| Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124 |
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
|Become a Pro Member|
|Bing ignoring noarchive|
| 9:05 pm on Aug 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've noticed Bing is ignoring <meta name="robots" contents="noarchive"> in some cases. However it's inconsistent, and I don't find this to be true across all the websites I've got those meta tags on.
Is anyone else finding this? Should I swap it to meta name="msnbot" for more consistency?
| 1:19 pm on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
My sites are completely NOARCHIVE across the board.
Just checked BING and they were not cached.
Mine is in all caps, could BING be partially case sensitive? ;)
<meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOARCHIVE">
| 2:39 pm on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
seems to be working here a-ok
| 3:57 pm on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I've noticed Bing is ignoring <meta name="robots" contents="noarchive"> in some cases. |
Just in case that tag was copy & pasted out of some code, thought I should point out that I believe it should be content="" and not contents=""
| 5:24 pm on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|thought I should point out that I believe it should be content="" and not contents="" |
Uh-hum, that might cause some inconsistency.
I'm with IncrediBILL, we NoArchive and block ia_archiver by default.
I really dig how clean the SERPs look without the cache links. And, I have this sneaky suspicion that the NoArchive forces an "always fresh" set of SERPs. ;)
| 8:54 pm on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Olias. It's amazing what can get missed when it's hiding in plain sight. I'm glad the snafu was mine and not Bing's, anyway.
All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved