| 10:11 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You could do a reverse cloak. Basically you have the text you don't want the spider to see as an include into the page. Then when a SE spider comes in you just don't call in the include.
I wonder what googles policies are on omitted content. LOL.
| 10:28 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
this is quite an old idea to scam search engines like Google (was popular about 2-3 years ago). I think it would just get you banned with Google's new filters.
| 11:14 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When people refer to the "noindex tag" in posts, what they probably meant was:
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow">
That is what comes of people who don't know their tags from their attributes.
| 4:41 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Here is a previous discussion on the
<noindex> Tag and Search Engines [webmasterworld.com]
| 5:01 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the speedy reply, but does these tags stop
| 5:03 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No, the tag is specific to atomz and is not valid HTML.
| 5:05 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i've seen the following site using these tags
and obviously it does something for them
[edited by: oilman at 5:15 pm (utc) on Mar. 19, 2004]
[edit reason] no specifics please [/edit]
| 3:45 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That tag used to be used by Infoseek, and is also used by some on-site search engines like XAV.