| 7:05 pm on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
If you heard the webcast MOI did a couple of weeks ago, you would have heard the Google rep. stating that Google do not penalize pages with the NOARCHIVE tag.
If this is the case I'm not sure - like littleman said >it is like screeming "Hay look at me! I'm a professional SEO.."
It would be fairly easy for them to downgrade these pages. On the other hand why support the tag then?
| 8:54 pm on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I'm all in favor of Google keeping a cache of other people's pages, since it is really handy when they go 404. On the other hand, I'm all against Google keeping a cache of my pages, since I want people to see the most recent content. I don't think Google can penalize for it without the potential of lawsuits about copyright infringement. They currently have a defense: why didn't you just use robots.txt or meta tags, the standards of the web?
| 9:26 pm on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
If they would update as fast as they spider, there wouldn't be any 404's. They have shown they can spider the net in 30 days. They should update the live results that fast too.
| 10:00 pm on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>should update the live results that fast too
I believe it takes them almost a month to process the data, PageRank etc. I don't think that they are able to update any quicker.
| 10:07 pm on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>On the other hand, I'm all against Google keeping a cache of my pages, since I want people to see the most recent content.
I don't know that there would be many people who look at your cached version instead of your current version. I would think it would be an additional thing.
I know when checking on who is who on the Internet for various reasons, Google's cached copies have been VERY helpful.
| 10:09 pm on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
There are times where I fix something or remove something from my web site on purpose. I don't want it to take 60 days for it to clear off the web.
| 11:14 pm on Feb 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Run a graphic counter some time Laisha and compare who is looking at your stuff out of the cache.
If it takes them a month to process the data, then they should change the system to on-the-fly processing.
| 3:46 am on Feb 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
[google.com...] has moved to [google.com...]
| 6:43 pm on Feb 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
From my comment
>but the rank droped form #1 to #5
Well it completly buried now
I can't find it any where in the top 50 listings even searching for the exact title or 5-6 word terms from descp.
The funny thing is i took the same exact page and placed it on one of my other domains and now it's in the #1 slot
and does NOT have the tags
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
With this in mind I'm going to remove the tags from my sites and see it it comes back up in listings.
I'm gonna miss that traffic :(
| 7:00 pm on Feb 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>>>>If they would update as fast as they spider, there wouldn't be any 404's. They have shown they can spider the net in 30 days. They should update the live results that fast too
| 8:52 pm on Feb 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
With google I just treat cloaking as a way of feeding the beast some more meat than Joe-surfer. I do not try to hide my code any more. Those tags are dangerous. If you do any type of server side stuff why advertise?
| 12:39 pm on Feb 27, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Following this thread with interest..
Google is the one engine that we dont use cloaking for and have never used cloaking.
With the no archive tag, I was keen to start experimenting with cloaking for google.
But, Littleman - I think your reasoning is spot on! I am not prepared to take the chance.
In saying that - have noticed quite a few sites in reasonably competative industries with the tag holding their own.
| This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 42 ( 1  ) |