| 9:12 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Why are you concerned?
| 9:24 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
| 9:25 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
| 9:26 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Whatever it is we must be worried about the same thing. I just robotted and noindex my contact page, resume-like page, 'other resources' links page, and my Consulting Fees page.
Tedster - have I gone over the edge?
| 9:37 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Contact pages usually are. One thin page is not going to make a difference, imho.
| 9:42 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
yes; the noindex won't be seen if the page is blocked.
| 9:53 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Koan.. I bet that there is a count of thin pages that does get you over the threshold and therefore blocking is a simple solution for a count of 1.
Bramley. Thanks.. I'll consider the noindex as insurance... I think I'll remove all them with removal tool ( whoops, already did it :).
Any page that might be considered thin that doesn't come up in search results on first page for its topic is either expanded or blocked... that is my new rule.
Surprisingly, most of the pages I considered thin (a few to several paragraphs) come up in top 3 of results). So I'm assuming they are ok.
| 10:01 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
probably because good focus - so look at focus of the fatter pages ...
| 10:07 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I have some sites where the contact page is no-indexed and some where it's indexed; my criterion is whether or not there's any real reason for it to be indexed, not whether or not it's too thin. Usually there isn't.
| 10:23 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
WT? Look at whats happening here, my god! Just think about what your users need and don't even consider the other things.
| 10:23 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
It's not "thin" if it's helpful.
| 10:25 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I wouldn't worry about it. I don't bother to noindex/nofollow my 'thin' pages such as Contact Us, a Sitemap (which - shock horror - has no unique content! ;-)), etc.
I honestly don't think that Panda would penalize you for having a doindex contact us page..
| 10:29 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
My contact page has become a hodge podge of warnings, notes, and pleadings.
| 11:26 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
One could do nothing, or one can consider that lots of little things add up.
Pages which are shallow (a more appropriate term) or off-topic can be noindexed easily. Just think: does it need to be indexed?
| 11:50 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Legit sites have contact pages, street address etc and Google eats that stuff up.
| 11:56 pm on May 19, 2011 (gmt 0)|
oh boy. Are we really starting to believe that contact pages are what is causing sites to lose rankings?
First of all, a contact page will not effect your rankings. Contact pages have existed since websites have and google knows by now how to treat a contact page. Contact pages are thin content pages because they are not content pages! A contact page if anything should earn you points as it shows google that your site allows visitors to reach out to you for support or feedback which is a good indication of a legit business.
Leave your contact page alone, be proud of it, let google know its there and move on to real problems.
This is why one should not evaluate there own site. A lot of people do not want to believe that there is anything wrong with there content so they start focusing on areas which they want to be the problem.
about us, contact us, privacy, terms etc, these are all pages that are staples with most websites and should not really be factored in to your rankings as google knows well enough how to handle them. Dont even bother nofollowing them or disallowing them in robots.txt.
| 1:01 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Of course, for some sites such pages are important and might even be site links.
Some people are reading too much into a simple question.
As G might well note 'contact us' and similar pages, noindex would be better that a disallow or nofollow. G will note it, just not index it.
The safest option is just to leave it indexed; it's only one page. Look for shallow content elsewhere, among the actual content.
| 1:50 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Tedster - have I gone over the edge? |
Panda seems to be driving a lot of people there. I realize that 100% certain knowledge about this new algorithm does not yet exist. But in my opinion, "thin contact pages" cannot be in the mix, not even accidentally.
No matter how far off the deep end anyone may think Google has gone, it's still a very smart bunch of people.
| 2:06 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
...every time Google makes an update it drives webmasters further away from their own mantra "do not make website for the search engines but for users".
It is now 2o11 and it is all about search engines thanks to Google, my visitors dont give a hoot about noindexing anything, about duplicate pages, or about canonical tags, only the search engine does...
Many people that start a web business today are riddled with fear, fear from a bully, a monopoly that makes the web a snapshot of what Google thinks is worthy to be seen...
to go back to the original poster, if it bothers you than make it a big page, make "contacting you a celebration", rather than telling the search engine that one of your pages are not worthy show your visitors you have the coolest contact page there is....
| 3:37 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
This is the problem with the advice G has doled out. There is no universal definition of thin. I have pages with one sentence of content. But that one sentence helps someone looking for a particular phone number. Am I going to noindex this page or move it to another domains? Am I going to merge it and bury it among other short pages?
One sentence can be far more helpful and useful than 10 pages of content.
Don't noindex your contact page. It is a useful page! Examples of not useful pages are those that no one cares to read or would ever want to read.
| 4:54 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
e) link to it from the footer of your index page only. It does serve a purpose but doesn't need to receive sitewide link status. Don't worry about nofollow or robots.txt, it will never rank in search anyway and blocking it cuts of rank flow, not something you want.
As for Google, they simply CANNOT and WILL NOT EVER tell webmasters exactly what to do because their concern is to differentiate between quality of pages. If every webmaster was to receive too much information from Google the task of ranking would become that much harder.
Note: I recently pulled up a list of top 50 sites for specific keywords that is 4 years old and was astonished to see that 49 of the sites are still there and almost all of them are in or very near to their original rankings still. Google serps do not change very much despite a feeling they do. Don't expect ANYTHING you do to your site today to result in a spike in traffic, nothing short of mention on a bigger site will give you that.
| 7:13 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
From a PageRank perspective, why flow juice to a page you noindex?
I would say C) nofollow. One thin page won't affect anything at all, so keep it indexed. It's user friendly for those who search "company contact" etc.
| 7:37 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
A related point of information. In this new Google Webmaster Help video, Matt Cutts says his recommendation is never to use nofollow on any internal link. [youtube.com...]
| 9:31 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
seriously ... 1 page! if you are this worried about Google your brain's been pandalized....
and yes - don't nofollow any internal links
| 9:59 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|My contact page is very thin |
All sites should include trust elements. This is likely one of the important ones - albeit it won't cause your site to rank on it's own - from what i hear. Consider how you can turn the thin page content to something trustworthy as a better alternative.
| 11:39 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
ok ok... contact page is back and 4500 nofollows have been removed.
| 12:27 pm on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
First of all, just because something is no-indexed doesn't mean Google doesn't know it's there. That would be robots.txt.
Second of all, I routinely no-index things like contact pages, privacy policies, PPC landing pages, etc., not because they're thin, but because they don't *need* to be in Google's index. And I don't give Google anything I don't need to.
| 12:45 pm on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
If there is no search engine exist, do you think contact link in every pages of your site is important?
Try search: "contact apple", "contact ibm", or "contact censin". :)
All search engine (yahoo/bing, goog) will deliver you right to the contact page of the site.
Contact page? It is important!
| 1:01 pm on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Contact page? It is important! |
Absolutely ... and it likely needs to correlate to the WHOIS and company registration numbers etc. It's just one of the standard trust elements Google would be routinely checking. You won't find too many spammers putting out real contact details.
This is a problem for business with multi national virtual regional presence to overcome, where it makes no business sense.
| This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: 39 (  2 ) > > |