) has the following:
<meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW" />

Am I missing something?

Is he changing strategies?

Have I missed an SEO-101 item?

Is he suggesting that nofollow tags are obsolete? and noindex too?


Just curious as I put the finishing touches on my e-comm site.

[KirkMcD]

Putting NOIDEX in the meta tag is the same as putting it on every link on the page. It's easier this way.

[askloz]

I can think of two things.

1) they were hacked.
or two a strategy that some don't know.
2) to keep / absorb the current page's PR

If a page is already indexed, it'll stay indexed.

If a page is constantly getting links pointing to it, there's no reason why it will get de-indexed, unless he was naughty. PLUS, that page absorbs ALL the PR value.

Just a little trick that some ppl don't know about, or what they teach in stompernet or anywhere else for that matter, I've been doing it for ages.

[kettlewell]

Originally Posted by askloz

I can think of two things.

1) they were hacked.
or two a strategy that some don't know.
2) to keep / absorb the current page's PR

If a page is already indexed, it'll stay indexed.

If a page is constantly getting links pointing to it, there's no reason why it will get de-indexed, unless he was naughty. PLUS, that page absorbs ALL the PR value.

Just a little trick that some ppl don't know about, or what they teach in stompernet or anywhere else for that matter, I've been doing it for ages.

Being that Brad touts having a huge backlink population, I think that makes sense....

This strategy would obviously not allow for changes in link structure, or adding new products thought, right? and would only work for an established site.... if I understand you correctly.

[askloz]

Hi ya...nope, once a site like has been established and taking in to note the aggressive backlinking he does, he shouldn't have a problem absorbing PR on a new page from the new links to a new page

[Dan.Thies]

Actually, none of the above... Here's the story:
Google Proxy Hacking: How A Third Party Can Remove Your Site From Google SERPs

Only validated search engine spiders receive the page without the "noindex" in the robots meta tag. Screen scrapers, proxies, and human visitors get noindex,nofollow.

[askloz]

interesting...

though I've found that if I continuously point links to my site, google's still going to index them regardless of the noindex, nofollow link and still apply a pr to it.

[Dan.Thies]

Nofollow in your own links won't stop them from indexing a page, but noindex in the robots meta tag would.

[askloz]

not from my studies Dan.

Having a nofollow on a link will not get indexed, UNLESS you point links to it.

Same goes for a nofollow,noindex in meta tag. I've tried it, the page still got indexed when links were pointing to the page.

Even google says this, there is no guarantee that it wont index it, if you have links pointing to it, then it will index it.

Originally Posted by Dan.Thies

Nofollow in your own links won't stop them from indexing a page, but noindex in the robots meta tag would.

[Dan.Thies]

Okey dokey.

[animatedmonkey]

Askloz,

I can't believe you even made such a statement, nonetheless to Dan Thies. The 'okey dokey' was a nice way of him saying that you are dead wrong.

Nofollow in a link has absolutely nothing to do with you getting indexed. Google will still index the links. Or let me just say that google indexes my nofollow links. Check your Webmaster tools account.

Nofollow in a link is only there to prevent passing of Page rank, nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to do with indexing the link.

Research who you are arguing with before you make such a blatant misstatement.

BR

[Traffic-Bug]

NOINDEX = do not include page in the index
NOFOLLOW = do not follow outbound links int he page, regardless of rel=nofollow tag

[Dan.Thies]

"Noindex" means that they don't index the content of the page - but they may include the URL. Links to the page may include text, and pages that aren't indexed can still have their URLs appear in searches.

[askloz]

Originally Posted by animatedmonkey

Askloz,

I can't believe you even made such a statement, nonetheless to Dan Thies. The 'okey dokey' was a nice way of him saying that you are dead wrong.

I'm not dead wrong! And by the way, it's LOZ, not ASKLOZ.

Originally Posted by animatedmonkey

Nofollow in a link has absolutely nothing to do with you getting indexed. Google will still index the links. Or let me just say that google indexes my nofollow links. Check your Webmaster tools account.

Want a bet?

Originally Posted by animatedmonkey

Nofollow in a link is only there to prevent passing of Page rank, nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to do with indexing the link.

WRONG!

Sure, it wont pass page rank, but it will NOT follow the link. If it can not follow the link, it will NOT index it. Period! The only time it will index the link is IF you point links to it.

Originally Posted by animatedmonkey

Research who you are arguing with before you make such a blatant misstatement.

BR

Ark at yourself.

next time before you try to insult someone, get your facts right!

[askloz]

Hey Monkey Man, rather than eating bananas all the time and making a monkey out of yourself (animatedmonkey BR)

Here's the proof!

article blog poster - Google Search

That's my site.

Ok, lets see what pages were indexed shall we?
site:http://articleblogposter.com/ - Google Search

ONE, can you read? ONE page...

But, how many pages are on the site?

Index page, privacy page and contact us page.

Oh, BTW, did you notice something else?

the privacy page and contact us page have NOFOLLOW attributes on the links!

So, next time, DO YOUR RESEARCH! OK!

I only state things on FACTS! I don't give crap advice, and I don't care who's who in the SEO field who think they are correct in SEO. As much as I respect Dan, he doesn't know everything about SEO, and like wise with me. It just probably so happened that he never noticed this statement that I made and stick by, and same visa versa there's probably some things he notices that I haven't.

I think I know more about SEO than a good 90% of the people on this forum, Dan, myself, and a few others are only the ones in that level of knowing what they are talking about SEO.

[paulgl]

Arguments aside, this thread and that article are some
pretty interesting reading. Just when you think you have
it even 50% worked out, up comes another monster.

Paul