Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.215.116

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & andy langton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Is "noarchive" robots meta tag bad for SEO?

     
5:43 pm on Aug 21, 2013 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 17, 2006
posts: 838
votes: 0


This originally came from Bing WMT error messages but I wonder if Google is treating it in a similar way.

I've been using "noarchive" meta tags on my content pages for about 2 years now, mostly to eliminate "cache surfing". Bing is showing an insane amount of errors in my account citing that "noarchive" robot meta tag would trigger it. Despite that AFAIK this tag should not be affecting rankings, I wonder if just the sheer number of these tags and/or resulting error messages may be construed as some negative factor about my site.

What's the modern circa '13 thinking about <meta name="robots" content="noarchive"> ? Do you guys use it? Why? Why not?
6:45 pm on Aug 21, 2013 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Mar 30, 2005
posts:12901
votes: 193


I have it on all my sites and all my client sites, because there is no good reason to show cached pages for things like events, products with prices, etc.

I don't believe it's hurt anything (and I'm not seeing errors in my BWT.)
6:51 pm on Aug 21, 2013 (gmt 0)

Moderator This Forum from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 30, 2008
posts:2599
votes: 178


If you are using noarchive, make sure you are keeping a good backup of your pages / database because if something goes wrong, the cached pages are one of ways to get the lost page content (that is, if you are fast enough and the page has not been re-cached yet)
7:23 pm on Aug 21, 2013 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

joined:Jan 12, 2012
posts:397
votes: 0


I have used it for years, only because I don't see the benefit to *me* of having my pages cached by Google.

Worst case scenario, my visitors see information / data that is no longer relevant or true.

Best case scenario...well..I can't really think of one.
8:29 pm on Aug 21, 2013 (gmt 0)

Moderator This Forum from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator robert_charlton is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 11, 2000
posts:11520
votes: 221


Way back, "noarchive" was considered to be a tip-off to Google that you might be cloaking.

I have, up until a few years ago anyway, which is the last time I happened to check, discovered sites that were either cloaking or aggressively using "noscript" areas for optimization by looking at the Google cache, so deception is not/(was not) completely dead.

That said, I doubt very much that "noarchive" hurts you with Google. There are too many valid reasons to use it. If you were cloaking, I could argue it both ways, as your competitors might spot you before Google does.
9:43 pm on Aug 21, 2013 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 17, 2006
posts: 838
votes: 0


Thanks, Robert. Yes, I was kind of thinking along those lines as a justification for Bing to be adding these into the list of errors. I added the robots meta tag because, like Sand said, I could not see why I would allow cached pages of my site to exist anywhere beyond my control. Besides, many are dynamic pages that make no technical sense to be cached anyhow. So, I guess I should chuck that up to BWT weirdness rather than a general SEO issue.