| 4:17 pm on Sep 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I don't have a definitive answer, but what happens if the bot is programmed to stop at a noindex rule and not parse the rest of the document? Technically-speaking would this be wrong? I don't think so. So with your example, only testing will tell. I don't believe that either behavior would be "wrong".
| 4:32 pm on Sep 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I was wondering if one takes precedence over the other and if the cascade does not apply in this instance? Test? Arrrggghhh! Let me add to the other 100+ tests that may be going. Why can't this be in writing somewhere already? ;)
| 5:03 pm on Sep 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
*** what happens if the bot is programmed to stop at a noindex rule ***
In practice they don't. Google takes and holds a copy of the file, follows links out, assigns PR to the URL and so on.
They just don't show it in the public SERPs.
| 5:30 pm on Sep 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Or rather, in practice Google don't. But what about the others? Live, Yahoo, etc.? As there is no real, formal "standard" either for robots.txt or for meta robots elements, the above example would be open to interpretation which could differ between bots.
| 7:10 pm on Sep 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|The above example would be open to interpretation which could differ between bots. |
Therein lies my concern. If programming a bot I'd be following the rules of engagement in regards to the cascade. But, this is a Robots Directive and I'm 50/50.
Would it stop at the first directive and go no further?
Or, would it continue to index the entire <head></head> and honor the second directive which would override the first from a cascading perspective?
A little OT, I can confirm that G does not honor noindex, nofollow, noarchive. All three directives combined in that sequence. It will noarchive.