Is it still a good idea to use noindex on relatively unimportant pages so they don't take up "slots" in the non-supplemental index that could be filled by better pages? I know this was a good idea in the past, but it seems like the non-supplemental index has gone through a lot of changes and I wonder if this is still a good strategy.
tedster
12:55 am on Jun 9, 2009 (gmt 0)
I'm not sure that the idea that Google rations "slots" in the regular index is valid model of their process - but preventing weak pages from being indexed at all is still a good idea.
Tonearm
3:06 pm on Jun 9, 2009 (gmt 0)
If not to free up slots, why prevent weak pages from being indexed?
tedster
7:53 pm on Jun 9, 2009 (gmt 0)
I feel that Google's algo uses a lot of factors, and not just some calculation like "we can only give this site this many spots in the main index". It's just not that simplistic a process -- but still the idea is to help Google focus on your good content. So it's probably just semantics, in the end.
What is a weak page or unimportant page, anyway? If it's a stub page, for instance, then it's not doing anyone any good, is it, not even the visitors it gets.
