| 3:11 pm on Feb 3, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Do you have pages that aren't thin on the site, or is the whole site like this?
| 3:21 pm on Feb 3, 2014 (gmt 0)|
NoIndex might be a sensible precaution - especially if Google doesn't send much traffic to these pages.
NoFollow won't help you with Panda.
NoIndex will make google perceive your site as smaller though - which isn't so good.
Can't guarantee NoIndex is protective against Panda - I've done extensive NoIndexing as part of a Panda recovery, which hasn't helped (yet) - although others report success - so signals (as ever) are mixed.
| 12:36 am on Feb 4, 2014 (gmt 0)|
'Do you have pages that aren't thin on the site, or is the whole site like this?'
No its a separate section where I post images and embedded youtube videos...my fear is that if i grow it too much it will backfire.
| 2:34 am on Feb 4, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Google's all about percentages and signals, so you probably want to keep your thin content in check. (And no, there's no hard and fast numbers on that, but me, I try to keep it at least 2 to 1 on in depth vs thin)
| 3:59 am on Feb 4, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|I was wondering is it enough to make such pages nofollow to ward off panda or should i also make them noindex? |
Isn't that backward?
I know exactly what you're describing btw. I had one batch of image-oriented pages that were thin to the point of emaciation: header, picture, navigation footer, no other text at all. All were flagged "noindex". (In the past tense because I recently said the ### with it and did some wholesale deleting.)
In one sense it may be academic because a page with next-to-no text is not likely to come up in searches. But I worried about the huge disproportion between thin pages and fat pages. I don't have many middle-sized pages.